Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper focuses on the role of the argument by example in the argumentation put forward by Members of the European Parliament. The argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debates in the European Parliament depend for the most part on the problem-solving argumentation that is put forward in the opening speech by the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee report. Complex problem-solving argumentation consists of a premise stating that there is a problem (the problem statement) and a premise stating that the proposed legislation will solve the problem (the causal statement). In their contributions, MEPs who are in favor of the proposal will either defend the problem statement or the causal statement. This paper examines how an argument by example is used in order to defend the problem statement. The argument by example can be used to defend the existential presupposition as well as the normative presupposition in the problem-statement.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Copi, I. M.
    (1982) Introduction to logic. New York/London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren, F. H. van
    (2016) Identifying argumentative patterns. A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.). Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F. H. van , & Garssen, B.
    (2010) In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014) Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp.41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Garssen. B. J.
    (1997) Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek[Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical study]. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Garssen, B.
    (2016) Problem-solving argumentative patterns in plenary debates of the European Parliament. Argumentation, 30(1), 25–43. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9378‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9378-y [Google Scholar]
  8. Hastings, A. C.
    (1962) A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jackson, S.
    (1986) Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In: D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohane (Eds.). Contemporary issues in language and discourse (pp.129–147). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kruger, A. N.
    (1960) Modern debate, its logic and strategy. New York etc.: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Perelman, Ch. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1969) The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Plug, H. J.
    (2010) The strategic use of argumentation from example in plenary debates in the European Parliament. Controversia, 7 (1), 38–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Schellens, P. J.
    (1985) Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers[Reasonable arguments. A study of norms for critical readers]. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [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