Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Albert, Hans
    1985Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1968) 10.1515/9781400854929
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400854929 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atienza, Manuel
    1997Contribución a una Teoría de la Legislación. Madrid: Civitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2005 “Reasoning and Legislation.” InThe Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. by Luc J. Wintgens . 297–317. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, Katie , and Trevor Bench-Capon
    2007 “Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems.” Artificial Intelligence171: 855–874. 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blair, J. Anthony
    1998 “Walton’s Argument Schemes from Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development”. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ed. By Frans H. van Eemeren , J. Anthony Blair , Rob Grootendorst and Charles Willard . Retrieved from: rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-1998-waltons-argumentation-schemes-for-presumptive-reasoning-a-critique-and-development/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohman, James , and William Rehg
    2017 “Jürgen Habermas.” InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. By Edward N. Zalta . Retrieved fromhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bratman, Michael
    1987 Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. Bulygin, Eugenio
    1991 “Teoría y Técnica de la Legislación.” InAnálisis Lógico y Derecho [Logical Analysis and Law], ed. by Carlos E. Alchourrón , and Eugenio Bulygin . 409–415. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Feteris, Eveline
    2002 A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation16 (3): 349–367. 10.1023/A:1019999606665
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665 [Google Scholar]
  10. Freeman, James B.
    2013 “What types of arguments are there?”. OSSA Conference Archive. 50. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/50
    [Google Scholar]
  11. García Amado, J. Antonio
    1988Teorías de la Tópica Jurídica. Madrid: Civitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000 “Razón Práctica y Teoría de la Legislación [Practical Reason and Theory of Legislation].” Derechos y Libertades: Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas9: 299–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Habermas, Jürgen
    2004The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1984).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1996Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1992) 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 “On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employment of Practical Reason.” InJustification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics, 1–17. Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: MIT Press. (First MIT edition 1994).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1990Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1983).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hastings, Arthur
    1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
  18. Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634
    Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634 2012 Otorga Beneficios a los Deudores del Crédito con Garantía Estatal y Modifica la Ley N° 20.027.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Karpen, Ulrich
    1986 “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Gesetzgebungslehre in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The current status of legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany].” Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung1: 5–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelsen, Hans
    2007General Theory of Law and State. New York: Clark. (Original work published in 1945).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Marcilla Córdoba, Gema
    2013 “Razón Práctica, Creación de normas y Principio Democrático: Una Reflexión sobre los Ámbitos de la Argumentación Legislativa [Practical Reason, the Creation of Norms and the Democratic Principle].” Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez47: 43–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Perelman, Chaim , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    2000The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pitkin, Hanna F.
    1967The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California. 10.1525/9780520340503
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwartz, Shalom H.
    1992 “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25: 1–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Toulmin, Stephen
    2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (original work published in 1958) 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Van der Weide, Tom L. , Frank Dignum , John-Jules Ch. Meyer , Henry Prakken , and Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
    2010 “Practical Reasoning Using Values: Giving Meaning to Values.” InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ed. by Peter McBurney . 79–93. Budapest, Hungary. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑12805‑9_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_5 [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Von Wright, Georg
    1972 On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica15: 39–53. 10.1177/000169937201500104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937201500104 [Google Scholar]
  29. Walton, Douglas , and Erik C. W. Krabbe
    1995Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts for Interpersonal Reasoning. NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Walton, Douglas
    1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1999Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2007 “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese157: 197–240. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9157‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 Value-based Practical Reasoning, From Knowledge Representation to Argumentation. InAI, Law and Policy Making: a Festschrift in Honour of Trevor Bench-Capon, ed. by K. Atkinson , H. Prakken and A. Wyner . 259–282. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Walton, Douglas , and Chris Reed
    2002 “Argumentation Schemes and Defeasible Inferences.” Paper prsented at theWorkshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Walton, Douglas , Chris Reed , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wróblewski, Jerzy
    1979 “A Model of Rational Law-Making.” ARSPLXV (2): 187–201.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error