argumentative essay toulmin model example

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Elements of Argument

9 Toulmin Argument Model

By liza long, amy minervini, and joel gladd.

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was considered Toulmin’s most influential work, particularly in the fields of rhetoric, communication, and computer science. His components continue to provide useful means for analyzing arguments.

Visual representation of the Toulmin argument model

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument (see Figure 9.1 for an example):

Claim: The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a conclusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument because all the other parts relate back to the claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim is the following:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

This claim both asks the reader to believe an idea and suggests an action to enact. However, like all claims, it can be challenged. Thus, a Toulmin argument does not end with a claim but also includes grounds and warrant to give support and reasoning to the claim.

Grounds: The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and include the reasoning behind the claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support. The truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for strength, credibility, relevance, and reliability. The following are examples of grounds:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty. Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

Information is usually a powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational will more likely 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. Thus, grounds can also include appeals to emotion, provided they aren’t misused. The best arguments, however, use a variety of support and rhetorical appeals.

Warrant: A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit. The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?” For example,

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

Backing: The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Backing can be confused with grounds, but the main difference is this: grounds should directly support the premises of the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,

Hearing aids are available locally.

This statement works as backing because it gives credence to the warrant stated above, that a hearing aid will help most people hear better. The fact that hearing aids are readily available makes the warrant even more reasonable.

Qualifier: The qualifier indicates how the data justifies the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them immediately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For example,

Hearing aids help most people.

The qualifier “most” here allows for the reasonable understanding that rarely does one thing (a hearing aid) universally benefit all people. Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect:

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations can be used to bolster weak arguments, so it is important to recognize them. They are often used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus, they slip “usually,” “virtually,” “unless,” and so on into their claims to protect against liability. While this may seem like sneaky practice, and it can be for some advertisers, it is important to note that the use of qualifiers and reservations can be a useful and legitimate part of an argument.

Rebuttal: Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example, if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

Even if you do not wish to write an essay using strict Toulmin structure, using the Toulmin checklist can make an argument stronger. When first proposed, Toulmin based his layout on legal arguments, intending it to be used analyzing arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not realize that this layout would be applicable to other fields until later. The first three elements–“claim,” “grounds,” and “warrant”–are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the last three—“qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”—may not be necessary for all arguments.

Toulmin Exercise

Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a newspaper or a magazine think piece or a scholarly journal. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument. Use the structure above to diagram your article’s argument.

Attributions

“Toulmin Argument Model” by Liza Long, Amy Minervini, and Joel Gladd is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Writing Arguments in STEM Copyright © by Jason Peters; Jennifer Bates; Erin Martin-Elston; Sadie Johann; Rebekah Maples; Anne Regan; and Morgan White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Feedback/errata.

Comments are closed.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.4: Toulmin Argument Model

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 250470

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Toulmin Argument Model

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

1. Claim : The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a conclusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument because all the other parts relate back to the claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

2. Grounds : The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and includes the reasoning behind the claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support . The truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for strength, credibility, relevance, and reliability. The following are examples of grounds:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

3. Warrant : A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant . The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit. The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?” For example,

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos , ethos or pathos , or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

4. Backing : The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Backing can be confused with grounds, but the main difference is this: Grounds should directly support the premises of the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,

Hearing aids are available locally.

5. Qualifier : The qualifier indicates how the data justifies the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them immediately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For example,

Hearing aids help most people.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

6. Rebuttal : Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example, if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

Toulmin Exercise

Ai, ethics & human agency, collaboration, information literacy, writing process, toulmin argument.

Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation theorizes six rhetorical moves constitute argumentation: Evidence , Warrant , Claim , Qualifier , Rebuttal, and Backing . Learn to develop clear, persuasive arguments and to critique the arguments of others. By learning this model, you'll gain the skills to construct clearer, more persuasive arguments and critically assess the arguments presented by others, enhancing your writing and analytical abilities in academic and professional settings.

Toulmin Model Example by Chiswick Chap, CC BY-SA 3.0

Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) model of argument conceptualizes argument as a series of six rhetorical moves :

Data, Evidence
Counterargument, Counterclaim
Reservation/Rebuttal

Related Concepts

Evidence ; Persuasion; Rhetorical Analysis ; Rhetorical Reasoning

Why Does Toulmin Argument Matter?

Toulmin’s model of argumentation is particularly valuable for college students because it provides a structured framework for analyzing and constructing arguments, skills that are essential across various academic disciplines and real-world situations.

By understanding Toulmin’s components—claim, evidence, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal—students can develop more coherent, persuasive arguments and critically evaluate the arguments of others. This model encourages students to think deeply about the logic and effectiveness of their argumentation, emphasizing the importance of supporting claims with solid evidence and reasoning. Additionally, familiarity with Toulmin’s model prepares students for scenarios involving critical analysis and debate, whether in writing essays, participating in discussions, or presenting research.

By mastering this model, students enhance their ability to communicate effectively, a crucial skill for academic success and professional advancement.

When should writers or speakers consider Toulmin’s model of argument?

Toulmin’s model of argument works especially well in situations where disputes are being reviewed by a third party — such as judge, an arbitrator, or evaluation committee.

Declarative knowledge of Toulmin Argument helps with

inventing or developing your own arguments (even if you’re developing a Rogerian or Aristotelian argument )
critiquing your arguments or the arguments of others.

Summary of Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argument

The three essential components of argument.

Stephen Toulmin’s model of argument posits the three essential elements of an argument are

Data (aka a Fact or Evidence)
Warrant (which the writer, speaker, knowledge worker . . . may imply rather than explicitly state).

Toulmin’s model presumes data, matters of fact and opinion, must be supplied as evidence to support a claim. The claim focuses the discourse by explicitly stating the desired conclusion of the argument.

In turn, a warrant, the third essential component of an argument, provides the reasoning that links the data to the claim.

argumentative essay toulmin model example

The example in Figure 1 demonstrates the abstract, hypothetical linking between a claim and data that a warrant provides. Prior to this link–that. people born in Bermuda are British–the claim that Harry is a British subject because he was born in Bermuda is unsubstantiated.

The 6 Elements of Successful Argument

While the argument presented in Figure 1 is a simple one, life is not always simple.

In situations where people are likely to dispute the application of a warrant to data, you may need to develop backing for your warrants. o account for the conflicting desires and assumptions of an audience, Toulmin identifies a second triad of components that may not be used:

Reservation
Qualification.

Charles Kneupper provides us with the following diagram of these six elements (238):

*This article is adapted from Moxley, Joseph M. “ Reinventing the Wheel or Teaching the Basics ?: College Writers ‘ Knowledge of Argumentation .” Composition. Studies 21.2 (1993): 3-15.

Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching Argument: An Introduction to the Toulmin Model. College Composition and Communication , 29 (3), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/356935

Moxley, Joseph M. “ Reinventing the Wheel or Teaching the Basics ?: College Writers ‘ Knowledge of Argumentation .” Composition. Studies 21.2 (1993): 3-15.

Toulmin, S. (1969). The Uses of Argument , Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
Your full name
Your email address *
Page URL needing edits *
Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning, rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Student engrossed in reading on her laptop, surrounded by a stack of books

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Speech & Writing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Toulmin Argument Model

In simplified terms this is the argument of “I am right — and here is why.” In this model of argument, the arguer creates a claim, also referred to as a thesis, that states the idea you are asking the audience to accept as true and then supports it with evidence and reasoning. The Toulmin argument goes further, though, than that basic model with a claim and support. It adds some additional parts such as rebuttals, warrants, backing, and qualifiers to create a water-tight argument.

Preview the Toulmin Argument Model

Stephen Toulmin and His Six-Part Argument Model

Figure 8.1 “Toulmin Argument”

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos , ethos or pathos , or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

Hearing aids are available locally.

Hearing aids help most people.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

When to Use the Toulmin Argument Model

Overall, the Toulmin Argument Model may be used to create a strong, persuasive argument — and it can be used to analyze and examine an argument. You may use this approach for a speech, academic paper, or online argument that you are creating. This approach can help you to create a sound, persuasive argument. You also may use this model to analyze an argument that you read, watch, or hear. The model can help you to identify missing parts in an argument. Sometimes, an argument “feels” wrong, but this approach can help you to identify why it is flawed.

Key Takeaways

Toulmin’s Argument Model —six interrelated components used to diagram an argument.
A Toulmin Argument may be used in academic writing or to persuade someone online.
A Toulmin Argument model can be used to analyze an argument you read
A Toulmin Argument model also can be used to create an argument when you are writing.

Chapter Attribution

The material in this chapter is a derivative (including a short section written by Liona Burnham) of the following sources:

“The Toulmin Argument Model” in Let’s Get Writing! by Kirsten DeVries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

“Toulmin Argument” in Writing and Rhetoric by Heather Hopkins Bowers; Anthony Ruggiero; and Jason Saphara is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Image Attributions

Figure 7.1: “Toulmin Argument,” Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-0

Upping Your Argument and Research Game Copyright © 2022 by Liona Burnham is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

62 Toulmin Argument Model

Toulmin argument model.

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos , ethos or pathos , or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

Hearing aids are available locally.

Hearing aids help most people.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

Toulmin Exercise

Write What Matters Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long; Amy Minervini; and Joel Gladd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

EnglishComposition.Org

Be a Better Writer

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Toulmin Model is a tool for analyzing and constructing arguments. It was created by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin and consists of the following six parts:

The argument being made, a statement that you want the audience to believe, accept, or act upon.

The evidence that supports your claim.

The logic or assumptions that connect your evidence to the claim. A statement of how your evidence logically and justifiably supports your claim. Warrants are often left unstated and commonly take one of the following six forms:

Warrant Based Generalization: What is true of the sample is likely true of the whole.

Warrant Based on Analogy: What is true of one situation is likely true of another, so long as they share key characteristics.

