From the Editors The first three articles in this issue all deal in one way or another with a basic in~ terest of informal logic: argument analysis. One of the basic problems faced by infor~ mal logicians when they abandoned the doc~ trine of logical fonn was to devise altema~ tive ways of portraying the structure of argu~ ments. One method that has emerged involves the distinction between a linked argument (where the premises work together) and a convergent one (where the premises work separately). In his paper, Mark Vorobej de- velops a novel way of making this distinc- tion which preserves the widely held intui~ tion that a linked argument is especially vul- nerable to local criticism regarding premise acceptability. He calls this the TRUE Test: Type Reduction Upon Elimination. The traditional distinction between de- duction and induction has not been entirely abandoned. In his paper, George Bowles reviews five ways of making this distinc- tion and concludes that the best one is the one that defines a deductive argument as one in which conclusive favorable rel- evance to its conclusion is attributed to its premises; and an inductive argument is one that is not deductive. The problem of missing premises is the subject of Wayne Grennan's article. He is taking off from Ennis's idea of a missing premise as a gap filler. Grennan argues that unstated premises are not properly con- strued as gap fillers; rather they support a part of the argument that is already given implicitly "the inference claim: If the premises are true then the conclusion is true." The remaining two articles deal with the challenge of postmodemist thought to criti- cal thinking. In his paper, Don Hatcher ar- gues that any critical discussion of a sub- ject must assume specific principles of ra- tionality and he discusses five such princi- ples. In her response to Hatcher, Sharon Bailin reviews Hatcher's position from the perspective of Rorty, arguing that Rorty would partly agree and partly disagree. There are three books reviewed in this issue: Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent (1990) by David Cratis Williams and Michael David Hazen; Bur- dens of Proof in Modern Discourse (1992) by Richard Gaskins; and Can't We Make Moral Judgements? (1991) by Mary Midgley. @ INFORMAL LOGIC is published with the support and generous financial assistance of the Dean of Arts and the University of Windsor, Canada.