CriticalThinkingAcademy

For any given domain of inquiry, some argument structures and patterns tend to be more central than others. For example, statistical sciences tend to emphasize arguments about causality and correlation. Arguments from precedent tend to frequently arise in legal domains, especially within the context of legal interpretation. Arguments using analogies tend to underpin many situations where we need to evaluate some situation in terms of criteria used to evaluate related situations. You can get a sense of an arguments prominence by googling it and observing what is returned. For example, argument from precedent seems to exclusively return results from legal domains. Searching for "correlational arguments" will return a plethora of results related to data analysis. But strangely, "Argument from Silence" returns quite a number of articles from apologetics websites. This is not obvious at first glance, especially if you are unfamiliar with the apologetic-industrial complex...