Warrant Based on Sign: One thing indicates the presence or outcome of something else. For example, we can diagnose an illness or disease by its symptoms. People who own expensive things likely have a lot of money.

Warrant Based on Causality: One thing causes another. For example, eating too much sugar is the cause of numerous health conditions.

Warrant Based on Authority: An indication that something is true because an authority or group of authorities affirms it. For example, nearly all of the planet’s esteemed scientists say that climate change is real.

Warrant Based on Principle: An agreed-upon value or rule applied to a specific scenario. For example, parents should love their children is a widely-shared value. Backing (or refuting) that this value should apply to a specific parent in question might be the goal of an attorney in a criminal trial.

Warrants are important because if your audience does not accept your warrant, they are not likely to accept your argument. Warrants can be questioned, which is why they often require backing.

Support for the warrant. It might take the form of a well-reasoned argument (or sub-argument) that directly strengthens the warrant. So for example, let’s say your argument depends on a warrant of causality. To strengthen your warrant, you might give additional evidence that shows that the causal relationship is not really just a simple correlation.

Counterarguments to your claim. Situations where your claim does not hold true. This may also include your response to the counterargument.

The degree of certainty in your argument. Your argument may state that something is true 100 percent of the time, most of the time, or just some of the time. Words used to moderate the strength of your argument include always , sometimes , usually , likely , loosely , etc.

Your claim may also be qualified based on your analysis of the opposing arguments.

Example of the Toulmin Model Applied to an Argument

Let’s break down the following argument:

Schools should ban soda from their campuses to protect student health.

Claim: Schools should ban soda from their campuses.

Grounds : Banning soda would protect student health.

Warrant 1: Poor diet leads to health problems in adolescents.

Warrant 2: Schools have a responsibility to protect student health.

Backing for Warrant 1: Studies show a high correlation between sugary drinks and obesity rates.

Backing for Warrant 2: Schools try to provide for the well-being of students in many other ways, such as campus security and counseling for behavioral and mental health.

Rebuttal : Banning soda from school campuses won’t prevent students from drinking it at home.

Qualifier: Even though students would still have access to soda before and after school, banning soda from school campuses would reduce their overall consumption, which is an important contribution toward protecting their health and well-being.

Link: Argumentative Essay Using Toulmin Strategies

Check out the video for a quick review.

Though argumentative analysis can never be reduced entirely to a formula, the Toulmin model, along with other models of persuasion , can increase your understanding of how arguments work (and don’t work).

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs). These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets. Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation

Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2014
Cite this reference work entry

Frans H. van Eemeren 7 ,
Bart Garssen 7 ,
Erik C. W. Krabbe 8 ,
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans 7 ,
Bart Verheij 9 &
Jean H. M. Wagemans 7

7181 Accesses

5 Citations

In this chapter, Toulmin’s contribution to argumentation theory is discussed. Toulmin presents in his model of argumentation a novel approach to analyzing the way in which claims can be justified in response to challenges. The model replaces the old concepts of “premise” and “conclusion” with the new concepts of “claim,” “data,” “warrant,” “modal qualifier,” “rebuttal,” and “backing.” Because of the impact Toulmin’s ideas about logic and everyday reasoning have had, he can be regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern argumentation theory.

In Sect. 4.2, the study The Uses of Argument , in which Toulmin expounded his views and explained his model, is introduced. Sect. 4.3 concentrates on the geometrical model of validity that is, according to Toulmin, at the heart of the misunderstandings about formal logic he wants to terminate. The distinction he makes in this endeavor between analytic and substantial arguments is treated in Sect. 4.4. In Sect. 4.5, the difference between field-invariant and field-dependent aspects of argumentative discourse is explained, which is vital to the alternative to the formal approach to analytic arguments offered by Toulmin. In Sect. 4.6 the forms arguments take and their validity are discussed, which leads to the presentation of Toulmin’s new model of argumentation in Sect. 4.7. Sect. 4.8 focuses on appropriations of the Toulmin model by argumentation theorists from different backgrounds. Sect. 4.9 discusses various applications of the model. In Sect. 4.10, the chapter is concluded with a critical appreciation of Toulmin’s contribution to argumentation theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Although the model does not appear in Toulmin’s later philosophical works, it can also be found in An Introduction to Reasoning , a practical textbook Toulmin published together with Richard Rieke and Allan Janik ( 1979 ). For the convenience of the reader, we shall refer in this chapter to the “updated edition” of The Uses of Argument published in 2003, which is readily accessible. The text of the book is unaltered since 1958, apart from the inclusion of a third (one-page) preface and a new (improved) index in the 2003 edition. It is important to notice that the 2003 edition has a new pagination.

In discussing Toulmin’s ideas we shall, like Toulmin, use the term argument , except when he speaks of the (central) use of argument to support a claim, as happens in the model, and then we use, in line with what we explained in Sect. 1.1 , the term argumentation .

In describing Toulmin’s model we use his terminology. In the textbook he coauthored with Rieke and Janik, Toulmin later replaced the term data with the term ground (Toulmin et al. 1979 ).

Peter Alexander, a colleague at Leeds, called it “Toulmin’s anti-logic book.” Much later, Toulmin’s Doktorvater at Cambridge, Richard Braithwaite, proved to be “deeply pained to see one of his own students attacking his commitment to Inductive Logic” (Toulmin 2003 , p. viii).

According to the preface to the 1964 paperback edition of The Uses of Argument , Toulmin’s target is “mathematical logic and much of twentieth-century epistemology” (p. viii).

In discussing the evaluation of arguments, Toulmin ( 2003 ) makes use of the words “soundness,” “validity,” “cogency,” and “strength,” without explaining the precise difference between them. This gives the impression that he uses them interchangeably.

In Human Understanding , Toulmin ( 1972 ) refers to what he considers to be the main issues discussed in The Uses of Argument.

Wherever Toulmin refers to formal validity, he also uses this phrase. When he uses the word “valid” without this qualifier “formally,” he usually seems to be using it in the imprecise way it is ordinarily used in everyday language. Under the influence of ordinary language philosophy, he probably does so deliberately.

Toulmin allows for the view that formal criteria apply to mathematical arguments ( 2003 , p. 118).

Such a radical reorientation would for Toulmin amount to going back to the Aristotelian roots of logic. He refers several times to the first sentence of the Prior analytics , where Aristotle expresses the double aim of logic: logic is concerned with apodeixis (i.e., with the way in which conclusions are to be established), and it is also the formal, deductive, and preferably axiomatic science ( episteme ) of their establishment (Toulmin 2003 , pp. 2, 163, 173). However, according to David Hitchcock (personal communication), Toulmin misinterprets the first sentence of Aristotle’s Prior analytics . In the first place, the sentence introduces the Analytics as a whole, not just the Prior analytics , and the explanation of what apodeixis and epistêmê apodeiktikê are does in fact not come until the Posterior analytics . The Analytics as a whole is not a treatise about logic but about deductive science. The logic of the Prior analytics is the underpinning for the scientific proofs (demonstrations) discussed in the Posterior analytics . The opening sentence therefore does not describe the subject matter of logic but the subject matter of the philosophy of the deductive sciences. In the second place, epistêmê apodeiktikê is not the science of proof (demonstration), but the understanding (knowledge, scientific knowledge) that consists in the ability to prove (demonstrate) something.

In elaborating on this concept in Knowing and Acting , Toulmin ( 1976 ) compares the “geometrical” view (or model) of rationality with the “anthropological” and the “critical” view of rationality (or reasonableness) (see Sect. 1.2 of this volume for these three conceptions). Toulmin traces the high status of the geometrical model back to Plato, who took, according to him, axiomatized geometry, with theorems deduced formally from supposedly self-evident and unchallengeable axioms, as a model of knowledge (Toulmin 1976 , pp. 70–71).

To keep it simple, we use commonly accepted premises which are supposed to be self-evident (which they are not really). A fully correct example is the following argument from number theory: x + 0 = x ; x + sy = s ( x + y ); hence s 0 + s 0. Here “ s ” abbreviates “the successor of” and “ x ” and “ y ” are variables. The conclusion states that 1 + 1 = 2.

In The Uses of Argument , Toulmin refers to the logic of the syllogism when discussing the formal approach, but in his Preface to the updated edition of 2003, he adds that his criticisms were also directed at “a rigidly demonstrative deduction of the kind to be found in Euclidean geometry” (p. vii).

In his exposé Toulmin took the validity of the argument form in the example, the Barbara syllogism, to be self-evident. See Sect. 2.6 of this volume.

In fact, the diagram contains more information than the premises, since it exhibits the claim that A is a proper subset of B and B is a proper subset of C. We know that this is true in certain cases, but not in others.

To be more precise, the premises state that the set represented by the A circle is a subset of the set represented by the B circle and that the set represented by the B circle is a subset of the set represented by the C circle.

Because of the possibility of overlapping, you need in fact four different Euler diagrams to accommodate the four different possibilities, and in one of the four diagrams of the premises, the circle for the minor term is coextensive with the circle for the major term.

As Hamby ( 2012 ) makes clear, it is very difficult to make sense of the various ways in which Toulmin characterizes the distinction between analytic and substantial arguments.

Toulmin does not use the term contained ; he speaks (in a similar vein) of an analytic argument “if and only if the backing for the warrant authorising it includes, explicitly or implicitly, the information conveyed in the conclusion itself” ( 2003 , p. 116). Unlike we do here, Toulmin does not use the term premise , but speaks of data , warrant , and backing . We shall introduce and explain these terms in Sect. 4.6 when preparing the introduction of the Toulmin model.

David Hitchcock (personal communication) notices an inconsistency in this exposé. If substantial arguments often involve type-jumps, then some substantial arguments do not involve type-jumps. According to Hitchcock, a type-jump from the premises to the conclusion cannot be the reason why the premises do not entail the conclusion. An argument is substantial when there is a type-jump, but it can also be substantial when there is no type-jump.

