Scribd
Upload
351 views

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation breaks down arguments into six parts: claim, evidence, warrant, backing, counterargument, and qualifier. Created by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, it involves analyzing the grounds (evidence), claim, and warrant - the assumption connecting the evidence to the claim. While the model provides a framework for constructing arguments, it does not address the underlying questions of the argument.

Uploaded by

andreaivydy1993
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
351 views

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation breaks down arguments into six parts: claim, evidence, warrant, backing, counterargument, and qualifier. Created by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, it involves analyzing the grounds (evidence), claim, and warrant - the assumption connecting the evidence to the claim. While the model provides a framework for constructing arguments, it does not address the underlying questions of the argument.

Uploaded by

andreaivydy1993
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation

One method of constructing or analyzing a persuasive argument is the Toulmin model, named for its
creator, British rhetorician Stephen Toulmin. The method involves breaking an argument down into
six basic parts, objectively weighing and supporting points both for and against the argument. Below,
Prof. David Furman has provided a video outlining the uses and parts of the Toulmin model of
argumentation.

Transcribed notes:
1. The Toulmin model breaks an argument down into six main parts:
 Claim: assertion one wishes to prove.
 Evidence: support or rationale for the claim.
 Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence
supports the claim.
 Backing: tells audience why the warrant is a rational one. In scholarly essays, the warrant and
backing would be the areas most supported by factual evidence to support the legitimacy of
their assertion. In casual arguments, the warrant and backing are often taken for granted.
 Counterargument/Rebuttal: addresses potential objections to the claim.
 Qualifier: additions to the claim that add nuance and specificity to its assumption, helping to
counter rebuttals.

2. The Toulmin method can be used as a framework to test an argument's validity by identifying the
claim, evidence, warrants, backing, possible rebuttals, and possible qualifiers. In an academic essay,
the warrant and backing would be allotted the most in-depth discussion because these aspects are
normally unstated and taken for granted in casual arguments.
3. The Toulmin model provides writers with a way to formulate or test an argument in detail, but:
 The effectiveness of the model depends on how well one thinks critically and creatively about
his or her arguments.
 The model only acts as a heuristic for constructing an argument, not for writing the paper
itself.

The Toulmin method is an informal method of reasoning. Created by the British


philosopher Stephen Toulmin, it involves the grounds (data), claim, and warrant of
an argument.[1] The Toulmin method suggests that these three parts are all necessary to support a
good argument. The grounds are the evidence used to prove a claim. The warrant is the assumption
or principle that connects the grounds to the claim. All three parts are critical to achieving rhetorical
analysis.[2]

Examples
For an example: "Harry was born in Bermuda, so Harry must be a British subject."
In the above sentence, the phrase "Harry was born in Bermuda" is the data. This is evidence to
support the claim. The claim in the sentence above is "Harry must be a British subject." The warrant
is not explicitly stated in this sentence; it is implied. The warrant is something like this, "A man born
in Bermuda will be a British subject." It is not necessary to state the warrant in a sentence. Usually,
one explains the warrant in following sentences. Other times, like in the sentence above, the speaker
of the sentence assumes the listener already knows the fact that all people born in Bermuda are
British subjects.

Another example: "Steve bought apple juice for himself, so he must like apple juice."
This argument provides the data, claim, and warrant. The data would be the fact that Steve bought
apple juice for himself. The claim is that Steve must like apple juice. The warrant is that people who
buy apple juice, drink it, which means that they must like it, or else they wouldn't drink it. Again, the
warrant is considered background knowledge and unnecessary to repeat in the argument. If one
were to expound this argument, however, it would be helpful to explain the warrant.

Techniques
An author usually will not bother to explain the warrant because it is too obvious. It is usually an
assumption or a generalization. However, the author must make sure the warrant is clear because
the reader must understand the author's assumptions and why the author assumes these opinions.
An example of an argument with an unclear warrant is like this: "Drug abuse is a serious problem in
the United States. Therefore, the United States must help destroy drug production in Latin America."
This may leave the reader confused. By inserting the warrant in between the data and the claim,
though, would make the argument clearer. Something like, "As long as drugs are manufactured in
Latin America, they will be smuggled into the United States, and drug abuse will continue." This
phrase makes clear why the evidence relates to the claim. One must be cautious as to deciding
whether or not to include the warrant in the argument because flaws in the argument could be
obvious.

Backing, rebuttals, and qualifiers are also typical additions to this argument. The backing is added
logic or reasoning that may be needed to convince the audience and further support the warrant if it
is not initially accepted. Rebuttals are used as a preemptive method against any counter-arguments.
These acknowledge the limits of the claim, considering certain conditions where it would not hold
true. Usually following is a counter-argument or presentation of new evidence to further support the
original claim. Qualifiers are words that quantify the argument. They include words such as 'most',
'usually', 'always', 'never', 'absolutely' or 'sometimes'. These can either strongly assert arguments or
make them vague and uncertain.

Criticism
One criticism of the Toulmin method is that it does not consider the question in argumentation.[3] The
Toulmin method assumes that an argument starts with a fact or claim and ends with a conclusion,
but ignores an argument's underlying questions. In the example "Harry was born in Bermuda, so
Harry must be a British subject", the question "Is Harry a British subject?" is ignored, which also
neglects to analyze why particular questions are asked and others are not.

You might also like