A modular reconstruction of practical argumentation in advertising discourse

Abstract Many advertisements contain explicit or readily inferable practical recommendations, making practical argumentation a productive framework for analyzing action-oriented advertising discourse. This study develops an analytical framework that combines modular reconstruction with inferential licenses to examine the justificatory structure of such recommendations. Through three illustrative case studies, the analysis shows how classificatory, consequential, and evaluative modules perform different functions within practical arguments and contribute to different inferential licenses. The cases exhibit context-dependent best-means, necessity-oriented, and satisfactory-means reasoning, each involving different justificatory requirements. The study further illustrates how these licenses can be critically assessed in relation to consequences, feasibility, alternatives, and competing values. Overall, the framework provides a more fine-grained account of how different justificatory components contribute to the inferential support of action-oriented recommendations in advertising discourse.