A-manual-for-writers-of-research-papers-theses-and-dissertations

It's 5° below zero reasonso you should wear a hat. claimTo most of us, the reason seems obviously to support the claim and so needs no explanationof its relevance. But suppose your friend asks this odd question:So what if it is 5° below? Why does that mean I should wear a hat?That question challenges not the truth of the reason (it is 5° below), but its relevance to theclaim (you should wear a hat). You might think it odd that anyone would ask that question,but you could answer with a general principle:Well, when it's cold, people should dress warmly.That sentence is a warrant. It states a general principle based on our experience in theworld: when a certain general condition exists (it's cold), we're justified in saying that acertain general consequence regularly follows (people should dress warmly). We think thatthe general warrant justifies our specific claim that our friend should wear a hat on the basisof our specific reason that it's 5° below, because we're reasoning according to this principle oflogic: if a general condition and its consequence are true, then specific instances of it mustalso be true.In more detail, it works like this (warning: what follows may sound like a lesson in logic101):In the warrant, the general condition is it's cold. It regularly leads us to draw a generalconsequence: people should dress warmly. We state that as a true and general principle,When it's cold, people should dress warmly.The specific reason, it's 5° below, is a valid instance of the general condition it's cold.The specific claim, you should wear a hat, is a valid instance of the general consequence,people should dress warmly.Since the general principle stated in the warrant is true and the reason and claim are validinstances of it, we're “warranted” to assert as true and valid the claim, wear a hat.But now suppose six months later you visit your friend and he says this:It's above 80° tonight, reasonso wear a long-sleeved shirt. claimThat might baffle you: How could the reason (it's above 80°) be relevant to the claim (wear along-sleeved shirt)? You might imagine this general principle as a warrant:When it's a warm night, people should dress warmly.But that isn't true. And if you think the warrant isn't true, you'll deny that the reason supportsthe claim, because it's irrelevant to it.But suppose your friend adds this: