PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS

By Jean Hubert M. Wagemans — Last updated on September 13, 2026

Argument from derivatives

You support a claim by pointing to a second claim built from the same words in a different grammatical shape — a noun and the verb formed from it, a thing and its adjective. The argument works because the two forms of the word are taken to stand in the same relation on both sides, so what holds of the one form is carried over to the other: if the constitution forms our beliefs, ignoring the constitution ignores our beliefs. It can be attacked by showing that the grammatical echo hides a real difference in meaning.

Example

Ignoring the constitution would be ignoring our foundational beliefs, because the constitution forms our foundational beliefs

Standardised form

Ignoring the constitution (a) would be ignoring our foundational beliefs (X) because the constitution (b) forms our foundational beliefs (Y).

Transformations applied: none — the example is already in canonical form.

Triadic structure of the argument from derivatives example: conclusion, premise and lever

Classification

Both the subjects and the predicates differ, so the argument form is gamma (a is X because b is Y).

The relation between the subjects “ignoring the constitution” and “the constitution” is the same as the relation between the predicates “would be ignoring our foundational beliefs” and “forms our foundational beliefs”, so the argument substance is i.

The keyword DERIVATIVE describes the relation that the subjects and the predicates both instantiate. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “The constitution (b) is DERIVATIVE of ignoring the constitution (a), as forming our foundational beliefs (Y) is DERIVATIVE of ignoring our foundational beliefs (X)”.

Not to be confused with

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Other examples

  • “Disrespecting art (a) is uncultured (X) because art (b) embodies culture (Y).” — source not yet recorded.