From the Editors 

Once again we publish a double 
number, combining the last two issues of 
Volume XIV (1992). The intent is catch-
up. The papers in this issue attest, as do 
those lined up on the runway waiting for 
takeoff in Volume XV (see the outside 
back cover), that good scholarly work on 
informal logic is flourishing. This is the 
biggest double issue we have ever pub-
lished. We will produce the issues of Vol-
ume XV (1993) as quickly as physically 
possible: they should follow one another in 
rapid succession over the course of this 
autumn-provided that, as always, sub-
scription renewals (now due) arrive in time 
to pay the production and mailing costs. 
Half of our funding, and all of the costs of 
production and mailing, come from sub-
scribers. Your prompt renewals are essen-
tial to our solvency. Will you, please, write 
a cheque (or a check!) and send it now, 
before you forget? 

In This Issue 

The table of contents of this double 
issue reads like a wonderful microcosm of 
the subject-matter and the dialectic of 
informal logic and critical thinking. 

Fallacies? See Alan Brinton's analysis 
of the ad baculum for a discussion of an 
individual (so-called) fallacy and Douglas 
Walton's more general discussion of falla-
cies, relating fallacy theory to argument 
theory more generally. 

Argumentation? See Mark Vorobej's 
analysis of deduction, Jonathan Berg's 
entry into the fray over the interpretation 
of arguments, and E.P. Brandon's fine-
grained analysis of suppositions and argu-
ment diagramming. 

Critical thinking? Don Levi and Peter 
Davson-Galle revisit the debate over the 
possible limits of argument in settling deep 

disagreements, Stephen Norris presents 
some worries about testing for critical think-
ing dispositions, and Theodore Gracykjoins 
the debate on minimum competency testing 
with a critique of Harvey Siegel's position. 

Rejoinders to claims made in previous 
articles? Walter Ulrich replies to John 
McMurtry's controversial charge of a 
deep-seated fallacy in news reporting, and 
in a teaching note, H. Hamner Hill finds a 
flaw in Peter Facione's suggestions about 
critical thinking testing. 

Book reviews? Our new Reviews 
department features a critical study of 
James Freeman's major monograph on 
argument structure, by Alec Fisher. At last 
we have a review of Harvey Siegel's 
much-discussed theory of critical thinking, 
by Gareth Matthews. And Michael Rowan 
takes a serious look at a new book by the 
influential theorist of thinking, Edward de 
Bono. Many thanks to our reviewers. Book 
review editor Jonathan Adler is pressing 
for more space for his reviews, and we will 
be expanding the reviews section even 
more in future issues. 

Have a good read. 
The next issue, featuring the long-

awaited collection of articles written for 
this journal by members of the speech 
communication community and gathered 
by guest editor Joseph Wenzel, should be 
in your hands by November. 

With the close of another volume, we 
thank you for your past support and ask 
you to extend it into the future by mailing 
your subscriptions to Volume XV prompt-
ly. We still dream of catching up, and think 
that, with all the papers of the upcoming 
volume already lined up, we have a good 
chance of doing so by late 1993 or early 
1994. Thank you for your patience. 

As we go to press, we are saddened to 
learn of the death last year of Walter Ulrich. 

INFORMAL LOGIC is published with the support and generous financial assistance of the Dean of Arts 
and the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.