This page gives a general introduction to the argument types in the Gamma Quadrant of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). It builds on a basic understanding of its theoretical framework and terminology.
The Periodic Table of Arguments takes an argument to consist of a conclusion, a premise, and a lever. Each of these statements consists of a subject and a predicate, and depending on their configuration, an argument takes one of four possible argument forms. On this page, we provide examples of arguments in the gamma form, with the conclusion and premise having different subjects (a and b) and different predicates (X and Y):
a is X because b is Y
Within each quadrant, arguments are further differentiated based on their argument substance. For arguments with a gamma form, this comes down to one simple check: is the semantic relationship between the subjects the same as that between the predicates, or is it different? If it’s the same, the substance is labeled “i” (for “identical”). If it’s different, the label is “d” (for “different”).
Identical relationships
When the substance is “i”, we find arguments such as the argument from synonyms, the argument from opposites, the argument from derivatives, and the argument from integratives. All of these rest on the idea that the link between subjects mirrors the link between predicates.
Different relationships
When the substance is “d”, two possibilities arise. First, the argument may simply not work: the conclusion and premise are unrelated, making it a non sequitur. But it might also be that something has been left implicit. In that case, we are dealing with a “condensed” gamma-form argument. Here, the analyst can use a step-by-step procedure to spell out the missing information (see Saadat-Yazdi & Wagemans, forthcoming).
PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS 