Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach

Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)


This paper compares current ways of modeling the inferential structure of practical (goal-based) reasoning arguments, and proposes a new approach in which it is regarded in a modular way. Practical reasoning is not simply seen as reasoning from a goal and a means to an action using the basic argumentation scheme. Instead, it is conceived as a complex structure of classificatory, evaluative, and practical inferences, which is formalized as a cluster of three types of distinct and interlocked argumentation schemes. Using two real examples, we show how applying the three types of schemes to a cluster of practical argumentation allows an argument analyst to reconstruct the tacit premises presupposed and evaluate the argumentative reasoning steps involved. This approach will be shown to overcome the limitations of the existing models of practical reasoning arguments within the BDI and commitment theoretical frameworks, providing a useful tool for discourse analysis and other disciplines. In particular, applying this method brings to light the crucial role of classification in practical argumentation, showing how the ordering of values and preferences is only one of the possible areas of deep disagreement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)519–547
Number of pages27
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jan 2018


  • Argumentation schemes
  • Classification
  • Decision-making
  • Deliberative argumentation
  • Discourse analysis
  • Practical reasoning
  • Values


Dive into the research topics of 'Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this