To be more precise, according to Toulmin, the conclusions of some substantial arguments are necessitated by the data, but not in the sense of being logically necessitated ( 2003 , pp. 18–20).

This does not mean that Toulmin thinks that analytic arguments are always formally valid and substantial arguments always formally invalid: “An argument in an[y] field whatever may be expressed in a formally valid manner, provided that the warrant is formulated explicitly as a warrant and authorises precisely the sort of inference in question […]. On the other hand, an argument may be analytic, and yet not be expressed in a formally valid way: this is the case, for instance, when an analytic argument is written out with the backing of the warrant cited in place of the warrant itself” ( 2003 , p. 125).

Argumentation that is conducted in accordance with a proper procedure and agrees with the pertinent soundness conditions can be viewed as “formally” valid in a procedural sense. See Sect. 6.1 of this volume for “formal” in the procedural (regulative) sense ( formal 3 ).

Toulmin extends his field-dependence thesis beyond the field of science to fields like morals and aesthetics.

Notice that Toulmin thinks that even in mathematics standards have evolved (Toulmin 2006 ).

In a similar way as we discussed when defining argumentation in Sect. 1.1 of this volume, Toulmin seems to construe the arguments he is interested in as (dialectical) verbal products resulting from a (dialectical) process of argumentative discourse.

Ausín ( 2006 ) argues that in this respect Toulmin’s approach resembles that of Leibniz, who also turned to jurisprudence as a model for reasoning. Also in other respects Toulmin’s conception of rationality is not as irreconcilable with that of Leibniz as Toulmin himself suggests. Leibniz distinguishes between contingent and necessary truths. Because the logical calculus does not apply to the first, the weighing argumentative method should be used instead. When trying to rationally justify contingent statements, Toulmin and Leibniz both share the view that rationality must be open to differences, pluralism, and controversy.

It is probable that Toulmin used the concept of “logical type” as it was in introduced by Ryle in 1949: “The logical type or category to which a concept belongs is the set of ways in which it is logically legitimate to operate with it” (Ryle 1976 , p. 10). The book in which Ryle used this concept had been highly influential, so Toulmin may have regarded the concept as so familiar that he did not think it necessary to give a definition.

Toulmin also speaks of the “moral” of a modal term, as in “the moral of a fable.”

Some of the implications Toulmin attaches to this observation relate to semantic and philosophical questions that are not directly relevant here. They pertain to the development of an adequate semantic theory for modal words and to the vigorous philosophical controversy about probability in the 1960s. In that controversy, Toulmin opposed the views on probability put forward by Carnap ( 1950 ) and Kneale ( 1949 ).

For the influence of the legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart on Toulmin’s views of defeasibility and the need for rebuttals, see Sect. 11.3 of this volume.

A qualifier need not always weaken the claim. As Toulmin says “Some warrants authorise us to accept a claim unequivocally, given the appropriate data – these warrants entitle us in suitable cases to qualify our conclusion with the adverb ‘necessarily’” ( 2003 , p. 93).

In Goodnight ( 1993 ) it is argued that the situation can be even more complex, because it may happen that the selection of backing to the warrant itself stands in need of justification. His legitimation inferences however do not justify the step from the backing to the warrant, but the selection of backing for the warrant (see Goodnight 2006 ).

It is the “D, W/B, so C” pattern that Toulmin contrasts with the analysis in Aristotelian categorical syllogistic of arguments as fitting a “Minor premise; major premise; so conclusion” pattern. See Sect. 2.6 of this volume.

According to Trent ( 1968 ), Toulmin does not claim completeness for his model, only adequacy for the purposes of the discussion.

With regard to the use of modal terms in qualifiers, Ennis ( 2006 ) presents and defends a delimited version in terms of speech acts of Toulmin’s contextual definition of the qualifier “probably.” With Toulmin, Ennis maintains “When I say ‘S is probably P’, I commit myself guardedly, tentatively or with reservations to the view that S is P, and (likewise guardedly) lend my authority to that view” (p. 163). In Ennis’s view the qualifier “probably” allows one to guardedly commit to a statement. Any attempt to reduce this qualifier to a numeric value (i.e., formalization) will not do justice to actual use, for it will never grasp the true implications of a tentative commitment. Ennis stresses the need to focus on real arguments, not artificial ones.

For the purpose of illustration, it is assumed (falsely) that the two conditions mentioned in the Harry example constitute a complete list.

Schellens ( 1979 ) observes that, in this case, R no longer functions as a condition of rebuttal. Instead, there are three data: “Harry was born in Bermuda,” “Neither of his parents were aliens,” and “He has not become a naturalized American” and a complex warrant “A man born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject unless his parents are aliens or he has become a naturalized American.” If the counter-rebuttals are to be treated as data, then the warrant would be “Given that a person was born in Bermuda, has at least one parent that was not an alien, and has not become a naturalized American, then you may take it that the person must be a British subject.”

It should be noted that Toulmin realizes that the validity of the “Data; warrant; so conclusion” argument is a consequence of the applicability and adequacy of the warrant rather than its formal properties ( 2003 , p. 111).

Toulmin’s view that validity is ultimately field-dependent implies that in principle every argument field may claim rationality for the arguments being used in that field. The only condition Toulmin requires is that in the field concerned the warrant must be accepted as authoritative.

See Sect. 2.6 of this volume for a discussion of Aristotle’s syllogistic.

In personal communication Hitchcock emphasized that this is an incorrect and inadequate account of formal validity as contemporary logicians conceive of it. First, not all arguments whose conclusions can be obtained by shuffling the parts of their premises are formally valid: “No horses are humans; all humans are animals; therefore, no horses are animals.” Second, not all formally valid arguments have conclusions that can be obtained by shuffling the parts of their premises: “You have credit for three one-semester courses in philosophy; therefore, you have met the prerequisite for this course of either being registered in a program in philosophy or having credit for at least two one-semester courses in philosophy.” On page 113 Toulmin ( 2003 ) expresses a much better conception of formal validity: “to state all the data and backing and yet to deny the conclusion would land one in a positive inconsistency or contradiction.”

Toulmin is probably not using the word “tautology” here in the logician’s sense, derived from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus , of a statement that is true regardless of how the world is, but in the older sense, common in literary criticism, of a discourse in which a point is repeated.

According to Hitchcock (personal communication), this claim is false. It is sometimes not at all obvious that information contained in the premises of a formally valid argument includes the information in the conclusion. For example, it took Bertrand Russell’s letter to Gottlob Frege in 1902 to show that the Basic Law V in his Grundgesetze (published in 1893) contained a contradiction. In fact, according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (whose proof was published in 1931), any consistent axiomatization of arithmetic has information in the axioms that cannot be gotten out of them by the rules of inference in the underlying logic. In Hitchcock’s view, Toulmin’s skepticism regarding the power of formally valid reasoning is certainly not justified. Mathematical proofs sometimes have surprising conclusions, yet are analytic in any defensible sense of that concept.

In personal communication Hitchcock explained that Toulmin’s skepticism about analytic arguments is not justified. Mathematical proofs sometimes have surprising conclusions, yet are analytic in any defensible sense of that concept. Examples are the proofs that the diagonal of a square is incommensurable with its side, that the square root of 2 is irrational, that no consistent axiomatization of arithmetic is complete, that there is no mechanical decision procedure for the logic of the quantifiers “all” and “some,” that there are only five regular solids (Toulmin 1976 , p. 67; cf. Aberdein 2006 , pp. 332–334), and so on. Given Toulmin’s first degree in mathematics and physics, Hitchcock finds his blindness to the power of formally valid reasoning hard to understand.

Loui ( 2006 ), who emphasized the influence that Toulmin’s ideas have had, reports that The Uses of Argument is Toulmin’s most cited work and that citations in the leading journals in the social sciences, humanities, and science and technology put Toulmin among philosophers of science and philosophical logicians in the top 10 of the twentieth century.

In citing the influences that have led to the rise of informal logic, Johnson and Blair ( 1980 ) explicitly mention the Toulmin model.

As is explained in Sect. 7.2 of this volume, Toulmin’s radical critique, and the new perspective on argumentation he provided, has been an inspiration to explore this territory with other models and instruments than those supplied by formal logic.

A recent interest in the Toulmin model was instigated by David Hitchcock, who dedicated an OSSA Conference he organized at McMaster University in May 2005 partly to the Toulmin model. Rather than concentrating on a critical evaluation of the Toulmin model, the papers focused on providing interpretations of elements of the model that are not sufficiently clear, revaluing elements that deserve more attention, and proposing necessary additions (see Hitchcock and Verheij 2006 ).

According to Hitchcock ( 2003 ), “Toulmin equivocates on whether a warrant is a statement or a rule, often within the space of two pages” (p. 70). Hitchcock believes this equivocation to be harmless since a warrant-statement is the verbal expression of a warrant-rule.

In making this comparison it should be noted that if the warrant is viewed as a bridging premise (different from Hitchcock’s interpretation), it is only a part of the argument scheme. This does not mean, of course, that warrants cannot be used to categorize argument schemes. As far as Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s notion of argument scheme is concerned, it should be noted that this notion is rather loose. Some of the associative argumentative schemes they distinguish do not seem to represent a general rule. See Sect. 1.3 of this volume for the notion of argument schemes.

This is, by the way, certainly not the position advocates of identifying implicit premises, such as the pragma-dialecticians, generally take. See, for instance, Sect. 10.5 of this volume.

For Pinto’s contribution to argumentation theory, see also Sect. 7.6 of this volume.

According to Pinto, an argument (or inference) is valid only if it is entitlement-preserving.

By elaborating a suitable concept of reliability , Pinto tries to capture what gives warrants their normative force.

