1 / 8

Toulmin Model of Reasoning

Backing (Clarification). Qualifier (Probability). Rebuttal (Reservation). Toulmin Model of Reasoning. Data (Evidence). Warrant (Reasoning). Claim (Conclusion). Backing : Immune systems protect from disease. Qualifier : Possibly.

bevis-solomon
Télécharger la présentation

Toulmin Model of Reasoning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Backing (Clarification) Qualifier (Probability) Rebuttal (Reservation) Toulmin Model of Reasoning Data (Evidence) Warrant (Reasoning) Claim (Conclusion)

  2. Backing: Immune systems protect from disease. Qualifier: Possibly. Data: Remo stayed at the vet’s with kidney failure & soon returned to die of FIP. Warrant: A cat with a low immune system can contract FIP. Rebuttal: Unless the virus was latent. FIP Argument Claim: Remo contracted FIP at the vet’s.

  3. What’s happening here?

  4. Backing: Our experience with coffee is common. Qualifier: Probably. Data: We see two cups on the table between the two people. Warrant: We drink coffee out of cups in the U.S. Rebuttal: Unless this is in England. Line Drawing Argument Claim: The couple is drinking coffee.

  5. Backing: The law specifically defines responsibility. Qualifier: Beyond doubt. Data: Police officers saw John leave a house carrying a VCR which was not his. Warrant: Burglary means taking another’s property w/intent. Rebuttal: Unless he can- not understand his actions. Burglary Argument Claim: John is guilt of burglary.

  6. Backing: We spend a lot on safety. Qualifier: Definitely. Data: A three-lane highway between Hemet and Temecula would be safer. Warrant: We want to be safe. Rebuttal: Unless we can achieve safety in other ways. Highway Argument Claim: We should build such a 3-lane highway .

  7. Data: Many Americans cannot afford adequate health care. Warrant: When citizens cannot afford a vital service, the government must assist them. Exercise C1 Claim: A national health care plan is vital.

  8. Data: More people would have access to [that canyon area]. Warrant: What benefits more people is what should be done [implied]. Exercise C3 Claim: The canyon area ought to be developed.

More Related