Reasonable Arguments Research Articles

Potential of Group-Based Negotiation to Promote Learner-Based Reasoning and Weighting of Arguments on Socioscientific Issues

This study analyzes the potential of group-based negotiation processes based on changes in reasoning and argument weighting for a socioscientific issue (SSI) in biology classes. In the corresponding pre- and post-study, students were encouraged to reason and weight arguments about the conservation of local biodiversity before and after a group-based negotiation. For this purpose, the students employed a target-mat structuring tool for compensatory reasoning and weighting in both the individual pre- and post-phases and the group phase. To identify changes in reasoning after group-based negotiation, the use of argumentative resources, i.e., fact-based and normative resources, was assessed. When the students added confirming reasons for arguments, they were more likely to use fact-based resources. When refuting the initial reasoning, the students tended to add normative resources. Furthermore, individual changes in weightings and their relationship to the group weighting were calculated. This analysis revealed that the students changed their weightings toward the group weighting. The results are discussed in terms of the potential of negotiations to cause students to revise and rethink their reasoning and weighting in addressing SSIs and the particular potential of the target-mat instructional tool for structured decision-making.

“But the vanilla is healthy!” Children's expression of arguments to justify their non-compliances in family conversation

This study aims to explore how children express their need to account for actions by using valid arguments in order to prevent the non-compliance of a rule within family conversation. Previous works have shown the relevance of parental requests towards children and the need to account for a violation or for incorrect verbal expressions. The present case study is based on the argumentative analysis of a corpus of data concerning a family, within a large set of recordings of 76 dinners, held by 23 Italian middle-class families selected on the grounds of similar criteria. We specifically focused on the observation of a family in which children are accounting for their actions to verbally justify the non-compliance of a rule indicated by a parent. Findings indicate that children express a variety of arguments to justify their non-compliances with a parental directive: in the case of young children (3–6 years old), their justifications can be considered as the beginning of argumentative reasoning skills. The results of this study bring further light on the actual knowledge of argumentative interactions and the interplay between the expression of justifications and the argumentative skills of children to account for their non-compliances within the family arena.

On Spinocerebellar Ataxia 21 as a Mimicker of Cerebral Palsy.

ObjectivesSporadic variants in ataxia genes may mimic cerebral palsy (CP). Spinocerebellar ataxia 21 (SCA21), a very rare autosomal dominant disease, was discovered to be associated with variants in the transmembrane protein 240 (TMEM240) gene in 2014. In this report, we present 2 patients with sporadic SCA21, one of them diagnosed with ataxic CP.MethodsPatients provided oral and written consent. Comprehensive clinical evaluation, neuroimaging studies, review of previous psychometric evaluations, and whole-genome sequencing were applied in both cases.ResultsBoth patients presented with early-onset ataxia and exhibited mild parkinsonian features. Patient 1 experienced motor and speech delay, autism, and dyslexia, whereas patient 2 experienced dyslexia. Neuroimaging was normal in both cases. In patient 1, the previously reported pathogenic c.509C>T (Pro170Leu) variant in TMEM240 was detected, whereas patient 2 harbored the novel c.182_188delinsGGAT (Val61_Pro63delinsGlyMet) variant in the same gene. Both genetic variants were sporadic.DiscussionOur findings support the notion that SCA21 is a neurodevelopmental syndrome and a mimicker of ataxic CP. Both lack of a family history of ataxia and congenital presentation were reasonable arguments to consider ataxic CP. However, lack of convincing perinatal incidents, progressive symptoms, and the common presence of cerebellar atrophy should alert neurologists about SCA21.

Examining the validity argument for the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (OSCORE): a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (OSCORE) is an assessment tool that has gained prominence in postgraduate competency-based training programs. We undertook a systematic review and narrative synthesis to articulate the underlying validity argument in support of this tool. Although originally developed to assess readiness for independent performance of a procedure, contemporary implementation includes using the OSCORE for entrustment supervision decisions. We used systematic review methodology to search, identify, appraise and abstract relevant articles from 2005 to September 2020, across MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases. Nineteen original, English-language, quantitative or qualitative articles addressing the use of the OSCORE for health professionals' assessment were included. We organized and synthesized the validity evidence according to Kane's framework, articulating the validity argument and identifying evidence gaps. We demonstrate a reasonable validity argument for the OSCORE in surgical specialties, based on assessing surgical competence as readiness for independent performance for a given procedure, which relates to ad hoc, retrospective, entrustment supervision decisions. The scoring, generalization and extrapolation inferences are well-supported. However, there is a notable lack of implications evidence focused on the impact of the OSCORE on summative decision-making within surgical training programs. In non-surgical specialties, the interpretation/use argument for the OSCORE has not been clearly articulated. The OSCORE has been reduced to a single-item global rating scale, and there is limited validity evidence to support its use in workplace-based assessment. Widespread adoption of the OSCORE must be informed by concurrent data collection in more diverse settings and specialties.