For Bermejo-Luque’s contribution to argumentation theory, see also Sect. 12.13 of this volume.

The term pragmatic force used by Bermejo-Luque corresponds, roughly, with the degree of strength of the illocutionary point as defined by Searle. Inference claims are assertives, but they may have different degrees and types of strength.

In Bermejo-Luque’s view, bridging the gap between reason and conclusion by justifying the inference by means of a warrant, as Hitchcock and Pinto envisage, leads to an infinite regress. She attempts to avoid the regress by pointing out that backings justify inferences.

Contrary to the argumentation scholars from the American communication community who build on Toulmin’s ideas concerning field-dependency, several philosophers from the informal logic community firmly reject them (e.g., Freeman, Hitchcock, Johnson, and Pinto).

Their contributions to argumentation theory are further discussed in Sect. 8.6 of this volume.

Hastings’s classification, however, is used as a point of departure by other scholars, such as Kienpointner (see Sect. 12.7 of this volume) and Schellens (see Sect. 12.8 of this volume), in their theorizing.

Ehninger and Brockriede ( 1963 ) use the terms evidence and reservation instead of the terms data and condition of exception or rebuttal .

Kock ( 2006 ) argues that the typology of warrants concerning practical claims that stems from Brockriede and Ehninger is insufficient for pedagogical applications. In his essay “Multiple warrants in practical reasoning,” he maintains that the singleton set of the “motivational” warrant should be extended and refined. The resources for the extension and refinement, he holds, can be found in the ancient rhetorical handbook Rhetorica ad Alexandrum . On the basis of this handbook, Kock arrives at a taxonomy of warrants “invoked in arguing about actions” (p. 254). When it comes to actions in general, the warrants can be based on the following categories: (1) just ( dikaia) , (2) lawful ( nomina ), (3) expedient ( sympheronta ), (4) honorable ( kala ), (5) pleasant ( hēdea ), and (6) easy of accomplishment ( rhaidia ). For more difficult actions the warrants may be based on the following two categories: (1) practicable ( dynata ), and (2) necessary ( anankaia ) (p. 255).

Brockriede and Ehninger’s definition of substantive, motivational, and authoritative argumentation is slightly different from the classical tripartition into logos, pathos , and ethos discussed in Chap. 2, “Classical Backgrounds” of this volume. This is particularly true of authoritative argumentation, classical rhetoric being exclusively concerned with the speaker’s reliability and good character. It might be useful to add that in his Rhetoric Aristotle considers only logos as a means of persuasion by argument, while pathos and ethos are non-argumentative means (see Sect. 12.8 of this volume).

A rhetorical epicheireme resembles Brockriede and Ehninger’s authoritative argumentation, which is a rhetorical means of persuasion based on ethos.

In this way Toulmin counters the skepticism in British analytic philosophy of the 1960s about general claims, psychological claims, and moral claims. This part of the Toulmin case stands even if one rejects the claim that warrants can neatly be assigned to fields that can be identified with academic disciplines.

Also outside the United States the model is used in several textbooks, for example, in Schellens and Verhoeven ( 1988 ) (see Sect. 12.8 ).

In their textbook, Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik ( 1979 ) use the term grounds instead of data , clarify the concept of a warrant, and include five chapters on argument in specific fields (law, science, the arts, management, ethics) in which they exemplify Toulmin’s ( 1992 ) point that it is not just the warrants and backings that vary from field to field.

It is noteworthy that, unlike other authors before them, Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik ( 1979 ) do not present a general taxonomy of warrants or argument schemes.

In various reviews of The Uses of Argument , it is rightly assumed that Toulmin regards his model as generally applicable. Cowan, for one, writes: “This pattern has, according to Toulmin, the necessary scope to encompass all arguments” ( 1964 , p. 29).

This part of Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik ( 1979 ) underlies Toulmin’s remark quoted in Sect. 4.7 from his keynote speech at the 1990 ISSA conference about how he would expand his description of the field-dependence of argumentation if he were to write The Uses of Argument again.

Like Ehninger and Brockriede ( 1963 ), Crable ( 1976 ) uses the terms evidence and reservation to refer to the data and the rebuttal.

This may be no surprise, since Crable ( 1976 ) refers to Toulmin as his “most profound influence” and “a source of challenge and insight” (p. vi).

Prakken ( 2006 ) argues that, in its frequent use of an argument scheme approach, the field of artificial intelligence and law (AI & Law) has taken to heart some of the lessons of The Uses of Argument . It is also recognized that premises can play different roles (analogous to those of Toulmin’s data and counter-rebuttal) and that arguments are defeasible. The field-related treatment of argument schemes confirms Toulmin’s idea that the criteria for evaluating arguments differ from field to field. Prakken maintains that AI & Law has developed an account of the validity of reasoning that applies to every argument and is nevertheless formal and computational.

According to Tans ( 2006 ), a warrant should be understood as an abstraction from the data, which gets refined dynamically by discursive testing of its authority. Tans supports his view by using examples from legal practice – i.e., within the context of the Supreme Court in the United States – and captures an alternative diagram of the Toulmin model in his exposé.

See Abelson ( 1960–1961 ), Bird ( 1959 ), Castaneda ( 1960 ), Collins ( 1959 ), Cooley ( 1959 ), Cowan ( 1964 ), Hardin ( 1959 ), King-Farlow ( 1973 ), Körner ( 1959 ), Mason ( 1961 ), O’Connor ( 1959 ), Sikora ( 1959 ), and Will ( 1960 ). Less hostile but sometimes also critical were the reactions when the German translation of The Uses of Argument was published in 1975: Huth ( 1975 ), Schwitalla ( 1976 ), Metzing ( 1976 ), Schmidt ( 1977 ), Göttert ( 1978 ), Berk ( 1979 ), Öhlschläger ( 1979 ), and Kopperschmidt ( 1980 ).

More recent and generally more positive reviews of the Toulmin model are Hample ( 1977 b), Burleson ( 1979 ), Reinard ( 1984 ), and Healy ( 1987 ).

See Sect. 12.7 for a short overview of Kienpointner’s views.

Hitchcock notes (personal communication) that Toulmin ( 2006 ) later mistakenly claimed that Bird described The Uses of Argument in his review as “a rediscovery of Aristotle’s Topics” (p. 26).

According to Hitchcock (personal communication), Bird’s analysis is suspect, since the topical difference of medieval logic does not provide justification of the topical maxim (which is a rule of inference, rather like Toulmin’s warrant) but rather a specification of it.

Cf. for other criticisms of Toulmin’s treatment of fields of argument Habermas ( 1981 ), who opted as a consequence for a different approach.

In The Uses of Argument , Toulmin assumes that the main function of an argument is to justify a conclusion. According to Cowan ( 1964 , pp. 32, 43), its function is to supply a lucid organization of the material. Only in analytic arguments this objective is realized to the maximum. Cowan thinks that Toulmin’s substantial arguments can easily be made analytic by making one or more unexpressed premises explicit. The kind of “reconstructive deductivism” promoted by Cowan is criticized by informal logicians. For a discussion of these criticisms and a defense of deductivism, see Groarke ( 1992 ).

In spite of the fact that Toulmin is discussing the possibility of explaining validity in terms of formal properties in a geometrical sense, it might be the case however that, here too, he uses the term valid(ity) in its ordinary common speech meaning of being good, comparable to its use in phrases like “valid passport” and “valid point.”

By the way, unlike what Toulmin suggests, argument 1-2a-3 is in this form not formally valid in, say, standard syllogistic logic, propositional logic, or predicate logic. The same is true for the argument (1) “Petersen is a Swede” (2a) “A Swede is almost certainly not a Roman Catholic” so (3) “Petersen is almost certainly not a Roman Catholic.” This argument does in fact not even become formally valid if the warrant (2a) is interpreted as a major premise: (2) “Almost no Swedes are Roman Catholics.”

If an argument is to be formally valid, this can only be the case if and only if its conclusion can be obtained by the premises by a mere shuffling of terms, as Toulmin thinks formal validity to be defined. A condition for formal validity on the warrant would then be that it includes any term in the conclusion that is not in the data; it need not, and generally does not, include any term in the conclusion that is not in the data. According to Hitchcock (personal communication), the warrant is a license to infer from the sort of things said in the data about whatever is common to data and conclusion that which is said in the conclusion.

It is not exactly Toulmin’s position that only experts in a particular field are competent evaluators, but it may be true that in problematic cases the experts in a field are indeed the ultimate authority on what warrants are acceptable in that field. Going by Toulmin ( 2006 ), he seems to recognize this.

In response to the claim that, in practice, it is often difficult to establish which statements are the data and which statement is the warrant, Hitchcock ( 2003 ) reports having analyzed 50 samples he extracted randomly. For 49 arguments, he had no difficulty in singling out an applicable “inference-licensing covering generalization.”

For similar and other objections to the distinction between data and warrants, see Schellens ( 1979 ), Johnson ( 1980 ), and Freeman ( 1991 , pp. 49–90).

In spite of the fact that – according to Hitchcock – van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s example is unrealistic, it still poses a problem for the Toulmin model. Hitchcock thinks that this problem can be solved by pointing to the fact that “a first-order particular statement is logically equivalent to a second-order universal generalization, and thus can function as a general rule of inference” (personal communication).

Another option than issuing this singular statement would be, for instance, to point out that Harry was not born in Bermuda but enjoys for some other reason the same status.

Toulmin states that warrants are general, rule-like statements (p. 91), which is a problem here. He does not explicitly require the specific information provided in data to be confined to particular statements. Both Toulmin ( 2003 ) and Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik ( 1979 ) focus on examples in which the data (or grounds) are singular statements about a particular individual. The textbook even says explicitly that the demand for grounds is a demand for specific features of a specific situation rather than for general considerations (Toulmin et al. 1979 , p. 33). Nevertheless Toulmin allows for a universal statement like “All club-footed men have difficulty in walking” to be construed as a factual report of our observations that can function as a datum (Toulmin 2003 , p. 106).

