What is a warrant in argumentation?

Prepare for the Praxis Core Skills for Educators: Reading (5713) exam. Engage with flashcards and multiple-choice questions, each accompanied by hints and explanations. Boost your readiness for exam day!

Multiple Choice

What is a warrant in argumentation?

A warrant is the reasoning that links the evidence to the claim. It’s the underlying rule or assumption that explains why the data count as support for the conclusion. Think of it as the bridge between what you observed (the evidence) and what you’re saying should be accepted (the claim). For example, if you argue that a community should invest in playgrounds and you cite evidence that kids in neighborhoods with more play spaces have more physical activity, the warrant is the general principle that access to safe, appealing play spaces promotes activity and well-being. That shared assumption is what makes the evidence feel relevant to the claim. The other ideas—giving legal permission to present the argument, conceding opposing views, or using a rhetorical question—aren’t about that bridge between data and conclusion. They serve different purposes in argumentation, but they don’t explain why the evidence supports the claim.

A warrant is the reasoning that links the evidence to the claim. It’s the underlying rule or assumption that explains why the data count as support for the conclusion. Think of it as the bridge between what you observed (the evidence) and what you’re saying should be accepted (the claim). For example, if you argue that a community should invest in playgrounds and you cite evidence that kids in neighborhoods with more play spaces have more physical activity, the warrant is the general principle that access to safe, appealing play spaces promotes activity and well-being. That shared assumption is what makes the evidence feel relevant to the claim.

The other ideas—giving legal permission to present the argument, conceding opposing views, or using a rhetorical question—aren’t about that bridge between data and conclusion. They serve different purposes in argumentation, but they don’t explain why the evidence supports the claim.

More practice questions