Handling temporality in human activity reasoning

Human-aware Artificial Intelligent systems are goal directed autonomous systems that are capable of interacting, collaborating, and teaming with humans. Activity reasoning is a formal reasoning approach that aims to provide common sense reasoning capabilities to these interactive and intelligent systems. This reasoning can be done by considering evidences –which may be conflicting–related to activities a human performs. In this context, it is important to consider the temporality of such evidence in order to distinguish activities and to analyse the relations between activities. Our approach is based on formal argumentation reasoning, specifically, Timed Argumentation Frameworks (TAF), which is an appropriate technique for dealing with inconsistencies in knowledge bases. Our approach involves two steps: local selection and global selection. In the local selection, a model of the world and of the human’s mind is constructed in form of hypothetical fragments of activities (pieces of evidences) by considering a set of observations. These hypothetical fragments have two kinds of relations: a conflict relation and a temporal relation. Based on these relations, the argumentation attack notion is defined. We define two forms of attacks namely the strong and the weak attack. The former has the same characteristics of attacks in TAF whereas for the latter the TAF approach has to be extended. For determining consistent sets of hypothetical fragments, that are part of an activity or are part of a set of non-conflicting activities, extension-based argumentation semantics are applied. In the global selection, the degrees of fulfillment of activities is determined. We study some properties of our approach and apply it to a scenario where a human performs activities with different temporal relations.

Categories of distinction in programme planning

The paper provides an analysis of the categories of distinction seized by programme planners in adult and continuing education and the underlying reasoning arguments to reasoning them. The analysis of 14 interviews shows that in their target group orientation, programme planners make use of the categories gender, migration experience, age, educational needs and dis/ability. The categories of distinction are based on their attribution as individual characteristics, as characteristics for grouping individuals, as characteristics of shared expectations and as occupation- and employment-related characteristics. The findings point to a need for encouraging awareness and critical reflection about categories of distinction.

Dynamic discounting program of supply chain finance based on a financial information matching platform

The dynamic discounting (DD) program based on the financial information matching platform (FIMP) is an emerging but underexplored supply chain finance (SCF) model. This study explores the configuration and operation of the DD program, compares and analyzes the DD decision between the traditional model and the FIMP-based DD model, and reveals how the latter model improves the cash flow of participants. Compared with the traditional model, the FIMP-based DD model can improve the accuracy of the daily discount rate for small and medium-sized enterprises; it offers enterprises more capital sources and helps participants determine an optimal payment period. There are three major contributions of this study. First, it explores the mechanism of the platform in promoting the DD model. The DD program is not participated in by a single buyer and supplier, but by one buyer with multiple (N) suppliers based on an FIMP. Once the fundamental decision parameters can be met, several suppliers can enjoy early payment from a specific buyer, thereby improving liquidity of the benefitting participants. Second, the study offers important managerial insights. Suppliers can calculate the discount rate to motivate buyers’ early payment choices. Besides, early payments could be constituted from a mixed portfolio with buyer’s own capital and that from financial institutions. Third, the study explores key parameters. The discount rate is not only related to the cost of working capital but also to the financing costs. Based on the varying relationships between discount rate and capital costs, the present study makes a reasonable argument for the use of mixed funds and then calculates the optimal early payment period. Finally, this study conducts a sensitivity analysis with numerical examples, which finds that, by adopting the FIMP-based DD program, both buyers and suppliers enjoy a fairer procurement environment and more profitable multi-lateral relationships.

Cross-language transfer: a single case study on the acquisition of argumentative reasoning

ABSTRACT Current research on cross-language transfer has focused primarily on literacy development. The present study extends the scope of existing research by focusing on argumentative reasoning, an important but under-research academic skill. A single-case study with a reversal design was conducted with four Chinese-English elementary students with the well-established Collaborative Reasoning (CR) discussion model. Data included transcripts of the lessons and discussions, surveys, and interviews. Cross- language transfer of argumentative reasoning was observed at the lexical, syntactic, and discourse levels and varied with factors identified in previous research on biliteracy development. Theoretical and methodological contributions of the study are discussed.

