Abstract
When supporting claims such as ?taxes should be lowered?, typically arguments are used that refer to the positive consequences of such a measure (e.g., unemployment figures will decrease). Although it is widely acknowledged that arguments can influence the acceptance of such a claim, little is known about what makes an argument strong. This program aims at providing insight into the characteristics that determine the quality of pragmatic arguments. Pragmatic arguments are used to support a claim about the need to perform a certain action (e.g., lowering taxes) by referring to the favorable consequences of performing that action (e.g., decreasing unemployment figures). They are frequently used in everyday practice as well as in empirical research. There is widespread agreement that the quality of a pragmatic argument depends on the perceptions regarding the probability as well as the desirability of the consequence that constitutes the argument. Arguments in support of a desirability claim are often of a different type than arguments in support of a probability claim. In separate projects, the question is addressed what characteristics determine the quality of (1) arguments in support of a probability claim and (2) arguments in support of a desirability claim. In both projects, argument quality is operationalized in three ways. First, the normative criteria formulated by experts (argumentation theorists) will be listed through a literature research. Second, focus groups will be held to uncover the normative criteria used by lay people. Third, the actual persuasiveness of arguments that do or do not conform to the lay people?s criteria will be studied in an experiment. In the third project, the results of the separate projects are integrated with other relevant research which will result in a monograph on the quality of pragmatic arguments.