, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 15–37 | Cite as

Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?

  • David Hitchcock


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.

enthymeme unstated premiss consequence logical consequence enthy-mematic consequence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, A. R. and N. D. Belnap Jr.: 1961, 'Enthymemes', Journal of Philosophy 58(23), 713-723.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, J. (ed.): 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, 2 volumes. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bollingen Series 71.Google Scholar
  3. Bitzer, L. F.: 1959, 'Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited', The Quarterly Journal of Speech 45, 399-408.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, L.: 1895, 'What the Tortoise Said to Achilles', Mindn.s. 4(2), 278-280.Google Scholar
  7. Conley, T. M.: 1984, 'The Enthymeme in Perspective', Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187.Google Scholar
  8. Cowley, I.: 1993, 'Some Hard Knocks for Creationism', McMaster Silhouette 63(24), 7.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Ennis, R.: 1982, 'Identifying Implicit Assumptions', Synthese 51(1), 61-86.Google Scholar
  12. Etchemendy, J.: 1990, The Concept of Logical Consequence, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. George, R.: 1972, 'Enthymematic Consequence', American Philosophical Quarterly 9(1), 113-116.Google Scholar
  15. George, R.: 1983, 'Bolzano's Consequence, Relevance, and Enthymemes', Journal of Philosophical Logic 12(3), 299-318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Govier, T.: 1987, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Foris, Dordrecht/ Providence.Google Scholar
  17. Govier, T.: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, third edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Hitchcock, D.: 1985, 'Enthymematic Arguments', Informal Logic 7(2 & 3), 83-97.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, S. and J. Scott: 1980, 'Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme', The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251-265.Google Scholar
  21. Kapitan, T.: 1980: 'A Definition of Enthymematic Consequence', International Logic Review 11(1), 56-59.Google Scholar
  22. Kapitan, T.: 1982, 'On the Concept of Material Consequence', History and Philosophy of Logic 3(2), 193-211.Google Scholar
  23. Quine, W. V.: 1972, Methods of Logic, 3rd edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Read, S.: 1988, Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Read, S.: 1994, 'Formal and Material Consequence', Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(3), 247-265.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Smiley, T. J.: 1959, 'Entailment and Deducibility', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59(12), 233-254.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, M. J.: 1975, When I Say No, I Feel Guilty: How to Cope - Using the Skills of Assertive Therapy, Dial Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, second edition. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hitchcock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations