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

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.