1. The Toulmin Model A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments

2. Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009) Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician was a professor at USC. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning.

3. The three basic elements: Claim (assertion or proposition). WHAT? –You should go to the back of the line! –You should submit your essay to Quintessence. Grounds (proof, grounds, support) WHY? – because I was here for 2 hours. –Because it was the best essay I graded this weekend, and was original and interesting. Warrant (inferential leap) SO WHAT? –1 st come, 1 st served! –Lit mags are always looking for good writers.

4. Claims A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?” Rosario is an American citizen –example: “Rosario is an American citizen, because she was born in the United States.” so he must not be patriotic.” –example: “Chris Christie isn’t wearing a flag pin on his lapel, so he must not be patriotic.” -example: “If you want strong bones and a healthy body, you should drink milk.”

5. More about claims... There are four basic types of claims: fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena (the manager saw you, my friends saw you, it’s on security camera) judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things (Cheating, like line-cutting, is bad.) policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken (late arrivals join the back of the queue) definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to to define a term or what category something falls into

6. Grounds (proof or data) Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers. Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning One reason is that I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.” –example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.” “I made the dinner, –example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

7. More about grounds... Grounds are the support the arguer offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as: –"What is your proof?“ –"How do you know?“ –"Why?” The barometer is falling –example: “It looks like rain. The barometer is falling.” The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at had great pools –example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at had great pools, so I'll bet this one has a great pool too."

8. Still more about grounds... grounds can be based on: –evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof –source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so –analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof –premises already held by the listener

9. Clue words for identifying grounds The grounds for an argument often follow words such as “because,” “since,” “given that…” –example: “Airports should x-ray all luggage because a bomb could be placed in checked baggage.” –example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

10. Warrants The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds. The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message. Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on more than one inferential leap

11. More about warrants... The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim –example: “Snapdragon is running a temperature. I’ll bet he has an infection.” –example: ”That patient should be seen first, he has a serious injury.” (warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection) (warrant: value premises; first-come first served doesn’t hold true in life or death situations)

12. Still more about warrants... warrants can be based on: ethos: source credibility, authority (the security camera is over the line for this reason) logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction (there are plenty of seats for everyone) pathos: emotional or motivational appeals (nobody likes a cheater) value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared by, the receiver(s) note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three

13. the first triad sample argument 1 Claim Grounds Warrant The Hilltoppers are likely to win the ballgame tonight They are playing at home (unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in sports

14. the first triad sample argument 2 Claim Grounds Warrant Slumdog Millionaireis a wonderful movie. Slumdog Millionaireis a wonderful movie. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards (unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

15. the first triad sample argument 3 ClaimGrounds Warrant Biff was probably in a fight He has a black eye (unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

16. the first triad sample argument 4 ClaimGrounds Warrant If you surf at Sandy Hook right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection Runoff from the rain washes bacteria into the ocean (unstated) Cause-effect: bacteria in the water causes surfers to get ill.

17. Limitations regarding the Toulmin model The Toulmin model offers a somewhat static view of an argument Focuses on the argument maker, not the target or respondent Real-life arguments aren’t always neat or clear The Toulmin model is an analytical tool –Useful for dissecting arguments before or after they’ve been made –Not as useful, practical in the “heat” of an argument Since warrants are unstated, different listeners may perceive them differently

18. The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows: Claim: The overall thesis the writer will argue for. Reason/Data: Evidence gathered to support the claim. Warrant (also referred to as a bridge): Explanation of why or how the data supports the claim, the underlying assumption that connects your data to your claim. Backing (also referred to as the foundation): Additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant. Counterclaim: A claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim. Rebuttal: Evidence that negates or disagrees with the counterclaim.

19. Example: Claim: Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution. Reason/Data1: Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity. Warrant 1: Because cars are the largest source of private, as opposed to industry produced, air pollution switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution. Reason/Data 2: Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years. Warrant 2: Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that a decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels. Reason/Data 3: Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor. Warrant 3: This combination of technologies means that less pollution is produced. According to ineedtoknow.org "the hybrid engine of the Prius, made by Toyota, produces 90 percent fewer harmful emissions than a comparable gasoline engine." Counterclaim: Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages a culture of driving even if it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging use of mass transit systems. Rebuttal: While mass transit is an environmentally sound idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work; thus hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.

20. Outline of a Toulmin Argument ClaimThe federal government should ban smoking. QualifierThe ban would be limited to public spaces. Good Reasons/DataSmoking causes serious diseases in smokers. Nonsmokers are endangered by secondhand smoke. WarrantsThe Constitution promises to “promote the general welfare.” Citizens are entitled to protection from harmful actions by others. BackingThe United States is based on a political system that is supposed to serve the basic needs of its people, including their health. EvidenceNumbers of deaths attributed to secondhand smoke. Lawsuits recently won against large tobacco companies, citing the need for reparation for smoking-related health care costs Examples of bans already imposed in many public places AuthorityCite the surgeon general. Conditions of RebuttalSmokers have rights, too. Smoking laws should be left to the states. Such a ban could not be enforced. ResponseThe ban applies to public places; smokers can smoke in private. The power of the federal government to impose other restrictions on smoking (such as warning labels on cigarettes and bans on cigarette advertisements on television) has survived legal challenges. The experience of NYC, which has imposed such a ban, suggests that enforcement would not be a significant problem.