Abstract
This essay attempts to give definitions and identity conditions for the two predominant senses of âArgumentâ currently in use, the one involving reasons for a conclusion and the other denoting an expressed disagreement with ensuing verbal behaviour by two parties. I see Johnson's new concept of âArgumentâ, as developed in his book Manifest Rationality, as a hybrid of the two common senses of âArgumentâ, and, accordingly, I try to define and give the identity conditions of Johnson-arguments. Finally, I disagree with Johnson on the nature of the definition he thinks he has proposed, and I conclude with observations suggesting that his logical perspective has dialectical and rhetorical components