The Toulmin Model

1. The Toulmin Model A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments

2. Here are three claims. Rate them. Issue: What car should we buy. Claim 1: We should buy the Chevy Metro because it is very economical. Claim 2: We should buy the Volvo station wagon because it is very safe. Claim 3: We should buy the Ford Falcon because it was red.

3. What assumptions need to be true for the claim to be true? Claim 1: The Chevy Metro Claim 2: The Volvo Claim 3: The Ford Falcon

4. How can you support or refute each claim? • Claim 1: We should buy the Chevy Metro because it is economical. • Claim 2: We should buy the Volvo station wagon because it was safe. • Claim 3: We should buy the Ford Falcon because it was red.

5. Valid claims • What is the underlying problem with claim 3?

6. Toulmin Model: • Arguments need three things to be viable: • Grounds • Warrants • Backing

7. Stephen Toulmin • Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now 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.

8. The three basic elements: • Claim (assertion or proposition) • Grounds (proof, grounds, support) • Warrant (inferential leap) To make these arguments, a writer could decide to use: relevance to the argument (backing), address opposing viewpoints (rebuttal)AND qualify your argument were it is logical to do so.

9. 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: “Because the groundhog saw his shadow,there will be six more weeks of winter.”

10. More about claims... • There are four basic types of claims: • fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena • judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things • policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken • definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to to define a term or what category something falls into

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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

14. 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 a checked baggage.” • example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

15. 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

16. More about warrants... • The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim • example: “Muffin is running a temperature. I’ll bet she has an infection.” • example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.” • (warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection) (warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly)

17. Still more about warrants... • warrants can be based on: • ethos: source credibility, authority • logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction • pathos: emotional or motivational appeals • 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

18. the first triadsample argument 1 The Indians are likely to win the ballgame tonight They are playing at home Grounds Claim Warrant (unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in baseball

19. the first triadsample argument 2 It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards “Juno” is a wonderful movie. Grounds Claim Warrant (unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

20. the first triadsample argument 3 Biff was probably in a fight He has a black eye Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

21. the first triadsample argument 4 If you surf at Huntington Beach 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.

22. Begin your arguments: How do I know if I need to use backings, rebuttals and qualifiers? Ask yourself these questions when attempting to argue in this model: 1. What position do I want my reader to take? 2. Where must my audience begin so that they can take the step I want them to take and agree with my claimM?

23. Begin your arguments 3. What is the linking idea between my grounds and claim? (Question 2 to 1) 4. Is the move from Question 2 to 1 safe and reliable? 5. What possibilities might upset the arguments (an exception that could invalidate my claim) 6. Should I use qualifiers on my claim?

24. So, let’s go through an argument question by question • I want restaurant owners to agree with me that they would benefit from adding a service charge and do away with tipping so I will argue: -- A 15 percent service charge should be added to restaurant bills in lieu of tipping. This is the claim.

25. So, let’s go through an argument question by question 2. I believe restaurant owners will value a stable work force and argument, so I will argue: Waitresses making a reliable income will be less likely to leave AND a service fee will eliminate inequity that results from patrons being unsure how much to tip. These are the grounds

26. So, let’s go through an argument question by question 3. The bottom line is that owners want maximum profit, so I should argue that a more stable and fairly treated staff will result in better profits. Therefore, I will argue: A high turnover of servers is costly in the industry. This is the warrant.

27. So, let’s go through an argument question by question 4. I need to show that there is an economic benefit to making a staff happy, so I will argue: Paperwork and training involved in new hires is costly and time consuming. This is the backing of my argument.

28. So, let’s go through an argument question by question 5. I need to consider what rebuttals one could make about my claim. In this case, I could argue: Initially servers might resent the new policy and give poor service in protest to the limit on their earning potential. I could respond to this rebuttal by including a claim targeted at servers and suggesting this policy could bring them a stable income.

29. So, let’s go through an argument question by question • Given my rebuttal, I would definitely want to qualify my argument to suggest the benefits for both employee and employer: In restaurants that have seen high turn-over and unstable income potential for servers, owners should adopt a 15 percent service fee to patron’s bills.