Argumentoms

Argumentoms are a proposed unit of analysis in argumentation theory, described as the smallest coherent portion of an argument that expresses a claim accompanied by its justification or support. The concept treats an argumentom as a self-contained minimal building block, similar in spirit to an atom in chemistry, from which more complex arguments can be constructed by combining multiple argumentoms.

A typical argumentom centers on a claim, with accompanying data or evidence and a warrant or justification that links the evidence to the claim. In some formulations, argumentoms may also include a potential rebuttal or counter-claim, signaling how the unit would respond to challenges. This structured view aims to make argumentative reasoning more transparent by isolating the core proposition and its supporting scaffolding.

In practice, argumentoms are used in theoretical and applied contexts to analyze discourse, teach critical thinking, and support computational approaches such as argument mining and automated assessment of written arguments. By decomposing texts into argumentoms, researchers can assess relevance, sufficiency of support, and logical coherence more systematically, and they can map how multiple argumentoms interact to form broader arguments or argumentative chains.

Critics note that determining the boundaries of an argumentom can be subjective, since real-world arguments often exhibit overlap, nuance, and interdependent supports. Some scholars argue for varying granularity, from micro-claims to larger argumentative units, or for alternative frameworks that emphasize rhetorical or pragmatic aspects over strict logical segmentation. Despite criticisms, the concept provides a useful heuristic for dissecting and evaluating complex reasoning.