Embedded Files
Warrant
Warrant
Definition: A warrant is the logical bridge in reasoning that links evidence (grounds) to a claim. It explains why the provided evidence supports the conclusion. In the Toulmin argument model, a warrant explains why or how the evidence supports the claim. It’s the underlying assumption or reasoning that links data to conclusion. The warrant is what authorizes the inference from data to a claim. It often remains unstated, relying on a commonly shared assumption.
As David Hitchcock puts it, a warrant is an “inference‑licensing rule”: the claim follows from the grounds in accordance with the warrant
Without warrants, arguments feel like loose lists of claims and evidence. With them, you see the reasoning thread tying things together.
A warrant is the unseen thread that connects evidence to a conclusion. It’s essential for persuasive reasoning—identify it, scrutinize it, and make it as clear as your audience needs it to be.
Example
Claim: “Students should avoid using phones in class.”
Evidence: “Studies show phone use distracts students and lowers test scores.”
Warrant: “If something distracts and lowers performance, it should not be allowed in class.”
Types of Warrants
Types of Warrants
Warrants can be explicit or implicit, depending on how directly they’re stated. They also fall into three broad categories:
Substantive Warrants (logos‑based)
Use factual logic or established principles to justify the claim.
Example: “Increasing exercise improves health, because physical activity boosts cardiovascular strength.”
Authoritative Warrants (ethos‑based)
Rely on trusted sources or expert authority.
Example: “This medical treatment works—just look at what the CDC recommends.”
Motivational Warrants (pathos‑based)
Appeal to values or emotions shared with the audience.
Example: “We should support renewable energy—our children deserve a livable planet.”
Warrants themselves operate at a more general level than claims or evidence—they function as underlying assumptions that may go unsaid
Role in Argument
Role in Argument
Without a clear warrant, arguments can feel disconnected or unconvincing. The audience might accept the evidence but not follow the logic to the claim.
Stating the warrant explicitly can strengthen an argument—especially when the inference isn’t obvious or shared by all readers.
When the warrant is implied, it hides the reasoning—but this can backfire if the audience questions the hidden assumptions.
Example Walk-through (Toulmin Model)
Example Walk-through (Toulmin Model)
Claim: “Harry is a British subject.”
Grounds (Evidence): “Harry was born in Bermuda.”
Warrant: “Anyone born in Bermuda is a British subject.”
Backing (If needed): Legal documents confirming Bermuda’s status.
Rebuttal (Optionally): “Unless his parents were foreign diplomats, which could override citizenship.”
Qualifier: “Probably,” to indicate some uncertainty
Using Warrants Effectively
Using Warrants Effectively
Ask yourself: Why does this evidence support the claim? That question will help pinpoint the warrant.
Consider your audience: If the warrant isn't shared, make it explicit. If it is, you may keep it implicit for brevity.
Test the warrant’s strength: If the audience rejects the warrant, the argument collapses—so choose warrants that are reasonable and defensible.
Page updated
Report abuse