Deconstructive arguments work by demonstrating that a position's premises yield contradictory conclusions when entailments are carefully considered. Such arguments are useful with respect to doctrinal issues because they sidestep 'inadequacy of cognitive processes' or 'irrelevance of evidence' objections. Provide a 'doctrinaire example'.
(A snippet from a book in process, "The Colour of Angels".)
Deconstructive arguments do not depend upon competence to assess, or even understand, arguments or claims. The test is whether a position's core premises can be shown to be irreconcilable by virtue of the incompatibility of their implications. Thus, Christian apologists sometimes cite the inscrutability of God's plan; or observe that human beings have often accepted mysteries: e.g., the Trinity; the Immaculate Conception, the Transubstantiation of bread and wine, etc. Such rejoinders defend the intelligibility of religious postures ex post facto. They hope to leave skeptics with the impossible task of proving a negative - that God did not create the universe; or did not send critical information to the Church Militant via the Old and New Testaments.
Mutual intelligibility of axioms is the target and challenge of deconstructive arguments. Apologists may decline to debate axioms one by one ... but they ...
The solution explains the concept of deconstructive arguments - primarily how they work. The author, in a concise and detailed manner touches the complex concepts related to the idea of deconstruction in terms of its application in breaking down arguments to their basic state/premises to validate/invalidate positions offered.