Recent "argumentative approaches" in the study of reasoning are deemed by many to offer the most promising avenue in this field. Such approaches provide good theoretical grounds for the idea that reasoning is argumentative in nature and a large body of evidence supporting it. My aim here is to examine to what extent the idea that reasoning is argumentative in nature, and its implications, have been developed by the main argumentative approaches to reasoning. I will then consider whether and how more could be done to elaborate upon these claims. As I will try to argue, in reducing the connection between reasoning and argumentation to the fact that reasoning produces convincing arguments, these approaches mainly highlight reasoning’s persuasive and therefore instrumental function. I then conclude by proposing an alternative argumentative conception of rationality, outlined by Paul Grice and recently discussed by Marina Sbisà, which highlights reasoning’s reason-giving function.
