1. The Warrant
Making Connections

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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”

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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?