Personal explanationsExplanation purport to show some action of some agent intelligible on the basis of the agent’s beliefs, desires, intentions. The explanans then is a personal generalization and its corresponding warrantWarrant a personal warrant. Are personal generalizations supported by objective knowledge? The claimClaim that we have defeasible perceptual knowledge of the mental states of others has plausibilityPlausibility. We can perceive signs that someone else is in pain. Further, we claimClaim common knowledgeCommon knowledge of acceptable generalizations concerning other mindsOther minds and thus of their corresponding warrantsWarrant. One who ignites a fuse wants it to light. Also, alternative personal explanationsExplanation for an action are a matter of common knowledgeCommon knowledge. The strength of a personal generalization may be ranked according to the plausibilityPlausibility of the generalization in comparison with its alternatives. Plausible alternative personal explanationsExplanation constitute rebuttalsRebuttal to a given personal explanationExplanation and thus to its covering generalization and its corresponding warrantWarrant. In an argument with a personal warrantWarrant, connection adequacy is a matter of the warrant’sWarrant resistance to potential rebuttalsRebuttal. The premisesPremise of an argument with a personal warrantWarrant will be adequately connected to the conclusionConclusion when plausible potential rebuttalsRebuttal have been countered and the uncountered rebuttalsRebuttal are so implausible that they may be disregarded.