Abstract:
Some argumentation texts require additional evidentiary support to uphold their ethical propositions. A rhetorical critique of eight argumentation textbooks for ethical propositions and corresponding support, reason and evidentiary materials reveals that some texts advance ethical claims without providing sufficient backing. Inadequate support for an ethical proposition decreases the likelihood of meeting the burden of proof, which potentially risks adherence to the claim by the audience. The author examines presuppositions adopted in the thesis regarding argumentation, presents a rationale for selecting argumentation texts, engages in general textual analysis and particular textual analysis of the treatment of fallacies, and categorizes the results into five themes. The themes reveal that some texts could benefit from additional supporting evidence for their ethical claims. The author offers three sources of potential evidentiary support and explains how those sources could potentially bolster claims in argumentation ethics.