According to Hitchcock (personal communication), the warrant is “If a man born in Bermuda is a British subject, then Harry is a British subject” or “Given that a man born in Bermuda is a British subject, we may take it that Harry is a British subject.” In statement form the rule of inference involved would go as follows: “Harry has whatever status belongs to a man born in Bermuda.” Hitchcock notes that this statement follows logically from the statement that Harry was born in Bermuda. It need not be logically equivalent to it.

Initially the model was not so much used for the purpose of evaluation, Hastings ( 1962 ) being an early exception. Later others joined in. See Sect. 4.8 .

For a survey of practical problems confronted in applying the Toulmin model to the analysis of argumentative texts, see Schellens ( 1979 ), who also offers some solutions.

For “complex” argumentation as distinguished from “single” argumentation, see Sect. 1.3 of this volume.

If a “micro-argument” is indeed equivalent with “single” argumentation, which is probably not what Toulmin had in mind, he claims that his way of laying out micro-arguments makes apparent the sources of their validity, i.e., the extent to which the arguments justify their conclusions, which may involve more than single argumentation.

For the notion of “subordinatively compound” argumentation, see Sect. 1.3 of this volume.

For further discussion of Freeman’s contribution to argumentation theory, see Sect. 7.7 of this volume.

Abelson, R. (1960–1961). In defense of formal logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 21 , 333–346.

Article Google Scholar

Aberdein, A. (2006). The uses of argument in mathematics. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 327–339). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter Google Scholar

Ausín, T. (2006). The quest for rationalism without dogmas in Leibniz en Toulmin. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 261–272). Dordrecht: Springer.

Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Berk, U. (1979). Konstruktive Argumentationstheorie [A constructive theory of argumentation]. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

Bermejo-Luque, L. (2006). Toulmin’s model of argument and the question of relativism. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 71–85). Dordrecht: Springer.

Bird, O. (1959). The uses of argument. Philosophy of Science, 9 , 185–189.

Bird, O. (1961). The re-discovery of the topics: Professor Toulmin’s inference warrants. Mind, 70 , 534–539.

Botha, R. P. (1970). The methodological status of grammatical argumentation . The Hague: Mouton.

Brockriede, W., & Ehinger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument. An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46 , 44–53.

Burleson, B. R. (1979). On the analysis and criticism of arguments. Some theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15 , 137–147.

Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Castaneda, H. N. (1960). On a proposed revolution in logic. Philosophy of Science, 27 , 279–292.

Collins, J. (1959). The uses of argument. Cross Currents, 9 , 179.

Cooley, J. C. (1959). On Mr. Toulmin’s revolution in logic. Journal of Philosophy, 56 , 297–319.

Cowan, J. L. (1964). The uses of argument – An apology for logic. Mind, 73 , 27–45.

Crable, R. E. (1976). Argumentation as communication. Reasoning with receivers . Columbus: Charles E. Merill.

Cronkhite, G. (1969). Persuasion. Speech and behavioral change . Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum. (2nd extended ed. 1981; 3rd ed. 1986). (English transl. (1984, 1987)).

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984). The study of argumentation . New York: Irvington. [trans. Lake, F. H., van Eemeren, R., Grootendorst, R., & T. Kruiger (1981). Argumentatietheorie (2nd ed.). Utrecht: Het Spectrum. (1st ed. 1978)].

Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate . New York: Dodd, Mead.

Eisenberg, A., & Ilardo, J. A. (1980). Argument. A guide to formal and informal debate (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. (1st ed. 1972).

Ennis, R. H. (2006). Probably. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 145–164). Dordrecht: Springer.

Fox, J., & Modgil, S. (2006). From arguments to decisions. Extending the Toulmin view. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 273–287). Dordrecht: Springer.

Freeman, J. B. (1985). Dialectical situations and argument analysis. Informal Logic, 7 , 151–162.

Freeman, J. B. (1988). Thinking logically. Basic concepts for reasoning . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure . Berlin-New York: Foris-de Gruyter.

Book Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (1992). Relevance, warrants, backing, inductive support. Argumentation, 6 , 219–235.

Freeman, J. B. (2006). Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants. An epistemic approach. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 87–101). Dordrecht: Springer.

Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument. A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18 , 214–227.

Goodnight, G. T. (1993). Legitimation inferences. An additional component for the Toulmin model. Informal Logic, 15 , 41–52.

Goodnight, G. T. (2006). Complex cases and legitimation inference. Extending the Toulmin model to deliberative argument in controversy. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 39–48). Dordrecht: Springer.

Göttert, K. H. (1978). Argumentation (p. 23). Tübingen: Germanische Arbeitshefte.

Gottlieb, G. (1968). The logic of choice. An investigation of the concepts of rule and rationality . New York: Macmillan.

Grennan, W. (1997). Informal logic. Issues and techniques . Montreal & Kinston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Grewendorf, G. (1975). Argumentation und Interpretation. Wissenschaftstheoretische Untersuchungen am Beispiel germanistischer Lyrikinterpretationen [Argumentation and interpretation. Investigations in the philosophy of science on the basis of Germanistic interpretations of lyric poetry]. Kronberg: Scriptor.

Groarke, L. (1992). In defense of deductivism. Replying to Govier. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 113–121). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien [Theories of truth]. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Festschrift für Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag [Reality and reflection. Festschrift for Walter Schulz’s sixtieth birthday] (pp. 211–265). Pfullingen: Günther Neske.

Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns [A theory of communicative action] (Vols. I and II). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Hamby, B. (2012). Toulmin’s “Analytic Arguments”. Informal Logic, 32 (1), 116–131.

Hample, D. (1977). The Toulmin model and the syllogism. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14 , 1–9.

Hardin, C. L. (1959). The uses of argument. Philosophy of Science, 26 , 160–163.

Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation . Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.

Healy, P. (1987). Critical reasoning and dialectical argument. Informal Logic, 9 , 1–12.

Hitchcock, D. L. (2003). Toulmin’s warrants. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 69–82). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hitchcock, D. L. (2006a). Good reasoning on the Toulmin model. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 203–218). Dordrecht: Springer.

Hitchcock, D. L., & Verheij, B. (Eds.). (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation . Dordrecht: Springer.

Huth, L. (1975). Argumentationstheorie und Textanalyse [Argumentation theory and text-analysis]. Der Deutschunterricht, 27 , 80–111.

Johnson, R. H. (1980). Toulmin’s bold experiment. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3 (2), 16–27 (Part I), 3 (3), 13–19 (Part II).

Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1980). The recent development of informal logic. In J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Informal logic. The first international symposium (pp. 3–28). Inverness: Edge Press.

Johnstone, Jr. H. W. (1968). Theory of argumentation. In R. Klibansky (Ed.), La philosophie contemporaine [Contemporary philosophy] (pp. 177–184). Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.

Kienpointner, M. (1983). Argumentationsanalyse [Argumentation analysis]. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 56.

Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion vom Argumentationsmustern [Everyday logic. Structure and function of specimens of argumentation]. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

King-Farlow, J. (1973). Toulmin’s analysis of probability. Theoria, 29 , 12–26.

Kneale, W. (1949). Probability and induction . Oxford: Clarendon.

Kock, C. (2006). Multiple warrants in practical reasoning. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 247–259). Dordrecht: Springer.

Kopperschmidt, J. (1980). Argumentation. Sprache und Vernunft [Argumentation. Language and reason] (Vol. 2). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kopperschmidt, J. (1989). Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse [Methodology of argumentation analysis]. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.

Körner, S. (1959). The uses of argument. Mind, 68 , 425–427.

Lo Cascio, V. (1991). Grammatica dell’argomentare. Strategie e strutture [A grammar of arguing. Strategies and structures]. Florence: La Nuova Italia.

Lo Cascio, V. (1995). The relation between tense and aspect in Romance and other languages. In P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, I. Higginbotham, & M. Scartini (Eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality (pp. 273–293). Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.

Lo Cascio, V. (2003). On the relationship between argumentation and narration. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 695–700). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Lo Cascio, V. (2009). Persuadere e convincere oggi. Nuovo manuale dell’argomentazione [Persuading and convincing nowadays. A new manual of argumentation]. Milan: Academia Universa Press.

Loui, R. P. (2006). A citation-based reflection on Toulmin and argument. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 31–83). Dordrecht: Springer.

Manicas, P. T. (1966). On Toulmin’s contribution to logic and argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 3 , 83–94.

Mason, D. (1961). The uses of argument. Augustinianum, 1 , 206–209.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education . Oxford: Martin Robertson.

McPeck, J. (1990). Teaching critical thinking. Dialogue and dialectic . New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.

Metzing, D. W. (1976). Argumentationsanalyse [Analysis of argumentation]. Studium Linguistik, 2 , 1–23.

Newell, S. E., & Rieke, R. D. (1986). A practical reasoning approach to legal doctrine. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22 , 212–222.

O’Connor, D. J. (1959). The uses of argument. Philosophy, 34 , 244–245.

Öhlschläger, G. (1979). Linguistische Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der Argumentation [Linguistic considerations concerning a theory of argumentation]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2006). Arguments as belief structures. Towards a Toulmin layout of doxastic dynamics? In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 356–367). Dordrecht: Springer.

Pinto, R. (2006). Evaluating inferences. The nature and role of warrants. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Springer.

Prakken, H. (2006). Artificial intelligence & law, logic and argument schemes. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 231–245). Dordrecht: Springer.

Pratt, J. M. (1970). The appropriateness of a Toulmin analysis of legal argumentation. Speaker and Gavel, 7 , 133–137.

Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2006). Translation Toulmin diagrams. Theory neutrality in argumentation representation. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 341–358). Dordrecht: Springer.

