Investigating and modelling rationale style arguments

This thesis investigates how the intended direction (either self or other) and perception of future use when constructing a rationale style argument can impact upon decision confidence and argument quality (in terms of rhetorical structure and the use of rebuttals). The literature review reveals emerging needs for further understanding of how the perception held of intended rationale direction can impact on the attitudes held about the decision and structure of the rationale. Rationale style arguments were the focus of investigation due to their prevalence in research, potentially rich and varied argumentative structures and wide scope of utility in other domains. The findings inform a rationale style argument model that assists in scoping the argument context, adding further dimensions including the intended direction of the rationale (self or other) and argument competency. The thesis proposes two new frameworks that offer a semi-automated solution to argument quality analysis. A good level of agreement between the new quality analysis frameworks and the original Toulmin based quality scheme used was found and the utility of the findings for future feedback tools and online argument analysis is discussed. The new semiautomated frameworks would enable analyses to be carried out rapidly and with less subjective judgement. The work may also have applications for educational tool designs that seek to incorporate argument analysis and feedback on text based arguments. Ind ivi dua l Argumen t Su pp ort S ystems Tool R eference Ontol ogy & R epresen ta tio n Tool R eference Ontol ogy & R epresen ta tio n A raucaria Reed & Ro we ( 2004) A rgument ma ppin g, ( Toulm in, Wigmore) A rguMed Verheij ( 200 3) Templa te based text argu ment struc turing A RGUNA UT McLaren et al ( 200 7) Ethical d iscussion supp ort A thena Rolf & Mag nusson ( 20 02) A rgument ma ppin g A VER van den Braak & Vreeswijk ( 200 6) A rgument ma ppin g – eviden tial reasoni ng A VERs Bex et al ( 200 7) A rgument ma ppin g – eviden tial reasoni ng Convince Me Ranney & Scha nk ( 199 8) A rgument ma ppin g Carneades Gordon, Prak ken, & Walton ( 2 007) Expert mo dels to eva luate lega l dialog ues Compe ndiu m Bucking ham Sh um & Okada ( 20 08) A rgument ma ppin g ( Toul min, Walto n) Digalo Schwarz & Glassner ( 2007) Micro-scripting, grap hical to ol iLogos Easterday, et al ( 20 07) A rgument ma ppin g LA RGO Pinkwart, e t al ( 2007) Expert kn owledge model co mparison Legalese Hair ( 1991) Graphical hy pertext tool f or legal argumen t Pedabo t K im et al ( 2008) Textual argu men t organiser – compares to past discussio n Rashi / Bi ology Woolf et al ( 20 05) Expert kn owledge model co mparison Inquiry Tut or Rati onale Van Gel der ( 2007) A rgument ma ppin g K ERMI T Weerasinghe & Mitrovi( 20 06) Sentence o peners Reason!A ble Van Gel der ( 2002) A rgument ma ppin g SEA S Lowrance, Garvey, & Strat ( 20 08) Eviden tial reasoni ng SEURA T Burge & Brown ( 2 006) Ratio nale struct uring Zeno Gordon & K aracapilid is ( 1997) Text label ling Toul min based