Leaping to Conclusions: Why Premise Relevance Affects Argument Strength

Abstract

Everyday reasoning requires more evidence than raw data alone can provide. We explore the idea that people can go beyond this data by reasoning about how the data was sampled. This idea is investigated through an examination of premise non-monotonicity, in which adding premises to a category-based argument weakens rather than strengthens it. Relevance theories explain this phenomenon in terms of people’s sensitivity to the relationships among premise items. We show that a Bayesian model of category-based induction taking premise sampling assumptions and cate- gory similarity into account complements such theories and yields two important predictions: First, that sensitivity to premise relationships can be violated by inducing a weak sampling assumption; and second, that premise monotonici ty should be restored as a result. We test these predictions with an experiment that manipulates people’s assumptions in this regard, showing that people draw qualitatively different conclusions in each case.