Reinard, J. C. (1984). The role of Toulmin’s categories of message development in persuasive communication. Two experimental studies on attitude change. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20 , 206–223.

Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1975). Argumentation and the decision-making process . New York: Wiley.

Rieke, R. D., & Stutman, R. K. (1990). Communication in legal advocacy . Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Ryle, G. (1976). The concept of mind (5th ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. (1st ed. 1949).

Schellens, P. J. (1979). Vijf bezwaren tegen het Toulmin-model [Five objections to the Toulmin model]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing [Journal of speech communication], 1 , 226–246.

Schellens, P. J., & Verhoeven, G. (1988). Argument en tegenargument. Een inleiding in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten [Argument and counter-argument. An introduction to the analysis and evaluation of argumentative texts]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schmidt, S. J. (1977). Argumentationstheoretische aspekte einer rationalen Literaturwissenschaft [Argumentation theoretical aspects of a rational theory of literature]. In M. Schecker (Ed.), Theorie der Argumentation [Theory of argumentation] (Vol. 76, pp. 171–200). Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.

Schwitalla, J. (1976). Zur Einführung in die Argumentationstheorie. Begründung durch Daten und Begründung durch Handlungsziele in der Alltagsargumentation [Introduction in the theory of argumentation. Foundation based on data and foundation based on action goals in everyday argumentation]. Der Deutschunterricht, 28 , 22–36.

Sikora, J. J. (1959). The uses of argument. New Scholasticism, 33 , 373–374.

Tans, O. (2006). The fluidity of warrants. Using the Toulmin model to analyse practical discourse. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 219–230). Dordrecht: Springer.

Toulmin, S. E. (1950). An examination of the place of reason in ethics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy . New York: Macmillan.

Toulmin, S. E. (1990). Cosmopolis. The hidden agenda of modernity . New York: Free Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (1992). Logic, rhetoric and reason. Redressing the balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 3–11). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958; paperback ed. 1964).

Toulmin, S. E. (2006). Reasoning in theory and practice. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 25–29). Dordrecht: Springer.

Toulmin, S. E., & Janik, A. (1973). Wittgenstein’s Vienna . New York: Simon & Schuster.

Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning . New York: Macmillan. (2nd ed. 1984).

Trent, J. D. (1968). Toulmin’s model of an argument: An examination and extension. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54 , 252–259.

Verheij, B. (2003). DefLog. On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 (3), 319–346.

Verheij, B. (2006). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 181–202). Dordrecht: Springer.

Voss, J. F. (2006). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 303–311). Dordrecht: Springer.

Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Ney Silfies, L. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7 , 165–181.

Weinstein, M. (1990a). Towards an account of argumentation in science. Argumentation, 4 , 269–298.

Weinstein, M. (1990b). Towards a research agenda for informal logic and critical thinking. Informal Logic, 2 , 121–143.

Will, F. L. (1960). The uses of argument. Philosophical Review, 69 , 399–403.

Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge . Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation . Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Windes, R. R., & Hastings, A. C. (1969). Argumentation and advocacy . New York: Random House. (1st ed. 1965).

Wunderlich, D. (1974). Grundlagen der Linguistik [Foundations of linguistics]. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch.

Zeleznikow, J. (2006). Using Toulmin argumentation to support dispute settlement in discretionary domains. In D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 289–301). Dordrecht: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans & Jean H. M. Wagemans

University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Erik C. W. Krabbe

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Bart Verheij

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans H. van Eemeren .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2014). Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_4

Received : 05 November 2013

Accepted : 05 November 2013

Published : 19 June 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-90-481-9472-8

Online ISBN : 978-90-481-9473-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Toulmin Model of Argument Podcast

The toulmin model of argument transcript.

Greetings everyone. I am Kurtis Clements with an effective writing podcast. In this episode, I am going to discuss argument and structure and take a look at the Toulmin Model of Argument.

Let’s start with a practical question: What exactly is meant by argument? For some, the word argument conjures up a heated verbal disagreement between two people replete with shouting and arm-waving and general unpleasantness. We’ve all had those kinds of arguments. In the academic world, however, argument tends to be much more civilized, meaning nothing more than one’s opinion on a topic or issue. In a very real sense, just about everything’s an argument. Now, one’s opinion, or argument, needs to be thoughtfully presented and developed for an audience who may not share the writer’s view. Credible evidence needs to be integrated. Sound logic needs to be employed. And steps need to be taken to convince an audience that what the writer claims to be true is, in fact, true, or at least it has merit and is worthy of consideration.

I know the analogy has been used before, but a good way to think about writing argument is to image that you are a lawyer arguing your case before a jury. In such a scenario, you would make a claim to the jury—not guilty!—and carefully build your case by presenting one compelling piece of evidence after another. You are trying to argue your case and persuade the jury to believe your client is innocent or that there is a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Makes sense, right? Ok, so how do you do it? How do you convince an audience that what you claim to be true is, in fact, true? While there is truth to the saying that it’s easier said than done, with careful attention to the nature of argument and a good plan of development, you can learn how to make a good argument.

First things first—you have to be aware of the language of argument. The wording needs to be such that it is clear to your audience that you have a strong view about a particular issue and that you want others to see the value in what you have to say. You need to be aware of the words you use and how you express your ideas to be effective.

Let’s look at an example of a thesis for an argumentative essay:

Statistics show that many homeless people have mental instabilities that are not being treated which often leads to violence.

Thoughts? Good, bad, somewhere in between? The sentence does make a declarative statement, but is it an argumentative statement? What words in the sentence suggest an argument? Does the sentence get at what the writer is going to try to prove? And the answer is: This thesis is a start, but as is, it does not yet express a focused and specific argument.

How about this thesis: The city of Lewiston, Maine, needs to provide better services for its homeless population because many homeless people have medical and mental conditions that are going untreated; some suffer from psychological disorders that could put themselves and others at risk, and many do not have the skills or resources to make them more employable.

Is this thesis statement better? Well, it’s certainly more specific (as well as longer). What does this thesis claim to be true about its subject? The claim needs to be clear and it needs to use language that reflects the purpose is to argue. The claim this thesis makes is that Lewiston, Maine, needs to provide better services for its homeless population. Note the word “needs,” which in this context suggests that something is not being done that should. Is the statement an outright fact or is it someone’s opinion? Will there be disagreement and room for debate? Does the thesis assert a position on an issue? I think it’s safe to say the thesis is, indeed, argumentative. It asserts a position on an issue. There will be disagreement. The statement is opinion based. It’s a thesis that clearly reflects its argumentative purpose.

Ok, so let’s talk about how to put together an argument. A variety of structural models exist, such as the Classical Argument, Rogerian Argument, and the Toulmin Model of Argument. In this podcast, I’m going to focus on the practical aspects of the Toulmin Model.

What the Toulmin Model of Argument affords the writer is a framework for constructing and examining an argument. The Toulmin Model has three essential parts–the claim, the grounds, and warrants. There are more complicated renditions of the Toulmin Model, but I want to focus only on these essential parts.

Let’s take a look at each part, but please don’t get too hung up on the terminology, as I am sure that you have been working with claims, grounds, and warrants even if you didn’t use those terms.

The claim is simply the statement the writer makes about the topic. Since we are talking about the framework for an argumentative essay, the claim is the argument the writer makes about the topic and will be reflected in the thesis.

The grounds is the evidence. It’s what supports the argument. The grounds can be personal experience, examples, facts, testimony, statistics, studies, and the like.

The warrant is the assumption, or belief, the writer has in mind when forming an argument. The underlying assumption is generally not stated but, rather, implicit in the argument.

Let me illustrate the three parts of a Toulmin Model argument with this statement: Youth soccer players ten years old and under should not be allowed to head the ball because of the risk of getting a concussion.

Ok, so what’s the claim? Easy enough, right? The claim is the argument. In this example, the argument is that youth soccer players ten years old or under should not be allowed to head the ball.

So what’s the grounds, or evidence? The claim is that soccer players ten years old and under should not be allowed to head the ball, and the reason for this view, the grounds, is because of the risk of getting a concussion.

And what about the underlying assumption, or the warrant? Remember, the warrant is usually not an expressed part of the argument, but it is the underlying basis of the argument. In this example, certainly an underlying assumption the writer has is that people are concerned about the safety of children playing youth soccer (and perhaps youth sports in general).

Make sense?

Let’s look at another example.

Here’s a thesis from earlier in this podcast: The city of Lewiston, Maine, needs to provide better services for its homeless population because many homeless people have medical and mental conditions that are going untreated; some suffer from psychological disorders that could put themselves and others at risk, and many do not have the skills or resources to make them more employable.

And the claim is? The claim this thesis makes is the city of Lewiston, Maine, needs to provide better services for its homeless population.

What are the grounds? (Remember, the grounds refers to the evidence.) In this example, the grounds, or reasons in support of the claim, is that many homeless people have medical and mental conditions that are going untreated; homeless people suffer from psychological disorders that could put themselves and others at risk, and many homeless people do not have the skills or resources to make them more employable.

What is the underlying assumption or the warrant? One assumption could be that not enough is currently being done to help the homeless population. Is that a valid assumption? I am not asking whether or not you agree with this assumption; rather, is the assumption a sound, logical statement? Yes, the assumption is valid. I pose this question because sometimes the underlying assumption of an argument is faulty and if that is the case, then the argument itself will be flawed.

For example, let’s say you’re having a conversation with a coworker who tells you about an article he read in the newspaper about solar power. Your coworker scoffs at the idea of solar power, something he dubs “tree-hugger technology.” He rails on about the various reasons he dislikes solar power, offering one snarky remark after another and taking potshots along the way at those who see solar power as a viable form of alternative energy. In this example, the underlying assumption your coworker makes is that you will agree with what he has to say—otherwise, it’s unlikely he would be so insensitive to an opposing view. Right? I’m sure all of you have had a similar experience in which someone expresses a view on a topic in a way that assumes you share that someone’s view. If the underlying assumption is incorrect, it can make for a most awkward experience.

