<P> According to the pragmatic theory , a fallacy can in some instances be an error a fallacy , use of a heuristic ( short version of an argumentation scheme ) to jump to a conclusion . However , even more worryingly , in other instances it is a tactic or ploy used inappropriately in argumentation to try to get the best of a speech part unfairly . There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy -- the perpetrator and the intended victim . The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component . A dialogue has individual goals for each participant , but also collective ( shared ) goals that apply to all participants . A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue . It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation , based on sleight - of - hand . Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest . But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists . The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation , but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labelled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used , in many cases , to support legitimate goals of dialogue . Hence on the pragmatic approach , each case needs to analyzed individually , to determine by the textual evidence whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable . </P>
<P> According to the pragmatic theory , a fallacy can in some instances be an error a fallacy , use of a heuristic ( short version of an argumentation scheme ) to jump to a conclusion . However , even more worryingly , in other instances it is a tactic or ploy used inappropriately in argumentation to try to get the best of a speech part unfairly . There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy -- the perpetrator and the intended victim . The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component . A dialogue has individual goals for each participant , but also collective ( shared ) goals that apply to all participants . A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue . It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation , based on sleight - of - hand . Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest . But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists . The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation , but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labelled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used , in many cases , to support legitimate goals of dialogue . Hence on the pragmatic approach , each case needs to analyzed individually , to determine by the textual evidence whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable . </P>
when does an argument commit a fallacy of presumption
when does an argument commit a fallacy of presumption
The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component .
The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component .