corrections 

Inadvertently, some words were omitted from G.A. 
Spangler's critical review of Fogelin's Understanding 
Arguments in ILN, v, 2. The omission occurs on page 29, the 
left column, line 5. After the words "a series of statements," 
the following words should be inserted: "and an argument 
respectively. A series of statements can be formulated in a list 
of sentences, Le., a list of sentences used to express a series of 
statements. On the other hand ... ": 

Hence the entire paragraph, which begins on page 28, will 
read as follows: 

Fogelin's suggestion about avoiding this difficulty goes 
as follows: let us speak of lists of sentences and series of 
statements. Then we can draw a distinction between a 
series of statements and an argument. "This 
difference," he writes, "is reflected in the sentences us-
ed to express a series of statements and an argument 
respectively. A series of statements can be formulated in 
a list of sentences, Le., a list of sentences can be used to 
express a series of statements. On the other hand, spec-
ial markers are needed to indicate that the sentences 
are being used to express an argument. These markers I 
call warranting connectives. We employ sentences con-
taining warranting connectives to formulate or express 
arguments. It is for this reason that warranting connec-
tives indicate the existence of arguments and serve as a 
guide to the structure of arguments." 

We apologize to both Professor Spangler and to Professor 
Fogelin for this omission. 

Also, a bibliographic entry was omitted from James B. 
Freeman's article, "logical Form, Probability Interpretations 
and the Inductive/Deductive Distinction" in the Informal Logic: 
Newsletter, v. 2 (june, 1983), p. 10. After entry (8) (right col-
umn, line 11), the following should be inserted: 

(9) . "Deduction, Induction and Conduction." 
ILN iiL2, (1981), 7-15. 

We apologize to Professor Freeman for this omission .• 

32 

from the editors, confd. 

Fourth, and very far from least, we have been mindful of 
the many subscribers to the Informal Logic Newsletter who 
have urged us not to change it into a journal. They cited the 
unstuffy informality of the publication, its easy access, its lack 
of submission-publication lag, the quick publication of 
"replies", its various departments of service to reader-users. 
To those readers we say, please keep the faith. With the co· 
operation of our board of referees, we plan to continue to 
have a very fast submission-publication interval, and replies 
from authors criticized will be sought immediately. Also, we 
see no reason why a journal has to become leaden and 
pretentious. Witness Teaching Philosophy, which Arnold 
Wilson has kept fresh and lively, while maintaining high 
editorial standards. In effect, the publication we envisage will 
be a journal-cum-newsletter. If this is a new hybrid, then so 
much the better: informal logic is once again innovative! The 
fact is that the field needs both, and this seems the obvious 
organ to fill both needs. 

One final note. Only slight modifications have been made 
in the format of this journal's predecessor, the Informal Logic 
Newsletter. Time and money were both factors in this deci· 
sion. However, the situation is temporary. We anticipate 
changes in format for Informal Logic: in the not too distant 
future .• 

Acknowledgements 

For help in the preparation of this issue, the editors would like 
to acknowledge the assistance of Diane Babcock, our typeset-
ter, and of Professor Peter Wilkinson and Pamela Courtenay 
Hall for their help in the paste-up. For their help in the 
preparation of the Informal Logic: Newsletter, volume v, 
numbers ii and iii, the editors are indebted to both Kate Parr 
and Pamela Courtenay Hall for their much appreciated 
assistance .•