ENGL1010 Composition IPhilosopher Stephen Toulmin offered a model for argument focuses on explaining the "underlying assumptions" to an argument in order to reach an audience that may view things differently than the writer (Clark 83-4). Toulmin recognized that modern arguments are based on probability rather than strictly logical, conclusive arguments (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 31). Toulmin's approach takes into consideration the audience's reaction to an argument, including exceptions to the argument that an audience might offer, by limiting the assertions in the argument to specific conditions. In this way, unlike traditional debate, writers remain sensitive and responsive to the views of the audience (Clark 85).
The Toulmin model includes six parts:
Depending on the nature of the argument, these six elements may not be presented in precisely this order. The writer must decide what is the most effective way of presenting these elements depending on dependent on the "the audience, the cultural context, and the rhetorical situation" or writer's purpose (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 35). Generally, however, a simple outline of an essay following Toulmin's model might look something like this:
Thesis: Claim
The claim is the conclusion to be proven (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 31), "thesis to be established" (Barnet and Bedau 255), or "point at issue" (Kneupper 238) in the argument. A claim may be a "statement of belief"(Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 31) or the "purpose, goal, or aim" of the argument (Barnet and Bedau 251). The claim can be compared to the conclusion statement of a syllogism (Clark 84).
The data of the argument parallels the minor premise of a syllogism and equals the grounds for the argument, that is, the totality of support for the claim. This support can be in the form of explicit reasons (Barnet and Bedau 255), evidence, facts, information (Clark 84), expert opinion, or values (Yagelski and Miller 32).
The warrants parallel the major premise of a syllogism (Clark 86) and explain why the data is sufficient support for the claim (Barnet and Bedau 253). The warrant serves as a "guarantee" for the argument (Barnet and Bedau 253), demonstrating or defending how the data supports the claim (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 31; Barnet and Bedau 255). Warrants may be laws, assumptions, or beliefs (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 33), which may or may not be readily accepted by an audience (Yagelski, Miller, and Crouse-Powers 34). Warrants may include definitions for key terms, an argument simpler than the argument at hand but which parallels the more complex argument being made, or a representative sample, that is simple and inclusive or that illustrates a special case (Barnet and Bedau 253)
The backing provides support for the warrant (Clark 84), showing the validity of the warrant (Clark 86). The backing is specific to the type of argument and responsive to challenges (Barnet and Bedau 254). The backing explores and explains the implicit assumptions that underlie the warrant (Barnet and Bedau 255).
The qualifiers explain the extent of the truth of the claim, that is, the situations or circumstances under which the claim applies (Clark 84). Arguments can be qualified on a continuum ranging from necessary to probable to plausible to possible and quantified on a continuum ranging from all to most to some to a few (Barnet and Bedau 255).
Rebuttals are the arguments against the claim or the "weak spots" in an argument (Barnet and Bedau 256). The conditions of rebuttal relate to the situations or circumstances where the claim might not apply or may respond to potential arguments the audience might make against the claim (Clark 85).
Resources
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan and Hugo Bedau. Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 1999.
Clark, Irene L. The Genre of Argument. Boston: Thomson Heinle, 1998.
Kneupper, Charles W. "Teaching Argument: An Introduction to the Toulmin Model." College Composition and Communication 29.3 (Oct. 1978): 237-41. JSTOR. JSTOR. Kolwyck Library, Chattanooga. 30 July 2007 <http://www.jstor.org>.
Yagelski, Robert P., Robert K. Miller, and Amy J. Crouse-Powers. The Informed Argument. 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2004.
ENGL1010 Composition I