Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements

Buy Article:

$31.57 + tax (Refund Policy)

In this paper, the analysis given in Snoeck Henkemans (2016) of argumentative patterns in over-the-counter medicine advertisements is extended by providing more insight into the argumentative patterns resulting from the support of two types of claims: the claim that the medicinal product is safe and the claim that there is no better alternative for the product. It is first established which types of argument are prototypically used to support these claims. Then it is investigated what kind of extensions might result from arguers’ attempts to further support those arguments. Finally, it is explained how the argumentative patterns revolving around the ‘safety’ and ‘no better alternative’ claims can be seen as the result of advertisers’ strategic choices in selecting and presenting their arguments within the institutional constraints applying to the activity type of over-the-counter advertisements.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Argument scheme; Evaluative proposition; Institutional precondition; Over-the-counter medicine advertisement; Presentational Strategy; Safety claim; Side-effects; Strategic manoeuvring; Symptomatic argument

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: March 31, 2017

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more