The Toulmin Scheme/Method of Argument

The Toulmin Scheme/Method of Argument Analysis
The Toulmin model can help you better understand rhetoric and argument. Widely used as an
analytical tool, it becomes useful for reading and understanding sophisticated arguments.
Support
Reasons
Reasons support the claim, and offer a “why” to
your claim. Reasons represent an argument in a
broad outline, stated in phrases or sentences,
while
Grounds/data
provide actual evidence in support of the reasons,
and may include facts, citations from authorities,
examples, statistics, etc.
Claim
A statement of position; a proposition, a
thesis, which presents an issue about which
reasonable people might disagree. What is
the writer trying to prove This is the main
point, the thesis, the controlling idea.
(qualifier)
Words and phrases that place limits on
claims, such as usually, sometimes, in many
cases, under these conditions, in some
cases, etc.
Warrants
The warrant, an often unstated assumption or belief, is the principle, provision, or chain of
reasoning that connects the reasons and grounds to the claim.
Warrants are generally accepted beliefs and values, common ways our culture or society views
things; because they are so commonplace, warrants are almost always unstated and implied. The
author and audience may either share these beliefs, or the author’s warrants may be in conflict
with audience’s generally held beliefs and cultural norms and values. Warrants are important
because they are the "common ground" of author and audience; shared warrants invite the
audience to participate by unconsciously supplying part of the argument. Warrants are also
important because they provide the underlying reasons linking the claim and the support. You
can infer the warrants by asking, "What’s causing the author to say the things s/he does" or
"Where’s the author coming from"
Backing
Justification, reasons to back up your warrant. A sort of sub-argument that backs-up the warrant
by giving reasons for the assumptions in the warrant. This may be necessary if your warrant is
contrary to commonly held values or subject to challenge.
(conditions of) Rebuttal & Response
Brings up counter-arguments and addresses them. When making an argument, you must take
into consideration other conflicting viewpoints and deal with them fairly. You need to answer
questions and objections raised in the minds of the audience; if you fail to do so, your own
argument will be weakened and subject to attack and counter-argument. Sometimes rebuttal will
be directed to opposing claims; other times rebuttal will be directed at alternative interpretations
of evidence or new evidence.

Example
Claim
The federal government should ban
smoking.
Qualifier
The ban on smoking would be limited
to public spaces.
Support
Reasons
Smoking causes serious diseases in smokers.
Nonsmokers are endangered by second-hand smoke.
Grounds
Numbers of deaths attributed to second-hand smoke.
Lawsuits recently won against large tobacco companies
citing need for reparation for smoking-related health
care costs.
Examples of bans already imposed in many public
places.
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.
(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 spaces; 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 New York City, which has imposed such a ban, suggests that enforcement
would not be a significant problem.