Argument from disqualifier

You accept a description of something and then take part of it back: yes, it falls under the label, but with a qualification that stops the label from being the whole story. The argument works because the added feature lifts the case out of the plain category, and it is that added feature which supports your claim. It can be attacked by denying that the qualification makes any real difference — that, feature or no feature, the plain label still fits.

Example

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

Standardised form

History (a) is not just storytelling (X) because history (a) is evidence-based storytelling (Y).

Transformations applied: “because” inserted, joining the two sentences of the example; anaphora resolved — “it” replaced by “history”.

Classification

The subject is the same in both statements and the predicates differ, so the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y).

The conclusion “is not just storytelling” is a statement of value (V) and the premise “is evidence-based storytelling” is a statement of value (V), so the argument substance is VV.

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)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argument from norm — The premise names a standard the subject meets, rather than qualifying a label. NORM
• Argument from instantiation — The premise names a kind of the quality claimed, with no label being taken back. INSTANTIATION
• Argument from definition — Substance, not lever: there the premise is a description, and the label is withheld outright rather than qualified. VF
• Argument from subsumption — Substance: the premise states a matter of fact. VF

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Other examples

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

Notes

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