The Paradoxical Associated Conditional of Enthymemes

In Christopher W. Tindale, Hans V. Hansen & Elmar Sveda (eds.), Argumentation at the Century's Turn [CD-ROM]. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 1-8 (2000)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Expressing a widely-held view, David 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 the 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 seemingly correct (e.g., the case of a Modus Ponens wherein the major premise is implicit).
Reprint years
1999, 2000
PhilPapers/Archive ID
PLUTPA-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index
2012-11-01

Total views
372 ( #17,370 of 2,448,750 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #43,077 of 2,448,750 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.