Patient and psychotherapist communication is fundamental to pursuing every therapeutic path with efficacy. In the present paper, we offer an argumentative reading of Bateson's (Bateson 1976/1984) concept of double bind, contextualizing it within the therapeutic intervention. The work aims to investigate the underlying inferential processes at the very core of the double-bind phenomenon. Double bind is first defined following the traditional conception, which designates a communicative situation in which an agent or a group receives (at least) two contradictory messages that force him into an unresolvable dilemma. Then, an argumentative analysis using analytical tools borrowed from modern and contemporary argumentation theories is provided concerning a famous example of a mother-son double bind given by Bateson. We claim that if we think of arguments as `invitations to inference', we can say that the agent causing the double bind uses the two contradictory messages as two different arguments from which the recipient could draw an inference about two implicit standpoints. In this article, we have shed light on the pragmatic features that make a double bind particularly hurtful for the recipient. The argumentative analysis has enabled an in-depth understanding of the communicative processes at the very core of the double bind phenomena, which can in turn be deployed in clinical settings. The article ends with a discussion about the implications and directions for future studies.