A study tested several different cognitive models of the way people use supporting arguments to arrive at belief in a claim. The models tested were (1) the model based on the assumption that human information processing is essentially logical; (2) R. S. Wyer's model; (3) the message-plus-context model; and (4) the weighted average model. One hundred fifty-six college students were administered a pretest, read one or two messages, and then were given a posttest. Each message contained three arguments supporting the same claim. The original outline for each message consisted of a series of three syllogisms, and the messages were written in such a way as to flesh out the premises. The results revealed theoretical and empirical support for the message-plus-context model, but comparably accurate predictions were also achieved from the Wyer and the weighted average models. (FL)