Abstract
In many actual arguments, the conclusion seems intuitively to follow from the premisses, even though we cannot show that it follows logically. The traditional approach to evaluating such arguments is to suppose that they have an unstated premiss whose explicit addition will produce an argument where the conclusion does follow logically. But there are good reasons for doubting that people so frequently leave the premisses of their arguments unstated. The inclination to suppose that they do stems from the belief that the only way in which an argument's conclusion can follow definitely from its premisses is to follow logically. I argue that this belief is mistaken. I propose a revision of the current generic conception of logical consequence, and its variant specifications, to avoid the paradoxes of strict implication. The revised conception can then be naturally extended to include also what we might call 'enthymematic consequence'. This concept is a kind of consequence, whose properties merit investigation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Anderson, A. R. and N. D. Belnap Jr.: 1961, 'Enthymemes', Journal of Philosophy 58(23), 713-723.
Barnes, J. (ed.): 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, 2 volumes. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bollingen Series 71.
Bitzer, L. F.: 1959, 'Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited', The Quarterly Journal of Speech 45, 399-408.
Bolzano, B.: 1972/1837, Theory of Science. Attempt at a Detailed and in the Main Novel Exposition of Logic with Constant Attention to Earlier Authors. Abridged translation by Rolf George. University of California Press, Berkeley. German original first published in 1837.
Burnyeat, M. F.: 1994, 'Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion', in D. J. Furley and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays (Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 3-55.
Carroll, L.: 1895, 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles', Mindn.s. 4(2), 278-280.
Conley, T. M.: 1984, 'The Enthymeme in Perspective', Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187.
Cowley, I.: 1993, 'Some Hard Knocks for Creationism', McMaster Silhouette 63(24), 7.
Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson.
Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Ennis, R.: 1982, 'Identifying Implicit Assumptions', Synthese 51(1), 61-86.
Etchemendy, J.: 1990, The Concept of Logical Consequence, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gentzen, G.: 1969/1935, 'Investigations into Logical Deduction', in M. E. Szabo (ed.), The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, Ch. 3, North Holland, Amsterdam/London. First published in German in 1935, pp. 68-213.
George, R.: 1972, 'Enthymematic Consequence', American Philosophical Quarterly 9(1), 113-116.
George, R.: 1983, 'Bolzano's Consequence, Relevance, and Enthymemes', Journal of Philosophical Logic 12(3), 299-318.
Govier, T.: 1987, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Foris, Dordrecht/ Providence.
Govier, T.: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, third edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Hitchcock, D.: 1985, 'Enthymematic Arguments', Informal Logic 7(2 & 3), 83-97.
Hitchcock, D.: 1987, 'Enthymematic Arguments', in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Ch. 25, Foris, Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis, Dordrecht and Providence, pp. 289-298.
Jackson, S. and J. Scott: 1980, 'Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme', The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251-265.
Kapitan, T.: 1980: 'A Definition of Enthymematic Consequence', International Logic Review 11(1), 56-59.
Kapitan, T.: 1982, 'On the Concept of Material Consequence', History and Philosophy of Logic 3(2), 193-211.
Quine, W. V.: 1972, Methods of Logic, 3rd edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Read, S.: 1988, Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Read, S.: 1994, 'Formal and Material Consequence', Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(3), 247-265.
Sánchez-Miguel, M. García-Carpintero: 1993, 'The Grounds for the Model-theoretic Account of the Logical Properties', Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34(1), 107-131.
Smiley, T. J.: 1959, 'Entailment and Deducibility', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59(12), 233-254.
Smith, M. J.: 1975, When I Say No, I Feel Guilty: How to Cope - Using the Skills of Assertive Therapy, Dial Press, New York.
Tarski, A.: 1983a/1933, 'The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages', in J. H. Woodger (trans.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938 by Alfred Tarski, second edition edited and introduced by John Corcoran, ch. 8, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN. First published in Polish in 1933, pp. 152-278.
Tarski, A.: 1983b/1936, 'On the Concept of Logical Consequence', in J. H. Woodger (trans.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938 by Alfred Tarski, second edition edited and introduced by John Corcoran, ch. 16, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN. First published in Polish in 1936 and then in German in 1936, pp. 409-420.
Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, second edition. Macmillan, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hitchcock, D. Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?. Argumentation 12, 15–37 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738519694
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738519694