Abstract

In this article the term "appellant argument" is considered in terms of current approaches on the study of the theory of argumentation. Considering the grounds on which such arguments were recognized as incorrect in argumentation for a long time. The informal nature of such arguments is the main ground for understanding them as a way of sophistic argument. In addition, it is established that critics of such arguments is possible not only by the form but also by the content. A review of the position of the subjective nature of such arguments has been performed and it has been stated that by the way of understanding the truth in terms of its communicative nature, the problem is solved by matching the arguments of the thesis based on the consent of the participants. The concept of logical consequence and the concepts of the consequence in the argumentation are being distinguished. Based on this distinction it is concluded that in contrast to the logical consequence in logic, that provides a form of communication between base and conclusions, the consequence in the argumentation is closely associated with the concept of "substantiation". The acceptability of ad-arguments is determined to be possible in case of the relationship between the thesis of a dialogue and a subject area, based on such arguments that does not belong to the subject area of the dialogue. A method of the critical issues and method of universalization of ad-arguments as a method for the verification of the relevance of such arguments are proposed.