Intro: The Toulmin Model for Arguments

Intro: The Toulmin Model for Arguments

The Toulmin Argument The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin noticed that good, realistic arguments typically will consist of six parts: Claim: The statement being argued (thesis) Data: The facts or evidence used to prove the argument Warrants: The general, hypothetical logical statements that serve as bridges between the claim and the data. Backing: Statements that serve to support the warrants. Qualifiers: Statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true. Rebuttals: Counter-arguments or statements indicating circumstances when the general argument does not hold true. The point here isn't to "win" or "beat" all the counterarguments; the point is to come as close to the truth or as close to a realistic as you possibly can.

Claim A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. This includes information you are asking them to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. An explicit statement that firmly claims what side of an issue the author will take/argue. Remember, a thesis must always make an arguable claim that foreshadows what the rest of the essay will look like. For example: You should use a hearing aid.

Data (or Grounds, or Evidence) The grounds (data/evidence) is the basis of real persuasion and is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim. It is the 'truth' on which the claim is based. Grounds may also include proof of expertise and the basic premises on which the rest of the argument is built. The data you present should hard evidence from studies, unbiased research, authorities on the subject, etc. For example: Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Warrant A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. This is the moment in the argument wherein you clearly spell out the the connection between the Data and the Claim. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim is true? Warrants may be based on logos, ethos, or pathos that are assumed to be shared with the listener. For example: A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.

Backing The backing (or support) for an argument gives additional support to the warrant by answering different questions. Backing is additional evidence that supports the warrants. For example: Hearing aids are available locally.

Qualifiers Qualifiers are statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true. The qualifier indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. They include words such as 'most', 'usually', 'always' or 'sometimes'. For example: Hearing aids help most people.

Counterargument and Rebuttal Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing and so on. For example: While you might not need a hearing aid immediately, knowing how they work and where to get them isn t a bad idea.

Example Here is an example from John Gage's The Shape of Reason in which the parts are labeled: Congress should ban animal research (Claim) because animals are tortured in experiments that have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of cosmetics (Data). The well being of animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics industry (Warrant). Only congress has the authority to make such a law because the corporations can simply move from state to state to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal). So, the law would probably (Qualifier) have to be carefully written to define the kinds of research intended.

Example After-school jobs create a negative experience for teens because they conflict with the essential goal of success in academics. 1 But based on their higher test scores, students who did not have after school jobs performed better their first year of college. 2 Isabella, a student who did not have an after school job, used that time to study for her SAT test and received a high score. 3 Students who had jobs scored 2% lower than students who did not. 4 It is true some teens, like Will, can successfully balance a part time job and school, many find it difficult to study after a long day of both school and work. 5 While a part time job can be a great way for students to prepare themselves for the real world, but if their academic performance falters, then they are put at a disadvantage. 1. Claim: An arguable statement about after school jobs. 2. Data: Explanation that study time is essential to successful academic performance. 3. Warrants: Explanation of importance of academics versus moneymaking. 4. Backing: Studies of a decline in academic performance once students take on an after-school job. 5. Qualifiers: Most teens do not have enough time to succeed at a job and school, Will is an exception. 6. Counter and Rebuttal: Admits that an after school job can create a positive experience for teens, but it doesn't help academically.