Argument from evaluation

You recommend an activity by saying how good it is to do — how worthwhile, enjoyable or rewarding the experience is. The argument works because the value of the activity itself is offered as the reason: no rule is invoked and no later benefit is promised. It can be attacked by disputing the valuation, since the argument reaches only as far as the hearer shares the speaker’s sense of what is worthwhile.

Example

You should do paragliding because it is a great experience

Standardised form

Paragliding (a) should be done by you (X) because paragliding (a) is a great experience (Y).

Transformations applied: subject changed to the activity — “you” replaced by “paragliding”; anaphora resolved — “it” replaced by the same phrase.

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 “should be done by you” is a statement of policy (P) and the premise “is a great experience” is a statement of value (V), so the argument substance is PV.

The keyword EVALUATIVE MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being a great experience (Y) is an EVALUATIVE MOTIVATION for doing paragliding (X)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argument from principle — The premise names a right or a rule at stake rather than the worth of the experience. PRINCIPLED MOTIVATION
• Pragmatic argument — Substance: the premise predicts what the activity will bring about. PF
• Teleologic argument — Substance: the premise names an end the actor is pursuing. PP
• Argument from norm — Substance: the conclusion rates something instead of recommending it. VV

Source

Review on TripAdvisor by Karanuppal24, 13 December 2017.