Richness

To improve students' critical thinking skills, we first need to evaluate their argumentative texts, i.e., identify argumentative errors. Although identifying such argumentative structures (components, relations, and schemes) and properties (fallacies and debate patterns) is important, it has limitations in terms of effective feedback. Identifying a missing claim or a wrong premise is insufficient to understand how to improve the argumentation properly. Thus, we relate the identification of structure and properties to shallow explanations in the sense that users can still benefit from the output of the models.

Shallow explanations can be difficult to understand, especially for beginners, as they tend to be minimalist and lack guidance. To explain more effectively the errors in an argument, a model should go a step further, hence by providing in-depth explanations, which attempt to identify the argument's implicit components to explain why it is an error in a particular argument. In Figure 2, we implicitly know that hamburgers belong to the American cuisine, as same as the Cobb salad, a healthy garden salad from California. Therefore, if the model is able to reason out this implicit knowledge, it can better explain the invalid generalization.

In this section, you can find relevant works that focus either on argumentative structures (components, relations, and schemes), properties (fallacies and debate patterns) and implicit reasoning abilities of models.