Law as the Critique of Practical Reason

Historically, the connection between law and practical reason has been subject to at least two expositions. According to the first, the law is the deposit of the moral reasons people have to create a set of institutions. The existence of law is, thus understood, a consequence of potentially universal reasons for action (and a wellspring of further such reasons). Alternately, practical reason can be seen as relevant to positive law in the dual role to limit the tolerable content of positive law and to explain the significance of moral arguments in legal reasoning. The article explores a third perspective that views the emergence of the legal relation as a consequence of the self-critique of practical reason.

Closing the gap of organic chemistry students’ performance with an adaptive scaffold for argumentation patterns

Building reasonable scientific arguments is a fundamental skill students need to participate in scientific discussions. In organic chemistry, students’ argumentation and reasoning skills on reaction mechanisms are described as indicators of success. However, students often experience challenges with how to structure their arguments, use scientific principles appropriately and engage in multivariate, instead of one-reason decision-making. Since every student experiences their individual challenges with a multitude of expectations, we hypothesise that students would benefit from scaffolding that is adapted to their needs. In the present study, we investigated how 64 chemistry students interacted with an adaptive scaffold that offered different ways of support based on students’ strengths and limitations with structural and conceptual aspects that are needed to build a scientific argument in organic chemistry. Based on the students’ performance in a diagnostic scaffold in which they were asked to judge the plausibility of alternative organic reaction pathways by building arguments, the students were assigned to one of four support groups that received a scaffold adapted to their respective needs. Comparing students’ performance in the diagnostic and adapted scaffolds allows us to determine quantitatively (1) to what extent the adaptive scaffold closes the gap in students’ performance and (2) whether an adaptive scaffold improves the students’ performance in their respective area of support (argumentation and/or concept knowledge). The results of this study indicate that the adaptive scaffold can adaptively advance organic chemistry students’ argumentation patterns.

Standardization as Key to Precautionary Principle Handling: Risk Mitigation for Shale Gas Production in Brazil

Since 2013, after the 12 th ANP (National Regulatory Agency for Petroleum, Oil, and Biofuels) Bid Round hosted in Brazil, several public civil actions (PCA) put unconventional resources on hold due to the precautionary principle as main reason for legally restraining shale gas exploitation. Essentially, scientific uncertainties and possible irreversible and negative impacts to human health and environment are core to the precautionary principle. Shale gas has provided an unprecedented role for the U.S among natural gas global traders since its soaring exploitation has started more than a decade ago. As of 2009, though the 'shale boom' assisted the natural gas settlement within energy transition discussions, harnessing an unconventional resource still negatively resonates in some countries, i.e., France, and even in some of the U.S. states due to potential risks to human health and environment. Lacking scientific certainty to deal with these risks may also contribute to public opinion's rejection and legal restraints to additional exploitation, as seen with the precautionary principle application in Brazil. As further suggested in this paper, some of the risks (i.e., structural building failures, wastewater disposal, and fugitive emission) may represent lesser concerns whenever technical standards are rigorously followed, since their voluntary yet compelling guidelines have been designed and tested toward safety and quality for consumers. The paper objective is to fill some of the constraining gaps for the shale gas development and broaden qualified discussion to reduce complexity and increase transparency of the Brazilian regulatory regime. By presenting benchmarked technical standards applied in successful experiences related to shale gas, this paper finds reasonable arguments to resume unconventional resources debate in Brazil, specifically to address shale gas risk matters. An orderly risk management supported by specific standards may induce a precautionary principle ease, alongside with additional geology studies regarding sedimentary basins to avoid continued scientific uncertainties. Keywords: shale gas, precautionary principle, standardization DOI: 10.7176/RHSS/12-2-02 Publication date: January 31 st 2022

독도 영유권 문제에 대한 한·일 양국의 기본적인 입장에 관한 고찰- 교환공문에 나타난 역사적 근거를 중심으로 -

In this thesis, the purpose of this thesis is to examine what was the issue in the dispute over diplomatic documents between the two governments from 1953 to 1965 based on historical evidence only, and to examine the transformation of the issue. The views of the two governments of Korea and Japan are that they claim their sovereignty over Dokdo based on detailed data and historical evidence, and at the same time deny the other side's claim, and they continue to hold this position to this day. These two countries' claims related to Dokdo's sovereignty over Dokdo have been suggested piecemeal so far, but they have not been systematically analyzed. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the arguments and variations of the claims relate d to Dokdo territorial sovereignty through the analysis of the exchange official docu ments from 1953 to 1965, which can be said to be the source of the claim between the two countries. In particular, Korea views Japan's territorial annexation of Dokdo as part of the Japanese imperialist aggression process on the Korean Peninsula, and Japan views Korea's annexation of Dokdo as a completely separate matter. Therefore, there is an insurmountable gap between Korea and Japan from the basic historical perception of the Dokdo issue. As such, Korea and Japan are standing at different points of view in relation to the Dokdo issue, and it is hard to see a stepping stone for resolving this aporia. In order to break this contradictory structure, it is necessary to make an effort to make our argument appear as a reasonable argument to a third party.

