The purpose of this paper is to investigate the argumentative structure of students arguments using argumentation schemes as an instrument for reconstructing the missing premises underlying their reasoning. Building on the recent literature in science education, in order for an explanation to be persuasive and achieve a conceptual change it needs to proceed from the interlocutor s background knowledge to the analysis of the unknown or wrongly interpreted phenomena. Argumentation schemes represent the abstract forms of the most used and common forms of human reasoning, combining logical principles with semantic concepts. By identifying the argument structure it is possible to retrieve the missing premises and the crucial concepts and definition on which the conclusion is based. This method of analysis will be shown to provide the teacher with an instrument to improve his or her explanations by taking into consideration the students intuitions and deep background knowledge on a specific issue. In this fashion the teacher can advance counterarguments or propose new perspectives on the subject matter in order to persuade the students to accept new scientific concepts. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.