argument

As an example, I came across a new website called "Kialo", which has been discussed recently. Each topic has support and mismatch parameters, each parameter containing parameters and supporting mismatched subparameters (as is true for more specific subparameters). Each parameter and subparameter will be voted. It is also a very simple, visible structure that is easy to imagine. Of course we can not show who is judging reliability or why displaying a specific article. It is definitely a difficult task to achieve this while minimizing cognitive overhead and I have not had a strong idea at the moment.

The "Parameter Analysis" task presents a different task than the "Analyze Problem" task. It is necessary to evaluate specific parameters based on specific explanation. You need to consider the logical health of the discussion, do not agree or disagree with the position it presents. These two tasks are complementary. In one task you need to build your own argument by taking a position to support your view on the problem and presenting evidence. Other people's claims

When you evaluate the discussion, you insist on yourself. The argument you are claiming is either good or bad. In other words, the conclusion of the evaluation is that discussion of evaluation is a good / bad debate and you have to provide reasons to support this claim. Three different reasons, three different evaluation methods can be given. As mentioned above, you can think that the conclusion is not a precondition. If you are evaluating a deductive argument, you insist that the assertion is invalid. If you are evaluating an inductive argument, you insist that the venue does not provide a (good or strong) reason for believing that conclusion. For example, by inferring the best hypothesis, the conclusion is not the best explanation for that place, for example it can be considered that it is irrational or simple, or at least the discussion does not indicate that it is that I will