Zusammenfassung

This study explores the effects of prior training in argumentationand of the pragmatic goals of an argumentative dialogueon the way people evaluate the evidence and explanationspresented in the dialogue. 122 university students, dividedinto two groups, participated in the study: a high traininggroup (n=43) composed by senior students that had takencourses in logic and science, and a low training group (n=79)composed by first year students. The participants read threeargumentative dialogues and rated the quality of the final argumentof each dialogue. Results showed that the participantswith a high training level evaluated arguments according tothe pragmatic characteristics of the dialogue. Specifically, insituations where there was disagreement, these participantsevaluated evidence better than they did explanations.