#toulmin

There are 3 basic structures or types of argument:

Toulmin Argument

Rogerian Argument

Classical or Aristotelian Argument

The Toulmin Argument

Although the Toulmin method was originally developed to analyze arguments, some professors ask students to model its components.

Each of these serves a different purpose, and deciding which type to use depends upon the rhetorical situation.

In other words, you have to think about what is going to work best for your audience given your topic and the situation in which you are writing.

There are 6 elements for analyzing, and, in this case, presenting arguments that are important to the Toulmin method.

Claims - A statement of opinion that the author is asking her or his audience to accept as true.

Grounds - The facts, data, or reasoning upon which the claim is based. Essentially, the grounds are the facts making the case for the claim.

Warrant - What links the grounds to the claim. This is what makes the audience understand how the grounds are connected to supporting the claim. Sometimes, the warrant is implicit (not directly stated), but the warrant can be stated directly as well. As a writer, you are making assumptions about what your audience already believes, so you have to think about how clear your warrant is and if you need to state it directly for your audience. You must also think about whether or not a warrant is actually an unproven claim.

Backing - Gives additional support for the claim by addressing different questions related to your claim.

Qualifier - Essentially the limits to the claim or an understanding that the claim is not true in all situations. Qualifiers add strength to claims because they help the audience understand the author does not expect her or his opinion to be true all of the time or for her or his ideas to work all of the time. If writers use qualifiers that are too broad, such as “always” or “never,” their claims can be really difficult to support. Qualifiers like “some” or “many” help limit the claim, which can add strength to the claim.

Rebuttal - Is when the author addresses the opposing views. The author can use a rebuttal to pre-empt counter arguments, making the original argument stronger.

These elements of a Toulmin analysis can help you as both a reader and a writer.

When you’re analyzing arguments as a reader, you can look for these elements to help you understand the argument and evaluate its validity.

When you’re writing an argument, you can include these same elements in to ensure your audience will see the validity in your claims.

Examples

Claims. There should be more laws to regulate texting while driving in order to cut down on dangerous car accidents.

Grounds. The National Safety Council estimates that 1.6 million car accidents per year are caused by cell phone use and texting.

Warrant. Being distracted by texting on a cell phone while driving a car is dangerous and causes accidents.

Backing. With greater fines and more education about the consequences, people might think twice about texting and driving.

Qualifier. There should be more laws to regulate texting while driving in order to cut down on some of the dangerous car accidents that happen each year.

Rebuttal. Although police officers are busy already, making anti-texting laws a priority saves time, money, and lives. Local departments could add extra staff to address this important priority.

The Toulmin method, developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, is essentially a structure for analyzing arguments.

But the elements for analysis are so clear and structured that many professors now have students write argumentative essays with the elements of the Toulmin method in mind.

This type of argument works well when there are no clear truths or absolute solutions to a problem.

Toulmin arguments take into account the complex nature of most situations.

Look out, it’s another hot take!

Many of you probably saw the recent articlefrom Scientific American.  It’s another in a long line of opinion pieces talking about how scientific communicators are probably doing it wrong in one way or another. We will get to my own hot take in a bit, but this article bothered me in particular because it’s thesis statement was, “…are we leading audiences to rely…

The European Balance of Power and Systems theory.

I love English humor, humor that is dry, witty, and politically intellectual. Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are fascinating English comedians along with Rowan Atkinson, Eddie Izzard, and the crew of Monty Python and the Young Ones. Here you see these comedians poke up fun of the Treaty of Westphalia in their wonderful British fashion.

I initially posted this because I absolutely love both British humor and historical humor. This was right up my alley. The almost blasé attempt at dividing the European balance of power. That alone was why I incorporated this video in this post.

But then I discovered an analysis which coupled with this comedic bit very well. In my study of general systems theory I read a lecture by Niklas Luhmann where he attributes the development of systems theory to the mid-17th century. It was an emerging concept and sociological discipline that believed in the same concepts of social balance and systemic equilibrium that coincided with the development of this treaty. In the lecture he says:

Therefore let us start by getting to the points of departure of general systems theory. One line of development can be seen in the metaphor or the models that worked with the concept of an equilibrium or balance. To begin with, this approach had a mathematical foundation insofar as one worked with mathematical functions. But the metaphor itself is also of interest, independent of its mathematical connections, since it belongs, after all, to the oldest sources of systemic thinking. …I do not know when exactly this metaphor took root, but by the seventeenth century it was already taken for granted and used in the idea of the “balance of trade.” Moreover, by the end of the century it also motivated the idea of an international, specifically a European, balance of power between nations (or political factors). (Luhmann, pg. 26)

Not only does the dawn of systems theory begin around the time of the treaty of Westphalia but Luhmann also suggests that it shared the same social metaphor with the architects of this treaty. As Toulmin suggested in another post I wrote, social metaphors often flow from cosmological beliefs. The mid-17th century was dominated by the mechanical social metaphor which believed in some form of mathematical certainty to the cosmos and constructed their social program with the same sense of mathematical certainty and functional equilibrium.