Cartesianism, argumentation, values in the context of Chaïm Perelman’s «New Rhetoric»

The article deals with the process of founding and further development of the new rhetoric, a theory of argumentation developed by the Belgian philosopher Chaïm Perelman (1912-1984) and his co-worker Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1899-1987). The intellectual and philosophical backgrounds of the authors and some key characteristics of their theoretical approaches are described. The new rhetoric: (а) is primarily concerned with argument or practical reasoning, (b) suggests that figures of speech may be arguments instead of merely ornaments, (c) with its goal to influence minds, new rhetoric is a dynamic field of study, (d) it is complimentary rather than in opposition to formal reasoning. According to Perelman, the theory of argumentation conceived as a new rhetoric or dialectic, covers the whole range of discourse that aims at persuasion and conviction, whatever the audience addressed and whatever the subject matter. Perelman presents his new rhetoric as a much better form of logic than Cartesian deductive, stringent reasoning, at least where law and other values-based systems are concerned. Perelman challenged the unwholesome assumption that what we cannot know with mathematical certainly is necessarily arbitrary, irrational, and subjective. Perelman recognized "reasoned conviction" as a bridge to knowledge, although he was aware that it was a less perfect source of cognition than verified certainty. It is explained how the idea of developing the new rhetoric was born out of dissatisfaction with logical positivism or neopositivism (The Vienna Circle’s theories and ideas) and which classical and modern sources inspired the authors in developing a specific logic of value judgments that could deal with argumentation about actions, choices, decisions and without dismissing such argumentation as irrational. The rhetorical framework of the theory is expounded and an overview is provided of the key notions and concepts of Perelman’s ‘new rhetoric’ – the notions of adherence, audience (particular and universal audience), persuasion are explained. According to Perelman, the new rhetoric is based on the idea that since argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced. Рerelman's position on the difference between formal logic and argumentation is analyzed.

Criminal Liability of an Entrapped Person Through the Prism of Goals of Punishment

Present work was written as a part of doctoral research. It aims to generate reasonable arguments on whether it is just to prosecute and punish a person that was entrapped by an agent-provocateur. In other words − does criminal entrapment constitute a substantive defence for an entrapped person or not? In scientific literature the matter is traditionally discussed within the scope of criminal procedure (admissibility of evidence, fair trial etc.) while arguments from substantive criminal law are rarely addressed. Thus, it remains un- clear whether the goals of punishment are achievable at all if an entrapped person gets sentenced. Thus, it is necessary to compre- hend the subject through the prism of goals of punishment name- ly: restoration of justice, special prevention of crime and general prevention of crime especially since all three are well-recognised by science of criminal law and current legislation. After detailed and consistent analysis done within research, there are good rea- sons to conclude that prosecution and following sentencing of an entrapped person: • Hinders restoration of justice • Hinders special prevention of crime • Partially hinders general prevention • Eventually, all that constitutes an important argument to consider entrapment as a substantive defence for the entrapped person.

Argumentation and Defeasible Reasoning in the Law

Different formalisms for defeasible reasoning have been used to represent knowledge and reason in the legal field. In this work, we provide an overview of the following logic-based approaches to defeasible reasoning: defeasible logic, Answer Set Programming, ABA+, ASPIC+, and DeLP. We compare features of these approaches under three perspectives: the logical model (knowledge representation), the method (computational mechanisms), and the technology (available software resources). On top of that, two real examples in the legal domain are designed and implemented in ASPIC+ to showcase the benefit of an argumentation approach in real-world domains. The CrossJustice and Interlex projects are taken as a testbed, and experiments are conducted with the Arg2P technology.

