Рассматривается использование моделей аргументации в автороведческой экспертизе. Выдвигается гипотеза, согласно которой автор в сходных коммуникативных ситуациях применяет одну и ту же структуру аргументативного высказывания, модель аргументации, при этом разные авторы используют разные модели. Для проверки гипотезы анализируется 10 текстов процессуальных документов трех авторов. В результате анализа устанавливается, что у этих авторов модели аргументации в близких коммуникативных ситуациях различаются.

The paper is devoted to the study of argumentation models to assert less informative genres authorship using possibility. The object of the research is argumentation models in procedural instruments. The aim of the paper is to test a hypothesis that different authors in similar communicative situations use different argumentation models and different combinations of these models. The article is addressed to researchers who work in the field of forensic linguistic and problems of official texts authorship examination. The text of the article includes an introduction, three parts and a conclusion. The introduction tells about the complexity of procedural instruments authorship examination and about the necessity of using complementary parameters for research validation. The complexity is firstly due to its attribution to the official style. It has strict requirements to the form and the content of procedural instruments. Another problem is legislative requirements to the structure and content of documents. The first part familiarizes readers with the concept of the argumentation model, its components and construction principles. It also tells about authorship examination using the argumentation models algorithm. The second part is devoted to argumentation models in texts-samples and in contentious text analysis. It is established that the main argumentation model is the same for texts-samples and contentious texts. A necessity to compare the findings with other authors' models is established. The last part of the paper is devoted to two other authors' texts analysis. Findings comparison allows concluding that different authors use different argumentation models in a similar communicative situation. In the conclusion, the author again speaks about the complexity of authorship examination of less informative texts and arrives at a conclusion that argumentation models and the bases for model construction can be used as supplementary features that specify results of procedural instruments authorship examination by classical methods. The paper is illustrated with a table which demonstrates three authors' argumentation models difference and the contentious text and the first author's models similarity. The article contains a list of references.