Ethotic argument

You back your own claim by offering yourself as its guarantee. The argument works because you are presented as someone whose word counts, so your standing carries the claim in place of anything about the subject matter itself. It can be attacked by questioning that standing, or by showing that it is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Example

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

Standardised form

“The late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter” (q) is acceptable (A) because “the late Prince Bernhard had a third extramarital daughter” (q) is said by me (Z).

Transformations applied: “because” inserted; the reporting phrase “in this book, I say that” transposed into the premise; the claim’s acceptability made explicit as the conclusion-predicate; the second clause set aside as support for the lever, see the Notes below.

Classification

The conclusion is referred to as a whole in the premise, so the argument form is delta (q is A because q is Z).

The premise attributes the conclusion to the arguer themselves, so the argument substance is I.

The keyword ETHOTICALLY AUTHORITATIVE describes the relationship between predicates Z and A. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being said by me (Z) is ETHOTICALLY AUTHORITATIVE for being acceptable (A)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argumentum ad hominem — The premise points at the person addressed, and attacks acceptability rather than supporting it. II, U
• Argument from expert opinion — The source is a third party, credited with knowing the subject. III
• Argument from testimony — The source is a third party who was in a position to see what happened. III
• Argumentum ad populum — The source is a third party, and it is their number that counts. III

Source

Adapted from an interview with Dutch royal watcher Marc van der Linden, talk show Knevel & Van den Brink, Dutch television, 23 August 2011.

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.”