The Warrant Making Connections

The Warrant – A Means of Transportation Argument as trip Evidence- Starting point Claim – Destination Warrant – The way we get from one place (evidence) to another (claim) A warrant provides the connection, establishing some kind of relationship between evidence and claim.

Warrants are often not stated, but is perhaps an arguments most distinctive feature. The warrant is the reasoning process that the arguer is asking the audience to accept connecting claim to evidence. Warrants most clearly identify the TYPE of argument employed. Although the specifics of the argument may change, the kind of reasoning the arguer is asking the audience to fits into very predictable patterns.

Argument by Example/Generalization Most common category of reasoning based on the belief that it is possible to derive a general principle from a series of examples. A shows X, B shows X, C is in the same category, so C will show X also. Based on the probability that examples in a class share important characteristics.

Example (Cont) Examples Claim: any new communist revolution would be brutal. Grounds: Maoist China killed many of their own people during their revolution as did Stalinist Russia. Assumptions A sufficient number of examples are presented The examples are representative of the entire group. Warrant A feature shared by members of a group will probably characterize the group as a whole Evidence China violence Evidence China violence Conclusion Any new communist revolution would be brutal. Evidence Russia violence

Analogy Creates associations between things that are similar or seemingly dissimilar. The kind of argument a debater makes in an attempt to classify something in a different/additional category. A has X quality, B has X quality, A is similar to B. Starts with an example the audience ALREADY evaluates in a particular way, then transfers the values associated with that to the second.

Analogy (cont) ASSUMPTIONS EXAMPLE Important similarities exist between the two cases. These similarities are relevant to the claimed relationship Any differences are unimportant to the claimed relationship. Claim: Sports have become the secular religion of America. Grounds: Both sports and religion have gods, saints, houses of worship and true believers.

Analogy map Warrant: the feelings/veneration for religion are analogous to the feelings/veneration for sports Evidence Religion has gods and saints and true believers Evidence Sports have “gods” and “saints” and true believers Claim: Sports have become the secular religion in America Evidence Religion has houses of worship Evidence Sports have houses of worship.

Causality Argument of Cause and Effect A happened then B happened. Therefore A caused B. Observation that some change in the first thing is accompanied by a corresponding change in the second

Causal Warrants ASSUMPTIONS EXAMPLE The facts represented are accurate The relationship is not just corollary (correlation not causation) Claim: Women’s changing role in the job force contributes to the increase in child suicide. Grounds: When women started entering the traditionally male-oriented jobs, there was a corresponding dramatic increase in child suicide rates.

Women began entering traditionally male-oriented jobs Warrant: Evidence: Women began entering traditionally male-oriented jobs Warrant: The relationship between these two phenomena is causal rather than coincidental Conclusion: Women’s changing role in the job force contributed to the increase in child suicide. Evidence: Child suicide rates increased dramatically

Argument from Authority Warrant based off of the credibility of a source. When a nuclear physicist says that nuclear energy says nuclear energy is clean and safe, that statement IS evidence. The warrant for the claim involves the credibility of the authority. (ex.) Asking a waiter at a local restaurant what you should order. Good for: Historical claims Highly technical questions Causal arguments Prescriptive arguments

Angie Howard is an expert in the field of nuclear energy. Warrant: Evidence: Angie Howard is an expert in the field of nuclear energy. Warrant: The opinion of a credible expert in the field of nuclear energy should be believed. Conclusion: Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy. Evidence: Angie Howard states that nuclear energy “doesn’t contribute to air quality issues”

Principle Warrant based off of some evidence’s correspondence to/diversion from important cultural values/principles Useful technique for supporting an argument of evaluation (in other words, assessing the goodness or badness of a claim/action) Judges the claim/action based off of the principles involved (e.g. fairness, honesty, justice, humanity, security, etc.) This arguer will often claim the principles are more important than the outcome/consequences.

The sanctity of life is an important principle Warrant: Evidence: The sanctity of life is an important principle Warrant: Government policies should be consistent with our principles. Conclusion: Capital punishment should be abolished. Evidence: Capital punishment violates the sanctity of life

Limitations of Principle The action in question must be unambiguously related to the principle. Capital punishment Sanctity of life Must be proven to apply in this circumstance. Many are asserted as universal when they can really be shown to be less important, or dismissible in many circumstances. Sanctity of life vs. self defense?