English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

If we are to have a theory of informal logic that is based in an understanding of what argumentation is, we need to step back a bit from ongoing concern with techniques, procedures, and pedagogy in order to consider the phenomenon itself. That's to say that we need to ask: what is this peculiarly human activity called argumentation? How is it like and unlike our other activities (walking, talking, eating, reading)? Indeed, is there an "it" here at all? Are we dealing with just one sort of activity, or a number of similar, perhaps inter-related phenomena? Are there fundamental features or essential characteristics present in all of the behavior we identify as argumentive? Does the ability to engage in it develop naturally, or is it learned-and, can it be taught? In presenting these preliminary results of my own reflections on these questions, I adopt the characterization of informal logic suggested recently by Ralph Johnson and Anthony Blair:

Dialogue, Distanciation, and Engagement: Toward a Logic of Televisual Communication