Argumentations and Logic

This paper comments on John Corcoran’s “Argumentations and Logic,” in which his author proposes that logic is the study of argumentations. Since this view challenges the traditional hylomorphic interpretation of logic as the study of formal arguments, which he identifies to Quine’s definition as the systematic studies of tautologies, and it makes difficult to distinguish logic from the contemporary theory of argumentation, I have opened a third alternative proposing to distinguish argument from argumentation through a renewal of the ancient quinquepartite doctrine saying that any logical argument contains the minimal parts for being conclusive, while any argumentation also contains the proof that make either credible or valid the premises of an argument.