Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The epistemic type grounds in knowledge, the deontic type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an attractiveness-based and a majority-based authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the epistemic-assertive sub-scheme (‘an epistemic authority A_E asserts a proposition P’), we apply a meta-level approach to specifying critical questions. Results improve the evaluation of this sub-scheme and show how similar improvements are obtainable for other schemes.

权威论证通过诉诸代理人的权威地位而不是独立于它的理由来为主张提供支持。除少数例外，当前关于论证方案的文献承认两种基本的权威类型。认知型以知识为基础，道义型以权力为基础。我们回顾历史上早期的学术研究如何承认基于吸引力和基于多数的权威类型是同等基本的类型。将这些与基本言语行为类型交叉，从而产生权威论证子方案。专注于认知断言子方案（“认知权威A _E断言命题P ”），我们应用元级方法来指定关键问题。结果改进了该子方案的评估，并显示了其他方案如何获得类似的改进。