Document Type
Paper
Start Date
15-5-1999 9:00 AM
End Date
17-5-1999 5:00 PM
Abstract
Expressing a widely-held view, Hitchcock claims that "an enthymematic argument ... assumes at least the truth of the argument's associated conditional ... whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's explicit premises and whose consequent is t he argument's conclusion." But even definitionally, this view is problematic, since an argument's being enthymematic or incomplete with respect to its explicit premises means that the conclusion is not implied by these premises alone. The paper attempts to specify the ways in which the view is incorrect, as well as correct (e.g., the case of a modus ponens wherein the major premise is implicit).
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
David Hitchcock, Commentary on Plumer
Reader's Reactions
Leo Groarke, Commentary on Allan (May 1999)
Included in
The paradoxical associated conditional of enthymemes
Expressing a widely-held view, Hitchcock claims that "an enthymematic argument ... assumes at least the truth of the argument's associated conditional ... whose antecedent is the conjunction of the argument's explicit premises and whose consequent is t he argument's conclusion." But even definitionally, this view is problematic, since an argument's being enthymematic or incomplete with respect to its explicit premises means that the conclusion is not implied by these premises alone. The paper attempts to specify the ways in which the view is incorrect, as well as correct (e.g., the case of a modus ponens wherein the major premise is implicit).
