Skip to main content

Identifying the Warrant of an Argument

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 28))

Abstract

Hitchcock has presented a way to extract the warrant from an argument. We summarize his procedure and note that applying it in specific cases may be problematic. We then extend his procedure by indicating how symbolization in a formal language addresses the problems. We indicate the richness required of such a language and then present an expanded procedure for identifying the warrant of an argument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hitchcock formulates this procedure not explicitly for warrants as we have characterized them, but for the associated generalization of the argument. See (1985, p. 89).

  2. 2.

    This procedure is a first approximation. We must address the warrant’s being unacceptable but the inference step intuitively acceptable.

References

  • Bergmann, M., Moor, J., & Nelson, J. (2014). The logic book. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic, 7, 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oesterle, J. (1961). The significance of the universal ut nunc. In J. A. Weisheipl (ed). The Dignity of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James B. Freeman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freeman, J.B. (2015). Identifying the Warrant of an Argument. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics