Taming the Warrant

notes from article by James E. Warrenfrom English Journal 99.6 (2010): 41-46

Claim = teachers should make higher salaries

Data = teachers are as well-trained and hard-working as other, higher-paid professionals

Warrant (general, unstated proposition) =

Professionals who are similarly trained and hard-working should

receive similar salaries.

Qualifiers

“Nearly all teachers should make higher salaries.”

Exceptions to the claim (conditions of rebuttal):

Teachers who are incompetent do not deserve higher salaries.

Warrants usually remain implicit in an argument

• They bind together claims and data

• They can be brought to the surface through logical inference

Why identify your warrants?

• Once you are aware of your warrant, you can decide whether your audience will accept it automatically or will demand additional support.

Toulmin and the Syllogism

• All humans are mortal

• Socrates is a human

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

• Warrant

• Data

• Claim

Misidentified warrants

• Claim = don’t eat that mushroom

• Data = it’s poisonous

• Warrant = if something is poisonous, it’s dangerous to eat

Source: Everything’s an Argument

This warrant does not logically compel you to refuse the mushroom!

Remember that warrants guarantee the step from data to claim is valid.

Accurate warrant = Don’t eat poisonous things!

• Assuming you believe the mushroom is poisonous and assuming you believe you must not eat poisonous things, you must agree not to eat that mushroom.

Another misidentified warrant:

• Claim = Cocaine and heroin should be legalized.

• Data = legalization would eliminate the black market in drugs

• Warrant =

Eliminating the black market in drugs is good.• Is it possible to agree with the warrant and

still reject the claim that drugs should be legalized?

• Yes! Most Americans do!

• By this same logic, we should legalize child pornography because that would eliminate the black market in child porn.

Formula for Identifying Warrants

• If D [data], then C [claim].

• Data such as D entitle one to draw conclusions, or make claims, such as C

• Given data D, one may take it that C.

If that mushroom is poisonous (data), then don’t eat it (claim).

Warrant = don’t eat poisonous things.

If legalization would eliminate the black market in cocaine

and heroin (data)then we should legalize these

drugs (claim)

Warrant = legalizing cocaine and heroin would eliminate the

black market in them.

Convert your claim, data, and warrant into a syllogism to check

for accuracy• Claim in Toulmin’s model = conclusion Ex. Socrates is mortal.• Data in Toulmin’s model = minor or middle

premise Ex. Socrates is human.• Warrant in Toulmin’s model = major or initial

premise• Ex. All humans are mortal

Socrates is mortal because he is a human

and all humans are mortal (the warrant functions as a license to make the step

from data to claim)

Claim

• We should do a better job of teaching students how to identify warrants.

Data

• The ability to identify warrants accurately is an essential critical reasoning skill.

Warrant

• We should do a better job of teaching critical reasoning skills.