An optimized passivation mechanism at the copper film recess for achieving efficient planarization of copper chemical mechanical polishing

This article proposed an improvement plan for the slurry to reduce the dishing caused during copper chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) of the interconnect structure. According to the difference in the pressure between the concave and convex parts of the copper film in the high-hardness polishing pad, polishing slurries were designed with a distinct difference in the polishing removal rate under high and low platen pressures to improve their planarization efficiency. 2 wt% GLY (glycine) and 1 wt% H2O2 can provide a chemical dissolution effect, adding 0.1% TAZ (1,2,4-triazole) to slow down the corrosion mainly for the recession, by adjusting the slurry pH to 7. The polishing results showed that the slurry had a high copper removal rate (6772 Å/min) at high pressure (3.0 psi) and a much lower removal rate (3273 Å/min) at low pressure (1.2 psi). The pattern wafer polished with this slurry obtained relatively low dishing. The other comparison groups showed slight differences in copper removal rate at high and low pressure and a deeper dishing of the polished pattern wafer. In this paper, based on the analysis of static dissolution experiments, electrochemical experiments, and XPS experiments of copper films in different slurries, the chemical reaction mechanism of copper films in the solution system of GLY and H2O2 was studied at different pH values. In addition, the inhibition mechanism of TAZ on the copper surface at different slurry pH values was proposed, including the properties of the TAZ molecule adsorption film on the copper surface, the uniformity of the surface coverage, and the thickness of the passivation layer. The results can reflect the polishing results to a certain extent despite some deviations, but it can also be used as a more reasonable argument to explain the optimization scheme of the slurry proposed in this article.

Argumentation as a discourse practice (Didactic and Linguistic concepts)

Argumentative competence, written or oral argumantation skills are essential in the process of academic non-academic communication. Raising this competence is of particular importance in the education process, which ultimately focuses on promoting the development of general, intercultural communication and stratehic learning skills.The competence to create an argumentative text is complex and includes different dimensions, which means the selection, construction, grouping of arguments, the proper conduct of argumentative reasoning. The systematization of the various concepts and respectives contained in it allows the arguments to be divided into two groups: speaker-oriented and interaction-oriented.Argumentative discussions and organized discussions processes generate discourse that is equated with the notion of community. Argumentation from the perspective of discourse analysis is a discource practice, which is realized in a specific context (contextualized), arises interactively, develops, models and is perceived by the participants in the interaction as argumentation. Strategic reasoning skills, as a discourse practice, instill in everyone in a particular society, in a particular discourse area, mandatory and important knowledge for all and form a solid system of thinking that ultimately leads to reasoned discussions processes.

The Dramatic Arc in the Development of Argumentation Skills of Upper Secondary School Students in Geography Education

Geography education can facilitate learners’ critical thinking and argumentation skills to make well-reasoned decisions on social and environmental issues. This study reports on a geography course consisting of 18 lessons, each of them 75 min, designed to afford intensive practice in argumentation to upper secondary school students (n = 21) and following the dramatic arc. The study produces examples of different developmental pathways of upper secondary school students’ argumentation during the geography course. In this qualitative case study, the data were collected from learning diaries and analyzed using content analysis following ARRA-analysis (Analysis of Reasoning, Rhetorics and Argumentation), which is based on Toulmin’s argumentation model. The results indicated that most of the students developed justified arguments and composed clear claims and relevant rhetorical modes such as qualifications, rhetorical questions and rebuttals. Justification categories that were mainly used were backings, grounds and warrants. However, some students had difficulties in recognizing the main claim and arguments. The students developed their argumentation skills following the dramatic arc. They possessed the prerequisites for argumentative reasoning and writing but needed further practice in analytical and critical writing.

THE CRITICISMS THAT IMAM MATURIDI DIRECTED TO KHARIJITES IN THE CONTEXT OF MURTAKIB AL-KABIRA

The Kharijites are cited as the first sect in the history of Islam to initiate takfir and terrorist acts. According to them, if a believer who has committed a “big sin” does not repent, he will immediately become a disbeliever and will be required to be executed. There are some contradictions in the sources regarding this concept, which comes as “murtakib al-kabira”. Imam Maturidi, based on many reasonable and traditional arguments, proved that the views of Kharijites regarding the “murtakib al-kabira” contradicted reason and the Qur’an. In addition to quoting Imam Maturidi’s definition of “grave sin”, the article analyzes the views expressed by the scholar against the thoughts of Kharijites in this regard.

Evaluating Reasoning in Natural Arguments: A Procedural Approach

In this paper, we formulate a procedure for assessing reasoning as it is expressed in natural arguments. The procedure is a specification of one of the three aspects of argumentation assessment distinguished in the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) (Hinton, 2021) that makes use of the argument categorisation framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) (Wagemans, 2016, 2019, 2020c). The theoretical framework and practical application of both the CAPNA and the PTA are described, as well as the evaluation procedure that combines the two. The procedure is illustrated through an evaluation of the reasoning of two example arguments from a recently published text.