The Toulmin Model in Brief A popular form of argument is the Toulmin model (other forms include classical and Rogerian). This model is named after Stephen Toulmin, who in The Uses of Argument proposed that every good argument has six parts. The first three parts are essential to all argument. They include: 1) the c,aim, 2) the support, and 3) the warr, nt. Arguments may also contain one or more of three additional elements: 4) the backing, 5) tht rebuttal, and 6) the qualifier. CJajrn The claim is the main point of the argument. Plan a claim of your own by asking, ''What do I want to prove?" Your response is your claim. Synonyms for claim are thesis, proposition, conclusion and main point. Like a thesis, the claim can either be explicit or implicit. Whether it is implied or explicitly stated, the claim organizes the entire argument, and everything else in the argument is related to it. The best way to check your claim during revision is by completing this statement: ''I have convinced my audience to think that..." Support supplies the evidence, opinions, reasoning, examples, and factual information about the claim that make it poss.ble for the reader to accept it. Synonyms for support are proof, evidence and reasons. To plan support, ask, "what information do 1 need to supply to convince my audience of my main point (claim). Common types of support irhudao o o I ) facts and statistics 2) opinions (authorities and personal). When using personal opinion, it should be convincing, original, impressive and interesting and backed by factual knowledge, experience, good reasoning and judgment. Rantings, unfounded personal opinions that no one else accepts, or feeble reasons like "because I said so" or "because everyone does it" are not effective support 3) examples in the form of anecdotes, scenarios and cases). When revising your argument, to help you focus on and recognize the support, complete this sentence: "I want my audier.ce to believe that... [the claim] because... [list the support]." Wjriants Warrants are the assumptions, general principles, the conventions of specific disciplines, widely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, and appeals to human motives that are an important part of any argument. Warrants originate with the arguer, but also exist in the minds of the audience. They can be shared by the arguer and the audience or they can be in conflict.
Warrants represent the psychology of an argument in that they reveal the unspoken beliefs and_values_ofthe_aiithqr..and invjtejhejga^jjojxamii^^ make comparisons. and_ Example: I am pro-life. Warrants: Religious: a) abortion is a sin, b) life begins at conception is additional evidence provided to support or "back up" a warrant whenever there is a strong possibility that your audience will reject it. When reviewing your argument to determine whether backing is needed, identify the warrant and then determine whether or not you accept it. If you do not, try to anticipate additional information that would make it more acceptable. A rebuttal establishes what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an argument and may also present counterarguments, or new arguments that represent entirely different perspectives or points of view on the issue. Plan a rebuttal by asking, "what are the other possible views on this issue?" and "how can I answer them? Phrases that introduce refutation include, "some n ay disagree," "others may think," o "other commonly held opinions are," followed by the opposing ideas. Qualifiers An argument is not expected to demonstrate certainties. Instead, it usually only establishes probabilities. Therefore, avoid presenting information as absolutes or certainties. Qualify what you say with phrases such as "very likely," "probably," "it seems," and "many." ^^ ftrnnnrk (minor premise, data, evidence, support) Is evidence offered to support the claim'.' Is the evidence relevant to the claim'' \Varrant standard, criteria, values, beliefs) ( Claim (conclusion.thesis, assertion, position) ^ Is the claim one of fact, va ue or policy? Does the claim follow logical from the grounds and warrant V (facts, statistics, expertise, etc.) 1. Are all examples representative of the whole group, sufficient in number, credible to the audience? 2. Are statistics up to date, free of built-in bias, from a reliable source, used in context of other relevant statistics? 3. Are sources of testimony credible to the audience? VHHHBBHjjHB] ^^^ PHl^H^^^^^^MiH^^M^^H^Hv 1. What principles (legal, functional, esthetic, moral, ethical, etc.) are implied or stated for the c aim? 2. What other kind of warrant (generalization, sign.authority. cause, analogy, etc.) i. implied or stated? l,^hmhmh» W (reasons, assurances) 1 Is the relevance of each warrant to the claim substantiated by specific I I P SHPIPPI_ 1 Qualification (degree of doubt or certainty) 1. Is i made clear under what circumstances, for whom, to what exten, etc., the claim applies? 2. Are qualifiers (usaalli, to a great e.ueni) used appropriately? " 11 V 1 Rebuttal exceptions, bases for degree of dout certainly) Are antithetical claims and their warra acknowledged? Is evidence inconsiste with the claim acknowledged? v tor its nt
Using the Toulmin Model Stephei Toulmin ( 77ze {yses of Argwrent) provided a model of argument structure that gives us a tool for both evaluating and.naking arguments. The main parts of Toulmin's model are the claim (or conclusion), the grounds (also called the stated reason), and the warrant (also called the unstated assumption in the case of enthymemes). Let's examine a few arguments. 1. Initial argument: After-school snorts programs are bad for teenagers because they take away study time. After school sports programs are bad for teenagers they take away study time [loss of study time is bad for teenagers] 2. Initial argument: After school sports programs are good for teenagers because they teach responsibility, icam work, and time management. 3. Initial argument: Aquatic turtle:; make good pets for children because they are gentle. 4. Initial argument Aquatic Turtle make bad pets because they can carry salmonella poisoning 5. Initial argument: Sid is a bad team captain because he is too bossy 6. Initial argument: Sid is a good team captain because he is decisive in moments of crisis. 7. Initial argument: Cocaine and Heroin should not be legalized because legalization would greatly increase the number of drug addicts. Page 1 of 6
