(Hardback)

Walton suggests that they can, and ultimately defends the thesis that ad hominem reasoning is not fallacious per se. As suggested by the title, the conclusion of ad hominem argument is demonstrated to be relative to the arguer's position.

(Hardback)

This book offers a new theory of begging the question as an informal fallacy, within a pragmatic framework of reasoned dialogue as a normative theory of critical argumentation. Walton analyzes the concept of burden of proof in argument, and provides chapters on the use of argument diagramming as a technique of argument reconstruction.

(Paperback)

A well-organized, thoughtful, and logical discussion of a difficult ethical issue frequently encountered by clinicians.

Journal of the American Medical Association

Walton has made a successful attempt to write about medical concerns without ever leaving the layperson to flounder in confusion.

(Hardback)

(Hardback)

In the final chapter, Walton shows how his method functions in light of the real-life complexities of the clinical encounter and how it bears on ethical questions concerning health-care policy, attitudes toward treatment and toward the medical profession, reasonableness of expectations, and the setting of realistic goals of treatment.

(Hardback)

The book contains a discussion of such well-recognized fallacies as many questions, black-or-white questions, loaded questions, circular arguments, question-begging assertions and epithets, ad hominem and tu quoque arguments, ignoratio elenchi, and replying to a question with a question.