As Booth states, “a warrant is a statement that connects a reason to a claim(152).” Warrants are used to establish the author’s credibility and his knowledge and background on the subject at hand. An author is required to predict the possible questions that the reader might ask and attempt to answer them beforehand to help establish his validity. Because readers may question the truth as well as its relevance, the author should attempt to make the connections between the claim and the reason for the claim clear so that his credibility is not questioned but strengthened. If the reason does not match up with the claim, the author may be questioned and lose his ability to persuade his readers. For instance, Tim Bardin states that because it’s “hard for male, non-reg Aggies to be elected yell leader,” it’s impossible for a “female, non-reg Aggie” to win the election. Though Bardin states a warrant, he does not provide a solid reason for his claim. Many may question the relationship between the two and how one affects the other. Because he doesn’t provide a clear connection, his authenticity is hurt. As one scrolls down to the comments, we see that many question his reasoning for the claim. Why would it be difficult for a female, non-reg Aggie to win the election? Is Bardin saying that because traditionally, males in the reg have won in the past, no one else stands a chance? Could males regs winning in the past be solely because of their personality or does it really have to do with being in the Core of Cadets and having a Y chromosome? Questions like these can really hurt one’s credibility if the reasonings behind the claim are not addressed.