[Adler, J. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation 27: 245-257.10.1007/s10503-012-9286-3]Search in Google Scholar
[Blair, J. A. (2016). A defence of conduction: a reply to Adler. Argumentation 30(2): 109-128.10.1007/s10503-015-9368-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Blair, J. A. & Johnson, R.H. (eds.). (2011). Conductive argument: an overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.]Search in Google Scholar
[Botting, D. (forthcoming). The fallacy of sweeping generalization. Presented at the 20th NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation in Alta, Utah, U.S.A on 20th to 23rd July 2017. In Winkler C. (ed.) Networking Argument, Selected Papers from the 20th Biennial Conference on Argumentation (forthcoming), National Communication Association.]Search in Google Scholar
[Botting, D. (2012). Wellman’s typology of arguments. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 28(41): 23-43.]Search in Google Scholar
[Engel, S. M. (1976). With good reason: an introduction to the informal fallacies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hursthouse, R. (1995). Fallacies and moral dilemmas. Argumentation 9: 617-632.10.1007/BF00737782]Search in Google Scholar
[Stocker, M. (1992). Dirty hands and conflicts of values and of desires in Aristotle’s Ethics. In Plural and Conflicting Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 51-84.10.1093/0198240554.003.0004]Search in Google Scholar
[Watson, G. (2004a). Responsibility and the limits of evil. In Agency and answerability, 219-259. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272273.003.0009]Search in Google Scholar
[Watson, G. (2004b). Two faces of responsibility. In Agency and answerability, 260-288. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272273.003.0010]Search in Google Scholar
[Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response: justification in ethics. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