What the Toulmin Model of Argument offers the writer is a way to think about and structure one’s argument. The model breaks down the key parts of an argument so that the argument can be as clear and precise and thought out as possible. I hope you find the Toulmin Model of Argument a useful tool when writing or analyzing an argumentative essay.

Happy writing.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
COLLEGE WRITING
USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
FACULTY RESOURCES
Student Webinar Calendar
Academic Success Center
Writing Center
About the ASC Tutors
DIVERSITY TRAINING
PG Peer Tutors
PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

College Writing
Using Sources & APA Style
Learning for Success
Effective Writing Podcasts
Plagiarism Information
Faculty Resources
Tutor Training

Twitter feed

Everything is Explainable

Blog Writing
EEssays Writing Course
Online Education
Time management
Types of Academic Papers
Work-Life Balance
Writing Guidelines

Toulmin Argument Structure

To spot the difference between Rogerian and Toulmin argumentative models, it is importat to know the background behind each. On the one hand, Carl Rogers was a psychologist, while Stephen Toulmin was a philosopher. Thus, it is possible to characterize the Toulmin argument structure by philosophical contemplations related to moral reasoning and focus on practical arguments . On the other hand, a Rogerian argumentative model focuses on the psychological principle of respect for the opponent’s opinion or arguments.

1. 6 Elements of the Toulmin Argument Model Structure

It is important to note that the Toulmin argument model is quite logical. It has the following interconnected elements:

Strong evidence (also called data, grounds, or facts , leading to the argument);
The evidence above support the main argument or claim (also referred to as a conclusion ) with facts;
Such support with facts is done through a warrant (a statement showing connection between data and your claim);
Here, to be more persuasive, additional evidence (the backing element ) backs the warrant statement;
However, the claim or the argument may be quite convincing, unless there are facts that can oppose it, constituing a rebuttal part;
This part necessitates the use of a qualifier to characterize the argument as the one that can be probably, definitale, certainly, or highly likely true.

It is necessary to note that the claim can be qualified as probably true, unless there are other circumstances (rebuttal), restricting its truthfulness.

Example of Toulmin Claim Formulation and Its Practical Use

It is important to note the practical use of Toulmin’s argumentative model in everyday life.

For example,

“ In 10 years, the world is highly likely to use electric cars only. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020) points to a forty-percent annual increase in electric car sales. People have started buying more electric cars because they have realized that these are more environmentally friendly. Governments of different countries have developed environment-saving initiatives, supporting transitioning to electric vehicles. In a decade, the world is highly likely to use electric cars only, unless the research proves that their batteries cause more harm to the environment than petrol engines .”

The qualifier here is “highly likely.” The fact is supported by an in-text citation.

2. Scheme Illustrating Toulmin’s Model

The scheme above illustrates interconnections between 6 elements. It is necessary to note that the warrant serves as a medium between the fact and the claim. In other words, it bridges the gap between these 2 elements. The backing of the warrant is necessary in the case when the latter is not convincing enough. Attach the qualifier and the rebuttal element directly to the argument.

Organizing an Essay Using the Toulmin Argument Model Above

Finally, it is important to use all theoretical points and the scheme above in practice in the 5- paragraph essay form:

In introduction, introduce your claim, any background information, and a thesis statement, clearly articulating the argument with the fact why it is true;
In the first body paragraph of the paper, you have to develop the evidence element and show its connection to the claim;
Furthermore, in the second paragraph, develop the warrant element, backing it;
In the third paragraph, focus on rebuttal, presenting factors that may influence the qualifier (for example, it may be likely, unless…).
Summarize the main points in the conclusion.

Overall, the main advice is to use the model in your everyday life, when you want to claim something. It will help to train your argumentative and persuasive skills. In what situations do you offer to apply Toulmin’s argument? Leave your replies in comments.

International Energy Agency. (2020). Global EV outlook 2020: Entering the decade of electric drive? https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020

Organizing Your Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

How can I effectively present my argument?

In order for your argument to be persuasive, it must use an organizational structure that the audience perceives as both logical and easy to parse. Three argumentative methods —the Toulmin Method , Classical Method , and Rogerian Method — give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument.

Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment’s directions if you’re unsure which to use (if any).

Toulmin Method

The Toulmin Method is a formula that allows writers to build a sturdy logical foundation for their arguments. First proposed by author Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument (1958), the Toulmin Method emphasizes building a thorough support structure for each of an argument's key claims.

The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows:

Claim: In this section, you explain your overall thesis on the subject. In other words, you make your main argument.

Data (Grounds): You should use evidence to support the claim. In other words, provide the reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.

Warrant (Bridge): In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. As a result, the underlying assumption that you build your argument on is grounded in reason.

Backing (Foundation): Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.

Counterclaim: You should anticipate a counterclaim that negates the main points in your argument. Don't avoid arguments that oppose your own. Instead, become familiar with the opposing perspective. If you respond to counterclaims, you appear unbiased (and, therefore, you earn the respect of your readers). You may even want to include several counterclaims to show that you have thoroughly researched the topic.

Rebuttal: In this section, you incorporate your own evidence that disagrees with the counterclaim. It is essential to include a thorough warrant or bridge to strengthen your essay’s argument. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis, your readers may not make a connection between the two, or they may draw different conclusions.

Example of the Toulmin Method:

Claim: Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.

Data1: Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air-polluting activity.

Warrant 1: Due to the fact that cars are the largest source of private (as opposed to industrial) air pollution, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.

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 the decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.

Data 3: Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.

Warrant 3: The combination of these technologies produces less pollution.

Counterclaim: Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages an inefficient culture of driving even as it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging the use of mass transit systems.

Rebuttal: While mass transit is an 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.

Rogerian Method

The Rogerian Method (named for, but not developed by, influential American psychotherapist Carl R. Rogers) is a popular method for controversial issues. This strategy seeks to find a common ground between parties by making the audience understand perspectives that stretch beyond (or even run counter to) the writer’s position. Moreso than other methods, it places an emphasis on reiterating an opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction. The persuasive power of the Rogerian Method lies in its ability to define the terms of the argument in such a way that:

your position seems like a reasonable compromise.
you seem compassionate and empathetic.

The basic format of the Rogerian Method is as follows:

Introduction: Introduce the issue to the audience, striving to remain as objective as possible.

Opposing View : Explain the other side’s position in an unbiased way. When you discuss the counterargument without judgement, the opposing side can see how you do not directly dismiss perspectives which conflict with your stance.

Statement of Validity (Understanding): This section discusses how you acknowledge how the other side’s points can be valid under certain circumstances. You identify how and why their perspective makes sense in a specific context, but still present your own argument.

Statement of Your Position: By this point, you have demonstrated that you understand the other side’s viewpoint. In this section, you explain your own stance.

Statement of Contexts : Explore scenarios in which your position has merit. When you explain how your argument is most appropriate for certain contexts, the reader can recognize that you acknowledge the multiple ways to view the complex issue.

Statement of Benefits: You should conclude by explaining to the opposing side why they would benefit from accepting your position. By explaining the advantages of your argument, you close on a positive note without completely dismissing the other side’s perspective.

Example of the Rogerian Method:

Introduction: The issue of whether children should wear school uniforms is subject to some debate.

Opposing View: Some parents think that requiring children to wear uniforms is best.

Statement of Validity (Understanding): Those parents who support uniforms argue that, when all students wear the same uniform, the students can develop a unified sense of school pride and inclusiveness.

Statement of Your Position : Students should not be required to wear school uniforms. Mandatory uniforms would forbid choices that allow students to be creative and express themselves through clothing.

Statement of Contexts: However, even if uniforms might hypothetically promote inclusivity, in most real-life contexts, administrators can use uniform policies to enforce conformity. Students should have the option to explore their identity through clothing without the fear of being ostracized.

Statement of Benefits: Though both sides seek to promote students' best interests, students should not be required to wear school uniforms. By giving students freedom over their choice, students can explore their self-identity by choosing how to present themselves to their peers.

Classical Method

The Classical Method of structuring an argument is another common way to organize your points. Originally devised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and then later developed by Roman thinkers like Cicero and Quintilian), classical arguments tend to focus on issues of definition and the careful application of evidence. Thus, the underlying assumption of classical argumentation is that, when all parties understand the issue perfectly, the correct course of action will be clear.

The basic format of the Classical Method is as follows:

Introduction (Exordium): Introduce the issue and explain its significance. You should also establish your credibility and the topic’s legitimacy.

Statement of Background (Narratio): Present vital contextual or historical information to the audience to further their understanding of the issue. By doing so, you provide the reader with a working knowledge about the topic independent of your own stance.

Proposition (Propositio): After you provide the reader with contextual knowledge, you are ready to state your claims which relate to the information you have provided previously. This section outlines your major points for the reader.

Proof (Confirmatio): You should explain your reasons and evidence to the reader. Be sure to thoroughly justify your reasons. In this section, if necessary, you can provide supplementary evidence and subpoints.

Refutation (Refuatio): In this section, you address anticipated counterarguments that disagree with your thesis. Though you acknowledge the other side’s perspective, it is important to prove why your stance is more logical.

Conclusion (Peroratio): You should summarize your main points. The conclusion also caters to the reader’s emotions and values. The use of pathos here makes the reader more inclined to consider your argument.

Example of the Classical Method:

Introduction (Exordium): Millions of workers are paid a set hourly wage nationwide. The federal minimum wage is standardized to protect workers from being paid too little. Research points to many viewpoints on how much to pay these workers. Some families cannot afford to support their households on the current wages provided for performing a minimum wage job .

