This study deals with a seemingly obvious topic to everyone – examples. Yet, on a closer perusal, the topic turns out to be interestingly perplexed. This can be justified by the amalgam of cognition and communication out of which such concept is delivered. This mixture gives a hand in texturizing examples. This work aims at pragmatically investigating the concept of ‘example’ as far as its definition, structure, types and functions are concerned. Furthermore, it aims at developing an eclectic model that will be utilized to pragmatically analyze the data of the work represented by four interviews with Donald Trump in 2018. Consequently, it hypothesizes the following: complex schema is more frequently used in the data; abductive inference is never employed in the data; faulty analogy is never made in the data; the interpersonal variant of the global type of examples is more frequently found in the data; explicit examples are more commonly given; and, finally, the argumentative function of examples prevails. Afterwards, the percentage equation is employed to statistically calculate the results of the analysis.   

          The study has come up with many conclusions, out of which is that examples, once chosen meticulously, support the cogency of argumentation by means of strengthening and boosting one’s standpoints towards the alleged goals.