But Luhmann’s point is that this metaphor, as useful as it may have been back then, no longer has relevance with a social order and it does not speak to the cosmology we now recognize. Ours is much more dynamic, interrelated, uncertain (probable) and organic. It is good to consider the metaphor of a quantum, a discrete amount of energy that seems to motivate the process for how matter interacts, as the dominant cosmological for us rather than the well ordered machine. We can now look at treaties like Westphalia and recognize them as utterly simple and ineffective. Luhmann offers a critique of this in the very next paragraph:

Thus, the metaphor presupposes a certain mechanics, a certain mode of implementation, and a certain infrastructure, all of which ensure that the equilibrium is maintained. It is this viewpoint that coincides with the dominant idea that theories of equilibrium are theories of stability. However, if one examines the matter more closely - this assumption becomes questionable. If we take our lead from the image of scales with their two sides in balance, it should be clear immediately that this equilibrium can be disturbed very easily.

History attests to this systemic shortcoming. Europe would not find peace within its borders until a broader system was organized to help address their interrelationships. Similarly systems theory will no longer subscribe to these theories of structural functionalism and instead Luhmann will develop his ideas for open systems that are self-organizing. I will go over this in a future post. But in the mid-17th century this was the dominant framework from which the discipline of sociology emerged.

There are a number of points I would like to make regarding the evolution of systems theory and some contemporary development that is useful for analysis and ethics but one point I want to further emphasize for now, in this post, is the value that we now have to the idea of an open theory versus a closed theory. The Westphalia model demonstrates a closed systemic theory, a social machine divided amongst parts that can control their own output. An open system, on the other hand, is defined by Luhmann as a system that exchanges or obtains information from its environment. The importance of this is that it recognizes environmental shifts and the systems analysts will not act surprised by environmental conditions because in this model they are attentive to it. This is a grand distinction that “progressives” are generally open to. As an ideological community we tend to embrace the post-modern cosmology, a quantum cosmology, that recognizes the dynamic, interrelational, uncertain (probable), and organic cosmos. These cosmological elements, according to the theory of cosmopolis, impact systems and systems thinking. This is the distinction that makes a treaty like Westphalia a humorous undertaking. An undertaking that did not "guarantee the peace and freedom of Europe forever" but rather sowed the seeds for the napoleanic conquest, the wars of nationalism, and both WWI and WWII.

And sadly, this closed system is the model for the policies of the current Trump administration here in the United States. This failed perspective is dominating the global and domestic policies and we progressives can see how this will spell the ruin and downfall of our own community and identity. This does not mean that you cannot have policies that cut spending, regulates borders, or applies tariffs and regulations smartly, but these policies will blowback on themselves if they do not consider the broader socio-economic and political environment. Nations and national governments need to see themselves as a biological cell. Yes, a cell must have a membrane to contain the information necessary to give it a sense of identity, but the membrane must be porous enough to allow vital information in that allows the nucleus to adapt to its changing environment. Without that balance, the cell will die.

That’s why history is such a crucial learning for those of us who conduct social analysis and policymaking. These historical lessons allow us to appreciate the achievements and mistakes we have committed in the past. They provide vital clues for our prophetic forecasting.

Incidentally, the Treaty of Westphalia was drawn up around the time when the Spanish governed St. Augustine Florida and began building the castle that I recently visited. This is one of my favorite historical places to visit which is a testimony to the Spanish presence in our nation, a presence that was here before the pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, before Hudson sailed to the area of Mahattan, and before the birth of the Jamestown colony.

[RESOURCE] Toulmin Argument

Claims — The claim is a statement of opinion that the author is asking her or his audience to accept as true.

Grounds — The grounds are the facts, data, or reasoning upon which the claim is based. Essentially, the grounds are the facts making the case for the claim.

Warrant — The warrant is what links the grounds to the claim. 

Backing — The backing gives additional support for the claim by addressing different questions related to your claim.

Qualifier — The qualifier is essentially the limits to the claim or an understanding that the claim is not true in all situations.

Rebuttal — The rebuttal is when the author addresses the opposing views.

Toulmin Essay

Order Description

  Assignment Instructions

Instructions: Please carefully read the following assignment details in its entirety. There are many components to this particular assignment, and each component is graded. Do Not use your forum draft as your final submission. It is expected that you will revise this draft substantially- not only from the feedback you receive from peers…