8. Unstated assumption Initial argument: Cocaine and heroin should be legalized because legalization would eliminate the black market in drugs. 9. Initial argument: Karate class is good for children because it promotes self confidence. 10. Initial argument: Karate class is bad for children because it encourages violence. 11. Initial argument: Welfare benefits for unwed mothers should be eliminated because elimination would greatly reduce the nation's illegitimacy rate. 12. Initial argument: Welfare benefits for unwed mothers should be retained in order to prevent poverty and hunger You almost certainly discovered that when you examined some of the unstated assumptions (as well as some of the stated reasons) you round yourself in disagreement. (It would be hard not to, since many of the arguments are mutually exclusive). What you have discovered, of course, is that arguments need more than just claims, reasons, and warrants. Often both stated reasons and warrants need support or backing in the form of examples, statistics, witnesses, expert testimony anything that might be called "nonrhetorical means of persuasion". Such backing is generally called evidence. It is a good exercise to imagine someone challenging each reason and warrant with a question such as "Why do you think so?" or "How do you know that?" What kind of backing might be necessary to persuade a reader or listener to accept each of the stated reasons and unstated assumptions in the previous arguments. Imagine some kind of backing for stated reason and each unstated assumption. It is sometimes possible for a reader or listener to accept both the stated reason and the underlying assumption yet still reject the conclusion. Consider the following argument: Page 2 of 6
We should legalize cocaine and heroin because taxes raised by the sale of these legalized drugs would provide needed revenue for many valuable government programs. Fill in the argument structure: We should legalise cocaine and heroin Now imagine an opponent saying, "\t a minute. Won't high taxes simply raise the price of the drugs and create a black market, with all the crime and violence involved in a black market?" The opponent agrees that money would be raised and that the money is needed, yet feels that other considerations may outweigh these factors. The opponent has provided a condition of rebuttal for the argument. Any exceptions to either the warrant (the unstated assumption) or the stated reason may potentially derail an argument. Thus a shrewd arguer will anticipate such cbj ctions and provide for them in advance by qualifying the claim: We should probably legalize cocaine and heroin because taxes raised by the sale of these legalized drugs would provide some needed revenue for many valuable government programs, as long as we don't raise the taxes on such drugs to the level that they would encourage a black market. The words "probably" and "some" are qualifiers, and the words "as long as we don't raise th: taxes on such drugs to the le' el that they would encourage a black market" make up a condition for rebuttal. At this point, we have the beginning of an argument. What is now needed is the actual evidence or backing for both the stated reason and the unstated warrant, along with some assurance that the conditions of rebuttal will not be reached that is, assurance that the taxes will be low enough to make T bhck market impractical. Please note, however, that a full argument for the legalization of drugs will involve many more such stated reasons and underlying warrants, each with its own needs for backing and conditions of rebuttal. Now go back to the first ten examples and imagine the full Toulmin structure. On the charts provided or on your own charts, fill in each of the statements and suggest both the kinds of backing needed and potential conditions of rebuttal. Then try to construct an arguable thesis statement for each. Page 3 of 6
Grounds (minor premise, data, evidence, support) Is evidence offered to support the claim? Is the evidence relevant to the claim'.' (facts, statistics, expertise, etc.) 1. Are all examples representative of the whole group, sufficient in number, credible to the audience? 2. Are statistics up to date, free of built-in bias, from a reliable source, used in context of other relevant statistics1' 3. Are sources of testimony credible to the audience'? Warrant (major premise, principle, assumption, standard, criteria, values, beliefs) 1. What principles (legal, functional, esthetic, moral, ethical, etc.) are implied or stated for the claim? 2. What other kind of warrant (generalization, sign.authority. cause, analogy, etc.) i. implied or stated? (reasons, assurances) Is the relevance of each warrant to the claim substantiated by specific explanation? Claim (conclusion,thesis, assertion, position) Is the claim one of fact, value, or policy? Does the claim follow logically from the grounds and warrant? Qualification (degree of doubt or certainty) 1. Is it made clear under what circumstances, for whom, to what extent, etc., the claim applies? 2. Are qualifiers (usitalljl to a great extent) used appropriately? I Rebuttal (exceptions, bases for degree of doubt or certainty) Are antithetical claims and their warrants acknowledged? Is evidence inconsistent with the claim acknowledged'.' Page 4 of 6
One of Toulmin's samples: Grounds Petersen is a Swede Claim Swen Petersen is not a Roman Catholic He was born in Sweden of Swedish parents. Futher, he is a Swedish citizen with a S\h passport. Wirrant A Swede can generally be taken not to be a Roman Catholic Qualification "almost certainly The proportion of catholics in Sweden is very low: "According to Whitakers Almanac, less than 2% of Swedes are Roman Catholic" Rebuttal Unless Petersen is one of the 2% Page5 of 6
stated reason/grounds unstated assumption or warrant? backing (what is necessary to support the stated reason?) backing (what is necessary to support the assumption or warrant?) stated reason/grounds unstated assumption or warrant? L backing (what is necessary to support the stated reason?) backing (what is necessary to support the assumption or warrant?) Page 6 of 6