*This article may have affiliate links, which means we may receive commissions if you choose to purchase through links we provide (at no extra cost to you). For more details, please read our privacy policy/affiliate disclosure. Thank you for supporting the work we put into this blog!

In log­ic and phi­los­o­phy, an argu­ment is a series of state­ments typ­i­cal­ly used to per­suade some­one of some­thing or to present rea­sons for accept­ing a con­clu­sion. The gen­er­al form of an argu­ment in a nat­ur­al lan­guage is that of premis­es (typ­i­cal­ly in the form of propo­si­tions, state­ments or sen­tences) in sup­port of a claim: the con­clu­sion. The struc­ture of some argu­ments can also be set out in a for­mal lan­guage, and for­mal­ly defined “argu­ments” can be made inde­pen­dent­ly of nat­ur­al lan­guage argu­ments, as in math, log­ic and com­put­er sci­ence. In a typ­i­cal deduc­tive argu­ment, the premis­es are meant to pro­vide a guar­an­tee of the truth of the con­clu­sion, while in an induc­tive argu­ment, they are thought to pro­vide rea­sons sup­port­ing the con­clu­sion’s prob­a­ble truth. The stan­dards for eval­u­at­ing non-deduc­tive argu­ments may rest on dif­fer­ent or addi­tion­al cri­te­ria than truth, for exam­ple, the per­sua­sive­ness of so-called “indis­pens­abil­i­ty claims” in tran­scen­den­tal argu­ments, the qual­i­ty of hypothe­ses in retro­duc­tion, or even the dis­clo­sure of new pos­si­bil­i­ties for think­ing and act­ing. The stan­dards and cri­te­ria used in eval­u­at­ing argu­ments and their forms of rea­son­ing are stud­ied in log­ic. Ways of for­mu­lat­ing argu­ments effec­tive­ly are stud­ied in rhetoric (see also: argu­men­ta­tion the­o­ry). An argu­ment in a for­mal lan­guage shows the log­i­cal form of the sym­bol­i­cal­ly rep­re­sent­ed or nat­ur­al lan­guage argu­ments obtained by its interpretations.