One of the key strands of contemporary research on argumentation is the so-called informal logic. Its leading representatives include scholars such as J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson or D. Walton. The motivation to create this concept was the willingness to use logic tools for applications such as analysis and evaluation of arguments carried out in everyday life, in political debates, legal disputes or social commentaries characteristic of newspapers, television, and the Internet, therefore it can be used in the science of security. A characteristic feature of this type of arguments is, firstly, their dialogical structure and, secondly, their non-monotonic (questionable) character. Informal logic provides us with methodological tools in the form of argumentation schemes that enable this type of analysis. Argumentation schemas range from deductive forms of reasoning, such as modus ponens, and inductive forms, such as an argument from gathered data sets to a statistical conclusion from the data. This type of reasoning supports inference in case of its incompleteness, it allows guessing unknown data. It is therefore an ideal tool to support social sciences and the analysis of "language" in a given natural discourse. It can also be useful in learning about security.