The Toulmin’s Model of Argument

STEPHEN TOULMIN of the University of Chicago is one of the most influential argumentation theorists in the twentieth century. In his The Uses of Argument, he proposed a model of argument which many deem practical and useful.

Claim, Data, and Warrant

The most basic parts of argument for him are the claim and the data. Basically, the claim is the conclusion or the statement one hopes to establish, whereas the data is the premise or one of the premises of an argument or the evidence, facts, or reasoning used to support the claim. In the argument, “Prices of commodities will rise, since oil price is continually increasing this year,” the claim is “prices of commodities will rise” while the data is “oil price is continually increasing this year.” Both the data and the claim have to be explicit in any argument.

But how do we proceed from the data to the claim? It is through the third element Toulmin calls the warrant. Warrant refers to the assumption that permits us to move from the data to what we want to establish. Inour example, the data justifies the claim only if we assume that continual oil price increases result in rising of commodities’ price. Our argument thus appears this way:

Data: Oil price is continually increasing this year.

Warrant: Continual oil price increases result in rising of commodities’ price.

Claim: Price of commodities will rise.

Notice that the warrant is vital in effective argumentation since it can make our arguments strong or weak, acceptable or ignorable. But where do warrants come from? It is explained by what Toulmin calls argument field concept.An argument field is a collection of individuals who share common discipline and thus have shared standards for argument. Astronomy, for instance, could be considered one field, Ethics another one.

It is acknowledged that each field of argument has its own kind of reasoning. Reasoning in theology, for example, is different from reasoning in science or arts. Hence,arguments that are effective in one field may not be appealing in other fields. To prove, for instance, that a certain act is immoral, it is important in Theology that one cites verses from Holy Scriptures that the act is prohibited. In Sociology however, the arguer rather has to point out, for instance, the evil consequences of the alleged immoral act. (This is, of course, not to say that acts considered immoral by the Holy Scriptures cannot be demonstrated to have unfavorable consequences in the society.)

Not to propose that reasoning is relative, Toulmin nonetheless mentions of another type of warrant. Aside from the field variant warrant which applies only to arguments that take place within a field, there is the field invariant warrant which applies to all fields of argument. (What we call as ‘common sense’ and ‘prudence’ play a role in this kind of warrant. Regardless of the various discipline or profession we practice, it is hard for us to refute, for instance, what common sense and prudence tell us that ‘killing babies for fun is immoral.’)

Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier

In addition to the three aforesaid components of arguments, Toulmin introduces three more which further illustrate how crucial warrants are in arguments:

(1) the backingwhichsupports the warrant;

(2) the rebuttal(or reservation)which is the exception to the warrant; and,

(3) the qualifierwhichdesignates the amount of certainty in a claim based on the warrant used.

In our example, the field of Economics can be our backing, noting that members of that field tend to support our warrant. Records in History could also strengthen our warrant.

But one exception to our warrant is government intervention or regulation of commodities’ prices. As this is a case in which our warrant does not support our inference, this therefore could serve as the rebuttal (or reservation).

Weighing our warrant vis-à-vis its backing and rebuttal, we can still say that most likely price of commodities will rise. Hence, we can make use of the word “probably” as our qualifier. Note that the warrant, backing, and rebuttal used must be considered in choosing between a more forceful or less certain qualifier. Other qualifiers which could be used are ‘presumably’, ‘generally’, and ‘plausibly’.

The full form of our sample argument would look like this:

Data: Oil price is continuously increasing this year.

Warrant: Continuous oil price increases result in rising of commodities’ price.

Backing: In the past, when we have had recurring gas price hike, rise in price of commodities has followed.

Rebuttal: Unless the government issues a moratorium on commodities’ price.

Qualifier: (But considering all these things)Probably …

Claim: Price of commodities will rise.

Application

Although the explicit complete form of argument in Toulmin’s model may be rarely seen in ordinary argumentation, studying it can help us in many ways, especially in debates. For one thing, it enables us to identify the unstated assumptions in one’s arguments. Being able to discern the unspoken warrant could help us evaluate arguments and refute them if needed.

Furthermore, Toulmin’s model can help us to analyze and improve our own arguments, and anticipate opposing arguments, especially if we are preparing for a debate, discussion, or forum.

Another thing to remember about Toulmin model is that it does not prescribe any specific pattern in which the components must be arranged. The claim may come before or after the discussion of both the data and warrant. Moreover, the warrant—especially when it’s obvious and agreeable—may be purposely unstated. This model of argument therefore is a great advantage for creative writers or public speakers.

Oftentimes dubbed as a synthesis of induction and deduction, Toulmin model also allows the combination of both forms of reasoning and the construction of convincing arguments without being bound by rigid or prefabricated method of inference. Also, it permits us to make different types of claims with varying degrees of certainty and combine various bases such as facts, statistics, expert opinions, testimonies, case studies, surveys and even appeals to the values of our target audience.

As a final note nonetheless, Toulmin model does not demand that we abandon inductive and deductive reasoning. These various forms of reasoning do not cancel out but complement each other. Mastering them all is definitely an advantage, for having many choices in the manner we prove our point is a luxury and not a burden. (© 2014 by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com)

ALSO CHECK OUT:
Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog

Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog