Argument from disqualifier

History is not just storytelling. It is evidence-based storytelling.

The subjects are the same and the predicates are different, so the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y): “History (a) is not just storytelling (X) because it (a) is evidence-based storytelling (Y).”

Both the conclusion and the premise can be classified as statements of fact (V), so the argument substance is VV: “History is not just storytelling (V) because it is evidence-based storytelling (V)”.

The keyword DISQUALIFIER describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being evidence-based storytelling (Y) is a DISQUALIFIER of being just storytelling (X)”.

Other examples

• By using “failed state” I did not mean the accepted international definition of a failed state. I meant the weakness in the political system that ethnic origin remains highly determinant in politics. (Boogaart, R., Jansen, H. & van Leeuwen, M. (2021). “Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment. Argumentation 35, 209–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09521-3)

Notes

The lever contains the opposite of predicate X because the disqualifier introduces a negation in the conclusion.