Eight structural criteria are developed as part of a dialogical method bytesting them against seven examples of arguments from negative consequences. The aim is to provide a method for evaluating thearguments in the examples as fallacious or not. It is shown that any method that can be satisfactorily used to evaluate such examplesneeds to be based on two techniques. The first is careful application of argumentation underlying shifts from one type of dialog to another schemes. The second is consideration of contextual factors concerning.