Transcript Toulmin Model PPT - Summit Public Schools

The Toulmin Model
A tool for diagramming
“informal” arguments
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.
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?
– 1st come, 1st served!
– Lit mags are always looking for good writers.
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?”
– example: “Rosario is an American citizen, because she
was born in the United States.”
– 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.”
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
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
– example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that
I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for
my own health.”
– example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the
dishes.
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?”
example: “It looks like rain. The barometer is falling.”
example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at
had great pools, so I'll bet this one has a great pool
too."
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
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.”
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
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.”
(warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an
infection)
– example: ”That patient should be seen first, he has a
serious injury.”
(warrant: value premises; first-come first served
doesn’t hold true in life or death situations)
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
the first triad
sample argument 1
The Hilltoppers are
likely to win the
ballgame tonight
They are playing
at home
Grounds
Claim
Warrant
(unstated) Generalization:
The home team enjoys an
advantage in sports
the first triad
sample argument 2
It was nominated
for 10 Academy
Awards
Slumdog Millionaireis a
wonderful movie.
Grounds
Claim
Warrant
(unstated) Sign: a movie’s
greatness can be measured in
the number of Oscar
nominations it receives
the first triad
sample argument 3
Biff was probably in a
fight
Claim
He has a black eye
Grounds
Warrant
(unstated) Sign: A black eye is
a reliable indicator that a
person has been in a fight
the first triad
sample argument 4
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
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
(unstated) Cause-effect:
bacteria in the water causes
surfers to get ill.
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
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.
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.
Outline of a Toulmin Argument
Claim
The federal government should ban smoking.
Qualifier
The ban would be limited to public spaces.
Good Reasons/Data
Smoking causes serious diseases in smokers.
Nonsmokers are endangered by secondhand smoke.
Warrants
The Constitution promises to “promote the general welfare.”
Citizens are entitled to protection from harmful actions by others.
Backing
The United States is based on a political system that is supposed to serve the basic
needs of its people, including their health.
Evidence
Numbers 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
Authority
Cite the surgeon general.
Conditions of Rebuttal
Smokers have rights, too.
Smoking laws should be left to the states.
Such a ban could not be enforced.
Response
The 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