Enthymeme Suppressed Premise Exposer
Expose an explicitly caller-proposed suppressed warrant relative to stated reason/claim; does not prove that the warrant is true or logically necessary.
Description
An enthymeme may rely on an unstated premise or warrant.
An enthymeme may rely on an unstated premise or warrant.1
This tool exposes a user-proposed warrant while leaving its truth and logical necessity unresolved.
When to use Enthymeme Suppressed Premise Exposer
Use this tool when you need to review the specific lexical, time-budget, or annotation operation described below. Establish the language, clause boundaries, transcription basis, source context, or evidence annotations required by this particular tool.
How to use Enthymeme Suppressed Premise Exposer and understand its results
- Establish the language, clause boundaries, transcription basis, source context, or evidence annotations required by this particular tool.
- Enter statedReason, declaredClaim, callerProposedWarrant, warrantExplicitlyStated, following the field table and calculation rules below, then run the tool.
- Read result. Inspect the nested fields in the output table below and keep any missing evidence or selected indices visible.
- Correct any input issues and run again. Before using a successful result, review its units, signs, evidence coverage, and stated model or reference assumptions.
| Input field | Meaning | Value type | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| statedReason | Stated reason | string | Required |
| declaredClaim | Declared claim | string | Required |
| callerProposedWarrant | Caller proposed warrant | string | Required |
| warrantExplicitlyStated | Warrant explicitly stated | boolean | Required |
Require nonblank reason, claim, and proposed warrant, and an explicit boolean indicating whether the warrant was stated. Return the supplied warrant when false, or an empty string when true, alongside the flag. Reason and claim validate the context but are not logically analyzed.
candidate=warrantExplicit?"":proposedWarrant Read these symbols with the field meanings and branch or reference rules above.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| result | Object containing the fields below | object |
| result.candidateSuppressedWarrant | Candidate Suppressed Warrant | string |
| result.warrantWasExplicit | Warrant Was Explicit | boolean |
{
"input": {
"statedReason": "Socrates is human",
"declaredClaim": "Socrates is mortal",
"callerProposedWarrant": "All humans are mortal",
"warrantExplicitlyStated": false
},
"output": {
"result": {
"candidateSuppressedWarrant": "All humans are mortal",
"warrantWasExplicit": false
}
}
}Limitations and assumptions
Clause boundaries, transcriptions, role labels, and contextual judgments are supplied evidence. The result describes this exact lexical or annotation operation, not inferred intent, historical origin, persuasive effect, or argument soundness.
Missing required fields, unknown fields, wrong types, and violated calculation rules return input issues. Extremely large composite outputs are rejected.
Alternative or Complementary methods
For a related task, use Toulmin Model Claim Warrant Backing Mapper: The Toulmin model separates an argument’s claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Mapping those components requires explicit annotations rather than inferring soundness from their presence. For a complementary step, use a Fortiori Stronger Case Argument Lookup: An a-fortiori argument transfers a claim along an ordered comparison using a justified monotonic warrant. Ordering alone cannot establish that the transfer holds or that no exceptions apply.
References
-
Enthymeme Suppressed Premise Exposer — tool.io
Similar or alternative tools
- Toulmin Model Claim Warrant Backing Mapper
The Toulmin model separates an argument’s claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Mapping those components requires explicit annotations rather than inferring soundness from their presence.
- a Fortiori Stronger Case Argument Lookup
An a-fortiori argument transfers a claim along an ordered comparison using a justified monotonic warrant. Ordering alone cannot establish that the transfer holds or that no exceptions apply.