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

WarrantsFinally, it's important to note that there are two kinds of arguments that readers judge indifferent ways:One infers a claim from a reason and warrant. The claim in that kind of argument isbelieved to be certainly true.The other bases a claim on reasons based on evidence. The claim in that kind ofargument is considered to be probably true.As paradoxical as it may seem, researchers put more faith in the second kind of argument, thekind based on evidence, than in the first.This argument presents a claim based on a reason based on evidence:Needle-exchange programs contribute to increased drug usage. claimWhen their participants realize that they canavoid the risk of disease from infected needles, they feel encouraged to use more drugs. reasonA study of thosewho participated in one such program reported that 34% of the participants increased their use of drugsfrom 1.7 to 2.1 times a week because they said they felt protected from needle-transmitted diseases. evidenceIf we consider the evidence to be both sound and sufficient (we might not), then the claimseems reasonable, though by no means certain, because someone might find new and betterevidence that contradicts the evidence offered here.This next argument makes the same claim based on the same reason, but the claim issupported not by evidence but by logic. The claim must be true if the warrant and reason aretrue and if the reason and claim are valid instances of the warrant:Needle-exchange programs contribute to increased drug usage. claimWhen participants realize that they can avoidthe risk of disease from infected needles, they feel encouraged to use more drugs. reasonWhenever theconsequences of risky behavior are reduced, people engage in it more often. warrantBut we have to believe that the warrant is always true in all cases everywhere, a claim thatmost of us would—or should—deny. Few of us drive recklessly because cars have seat beltsand collapsible steering columns.All arguments rely on warrants, but readers of a research argument are more likely to trusta claim when it's not inferred from a principle but rather is based on evidence, because nomatter how plausible general principles seem, they have too many exceptions, qualifications,and limitations. Those who make claims based on what they think are unassailable principlestoo often miss those complications, because they are convinced that their principles must beright, regardless of evidence to the contrary, and if their principles are right, so are theirinferences. Such arguments are more ideological than factual. So support your claims with asmuch evidence as you can, even when you think you have the power of logic on your side.Add a warrant to nail down an inference, but base the inference on evidence, as well.