Toulmin Model: Claims & Data

This unit explores a method of argument analysis, developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, that analyzes arguments by exploring their underlying assumptions.

Stephen Toulmin was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, was considered his most influential work, particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication, and in computer science.

The Toulmin method is a style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. However, in Toulmin’s method, every argument begins with three fundamental parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.

A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.

The grounds (or data) of an argument are the reasons, evidence, and facts that help support the claim.

Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim.

In this chapter, we will mostly be addressing claims and grounds/data.

The Toulmin Model – for creating and structuring arguments

Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.

Data/Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.

Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim

Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.

Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.

Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.

Toulmin Analysis Model – for reading and analyzing an argument

The Toulmin model can also be used when you read an argument essay so that you can better analyze the author’s writing. Here are questions you can ask as you are reading:

• Claim: The author wants me to believe? When looking for the claim, ask yourself the question: “What is the main idea of central claim of this argument?”

• Grounds/Support: I should believe this because? When looking for the data/grounds, ask yourself the question, “What are the reasons given to support the claim?”

• Warrants: Why is this claim important to the author? What are the assumptions and/or values the author holds? When looking for the warrant, ask yourself the question, “Why does the arguer believe this data proves this claim?”

• Backing forWarrants: What evidence does the author give to remind me of warrants and make me want to accept them?

• Rebuttal: Are other positions shown? Are they refuted or discussed?

• Qualifier: Is there anything which suggests the claim might be limited (sometimes, probably, possibly, if)?

Claims

There are FOUR basic types of claims:

1. Claims of Fact (Claims that assert their main idea as a matter of fact, supported by relevant, sufficient and reliable grounds.)
2. Claims of Value (Claims that assert their main idea as a matter of morals, values, or beliefs, supported by appeals to the shared beliefs and values of the audience.)
3. Claims of Policy (Claims that assert their main idea as a matter of changing policy, supported by relevant, sufficient and reliable grounds AND appeals to the values of the audience.)
4. Claims of Definition (Claims that assert their main idea as a matter of defining a concept or term, supported by relevant, sufficient and reliable grounds that justify and fortify the proposed definition.)

Grounds/Data

The actual truth of the data of a given argument may be less that 100%, as much data are ultimately based on perception. We assume what we measure is true, but there may be problems in this measurement, ranging from a faulty measurement instrument to biased sampling. It is critical to the argument that the grounds are not challenged because, if they are, they may become a claim, which you will need to prove with even deeper information and further argument.

Information is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational are more likely to be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. It is often a useful test to give something factual to the other person that disproves their argument, and watch how they handle it. Some will accept it without question. Some will dismiss it out of hand. Others will dig deeper, requiring more explanation. This is where the warrant comes into its own (discussed in the next chapter).

When considering the support offered to justify a given claim, there are several things to consider:

1. Is the support offered in defense of the claim sufficient, relevant, reliable, and authoritative? How can it be improved?
2. Does the support offered in defense of the claim match the kind of claim being argued? In other words, if it is a claim of fact, value, policy, or definition, does the arguer provide the right kind of support to defend that particular kind of claim?
3. Are alternative points of view considered and given fair treatment?
4. Is there anything essential that should be added to the data/grounds that would help to further support or challenge the assertion of the main claim?