In this book, I say that the late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter, and I have built a good reputation when it comes to royal revelations.
In this argument, the acceptability of the claim that “the late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter” is supported by a remark aimed at enhancing trust in the speaker. Interpreting the second sentence as a premise supporting the lever rather than the premise supporting the conclusion directly, the argument form can be determined as delta (q is A because q is Z): “The late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter (q) is acceptable (U) because The late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter (q) is said by me (Z)”.
The premise takes a first-person perspective, so the argument substance is ‘I’: “The late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter is acceptable because the late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter is said by me (I)”.
The keyword ETHOTICALLY AUTHORITATIVE describes the relationship between predicates Z and U. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being said by me (Z) is ETHOTICALLY AUTHORITATIVE for being acceptable (U)”.
Source
The example is adapted from an interview with Dutch royal watcher Marc van der Linden conducted during the talk show Knevel & Van den Brink and broadcast on Dutch television on August 23, 2011.
Other examples
Notes
The last part of the sentence can be reconstructed as a premise that supports the lever of the original argument: “Being said by me is ETHOTICALLY AUTHORITATIVE for being acceptable because I have built a good reputation when it comes to royal revelations.”
PERIODIC TABLE OF ARGUMENTS 