claim
the first essential part.
not serve to explain the argument.
it's used to summarize the argumentwarrant
the meaty part
state what is true and prove it is true
in two forms
A.) analytical warrant
use pure analytical thinking to come to a conclusion
a popular form is synllogism, the reason form is
A -> B , B -> C ;
A -> C
A imply B, B imply C, so A imply C.
audience can accept the former statement, will tend to accept the result
shortcoming of analytical warrant:
the reality may not work the same with logic, there may have some counter example
use empirical warrant to attack
empirical warrant:
this type of analysis deal with how the world really work.
use empirical warrant, something happen in the past may happen in the future.
these are intuitive to audience.
shortcoming:
it can't be guranteed that just two things happen, one things can cause another things. the relation of two thing can be proved by logic
can use logic to attack
- impact
although the argument is justified and right, but it may be unrelated with the topic, motion
