According to the pragma-dialectical theory of vanEemeren and Grootendorst, Blair noted, "sufficiency is a function of appropriatelymeeting the critics' challenges to premises and inferences" (p. 3 32) . Blair alsonoted that this means that an argument can rightly be said to be sufficient for itsconclusion in this sense when it meets its burden of proof3 relying on "what maybe presumed without or accepted without further question" (p. 333)

Instead, we hope to show, theseargumentation schemes can best be revealed as normatively binding kinds ofreasoning when seen as moves, or speech acts in the setting of dialogue. In thispragmatic framework, two participants are reasoning together in a goal-directed,interactive, conventionalized framework called a dialogue. An argument is evaluated as good (correct, reasonable) to the extent that it contributes to the goal of thedialogue. An argument is evaluated as bad (incorrect, fallacious) to the extent thatit blocks the goals of the dialogue.