% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Rathkopf:1024831,
author = {Rathkopf, Charles},
title = {{S}ome {B}enefits and {L}imitations of {M}odern {A}rgument
{M}ap {R}epresentation},
journal = {Argumentation},
volume = {38},
issn = {0920-427X},
address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
reportid = {FZJ-2024-02497},
pages = {199–224},
year = {2024},
abstract = {Argument maps represent some arguments more effectively
than others. The goal of this article is to account for that
variability, so that those who wish to use argument maps can
do so with more foresight. I begin by identifying four
properties of argument maps that make them useful tools for
evaluating arguments. Then, I discuss four types of argument
that are difficult to map well: reductio ad absurdum
arguments, charges of equivocation, logical analogies, and
mathematical arguments. The difficulties presented by these
four types appear unrelated to one another, but I show that,
in each case, the difficulty can be traced back to the use
of metalinguistic reasoning. The need to represent a
transition between object language and metalanguage can
undermine one or more of the benefits that argument map
representation would otherwise confer.},
cin = {INM-7},
ddc = {400},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:001142857100001},
doi = {10.1007/s10503-023-09626-5},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1024831},
}