Statement of Background (Narratio): Currently, millions of American workers struggle to make ends meet on a minimum wage. This puts a strain on workers’ personal and professional lives. Some work multiple jobs to provide for their families.

Proposition (Propositio): The current federal minimum wage should be increased to better accommodate millions of overworked Americans. By raising the minimum wage, workers can spend more time cultivating their livelihoods.

Proof (Confirmatio): According to the United States Department of Labor, 80.4 million Americans work for an hourly wage, but nearly 1.3 million receive wages less than the federal minimum. The pay raise will alleviate the stress of these workers. Their lives would benefit from this raise because it affects multiple areas of their lives.

Refutation (Refuatio): There is some evidence that raising the federal wage might increase the cost of living. However, other evidence contradicts this or suggests that the increase would not be great. Additionally, worries about a cost of living increase must be balanced with the benefits of providing necessary funds to millions of hardworking Americans.

Conclusion (Peroratio): If the federal minimum wage was raised, many workers could alleviate some of their financial burdens. As a result, their emotional wellbeing would improve overall. Though some argue that the cost of living could increase, the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

Citation Styles

How to write an argumentative essay

The argumentative essay is a staple in university courses, and writing this style of essay is a key skill for students across multiple disciplines. Here’s what you need to know to write an effective and compelling argumentative essay.

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay takes a stance on an issue and presents an argument to defend that stance with the intent of persuading the reader to agree. It generally requires extensive research into a topic so that you have a deep grasp of its subtleties and nuances, are able to take a position on the issue, and can make a detailed and logical case for one side or the other.

It’s not enough to merely have an opinion on an issue—you have to present points to justify your opinion, often using data and other supporting evidence.

When you are assigned an argumentative essay, you will typically be asked to take a position, usually in response to a question, and mount an argument for it. The question can be two-sided or open-ended, as in the examples provided below.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts:

Two-sided Question

Should completing a certain number of volunteer hours be a requirement to graduate from high school? Support your argument with evidence.

Open-ended Question

What is the most significant impact that social media has had on this generation of young people?

Once again, it’s important to remember that you’re not just conveying facts or information in an argumentative essay. In the course of researching your topic, you should develop a stance on the issue. Your essay will then express that stance and attempt to persuade the reader of its legitimacy and correctness through discussion, assessment, and evaluation.

The main types of argumentative essays

Although you are advancing a particular viewpoint, your argumentative essay must flow from a position of objectivity. Your argument should evolve thoughtfully and rationally from evidence and logic rather than emotion.

There are two main models that provide a good starting point for crafting your essay: the Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin Model

This model is commonly used in academic essays. It mounts an argument through the following four steps:

Make a claim.
Present the evidence, or grounds, for the claim.
Explain how the grounds support the claim.
Address potential objections to the claim, demonstrating that you’ve given thought to the opposing side and identified its limitations and deficiencies.

As an example of how to put the Toulmin model into practice, here’s how you might structure an argument about the impact of devoting public funding to building low-income housing.

Make your claim that low-income housing effectively solves several social issues that drain a city’s resources, providing a significant return on investment.
Cite data that shows how an increase in low-income housing is related to a reduction in crime rates, homelessness, etc.
Explain how this data proves the beneficial impact of funding low-income housing.
Preemptively counter objections to your claim and use data to demonstrate whether these objections are valid or not.

The Rogerian Model

This model is also frequently used within academia, and it also builds an argument using four steps, although in a slightly different fashion:

Acknowledge the merits of the opposing position and what might compel people to agree with it.
Draw attention to the problems with this position.
Lay out your own position and identify how it resolves those problems.
Proffer some middle ground between the two viewpoints and make the case that proponents of the opposing position might benefit from adopting at least some elements of your view.

The persuasiveness of this model owes to the fact that it offers a balanced view of the issue and attempts to find a compromise. For this reason, it works especially well for topics that are polarizing and where it’s important to demonstrate that you’re arguing in good faith.

To illustrate, here’s how you could argue that smartphones should be permitted in classrooms.

Concede that smartphones can be a distraction for students.
Argue that what teachers view as disruptions are actually opportunities for learning.
Offer the view that smartphones, and students’ interest in them, can be harnessed as teaching tools.
Suggest teaching activities that involve smartphones as a potential resource for teachers who are not convinced of their value.

It’s not essential to adhere strictly to one model or the other—you can borrow elements from both models to structure your essay. However, no matter which model of argumentation you choose, your essay will need to have an outline that effectively presents and develops your position.

How to outline and write an argumentative essay

A clear and straightforward structure works best for argumentative essays since you want to make it easy for your reader to understand your position and follow your arguments. The traditional essay outline comprises an introductory paragraph that announces your thesis statement, body paragraphs that unfold your argument point by point, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes your thesis and supporting points.

Introductory paragraph

This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position. It generally concludes with an explicit statement of your position on the topic, which is known as your thesis statement.

Over the last decade, smartphones have transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, socially, culturally, and personally. They are now incorporated into almost every facet of daily life, and this includes making their way into classrooms. There are many educators who view smartphones with suspicion and see them as a threat to the sanctity of the classroom. Although there are reasons to regard smartphones with caution, there are ways to use them responsibly to teach and educate the next generation of young minds. Indeed, the value they hold as teaching tools is nearly unlimited: as a way to teach digital literacy, to reach students through a medium that is familiar and fun for them, and to provide a nimble and adaptable learning environment.

Body paragraphs

Most argumentative essays have at least three body paragraphs that lay out the supporting points in favor of your argument. Each paragraph should open with a topic sentence that presents a separate point that is then fleshed out and backed up by research, facts, figures, data, and other evidence. Remember that your aim in writing an argumentative essay is to convince or persuade your reader, and your body paragraphs are where you present your most compelling pieces of information in order to do just that.

The body of your essay is also where you should address any opposing arguments and make your case against them, either disproving them or stating the reasons why you disagree. Responding to potential rebuttals strengthens your argument and builds your credibility with your readers.

A frequent objection that teachers have to smartphones in the classroom is that students use them to socialize when they should be learning. This view overlooks the fact that students are using smartphones to connect with each other and this is a valuable skill that should be encouraged, not discouraged, in the classroom. A 2014 study demonstrated the benefits of providing students with individual smartphones. Sanctioned smartphone use in the classroom proved to be of particular importance in improving educational outcomes for low-income and at-risk students. What’s more, learning apps have been developed specifically to take advantage of the potential of smartphones to reach learners of various levels and backgrounds, and many offer the ability to customize the method and delivery of lessons to individual learner preferences. This shows that the untapped potential of smartphones is huge, and many teachers would do well to consider incorporating them into their classrooms.

Your concluding paragraph wraps up your essay by restating your thesis and recapping the arguments you presented in your body paragraphs. No new information should be introduced in your conclusion, however, you may consider shifting the lens of your argument to make a comment on how this issue affects the world at large or you personally, always keeping in mind that objectivity and relevance are your guiding principles.

Smartphones have a growing place in the world of education, and despite the presence of legitimate concerns about their use, their value as teaching tools has been clearly established. With more and more of our lives going digital and with the growing emphasis on offering distance learning as an option, educators with an eye to the future won't wait to embrace smartphones and find ways to use them to their fullest effect. As much time and space as we could devote to weighing the pros and cons of smartphones, the fact is that they are not going to disappear from our lives, and our best bet is to develop their, and our students', potential.

Frequently Asked Questions about argumentative essays

Your argumentative essay starts with an introductory paragraph. This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position.

Like any traditional essay, the argumentative essay consists of three parts:

Introduction

There are do's and don'ts in argumentative writing. This article summarizes some of them well - you should, for example, avoid coming to an argument based on feelings, without any evidence. Everything you say needs to be backed up by evidence, unless you are the renowned expert in the field.

Yes, you can start your argumentative essay with a question or with a thesis statement. Or you can do both - ask a question and then immediately answer it with a statement.

There are contrasting views on that. In some situations it can make sense to end your argumentative essay with a question - for example, when you want to create room for further discussions or want the reader to leave thinking about the question.

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

Toulmin Method: Guide to Writing a Successful Essay

How to write an essay in the toulmin method.

Argumentative essays are a genre of writing that challenges the student to research a topic, gather, generate and evaluate evidence, and summarize a position on the issue. It helps to get as much benefit out of the study as possible. The Toulmin model essay could be part of the shaping and self-understanding of the individual, and one day it will provide evidence to rely on in becoming a professional.

What is the Toulmin Method?

The essay form has become widespread in contemporary higher education, so many students are faced with this question – how to write an essay using the Toulmin model? The idea of an essay comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon educational tradition, where it is one of the basic elements of learning, especially in the early years. Starting an essay, especially an argument one, is a creative and demanding task. Not all students have time for such a job, given their academic schedule. If you want professional assistance, you can hire a writer to write an argumentative essay to make sure of the quality.

Toulmin’s approach, based on logic and in-depth analysis, is best suited to solving complex questions. The British philosopher and professor engaged in practical argumentation believed that it is a process of proposing hypotheses involving the discovery of new ideas and verifying existing information. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Stephen Toulmin proposed a set containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments, and these are what we will talk about today. Toulmin considered that a good argument could be successful in credibility and resistance to additional criticism. We shall therefore take a look at how it is done.

How do you compose an essay based on Toulmin model? Formulate the statement that you intend to defend. Provide evidence to support it. Then use the factors we talk about below. As an alternative, you can use information from a custom essay writing service that guarantees a good grade. Not everyone is really gifted at writing well-organized texts.

The Six Parts of The Toulmin Argument

The structure of Toulmin argumentative essay is slightly more complex than in other types of papers.

Think of this section as the main idea behind the whole argument. The claim can be divided into five following categories:

definitions,
strategies.

This is the part dealing with the answer to the question, “What is the author trying to prove?”.

The arguments are referred to as the basis for the claim. This is everything that the statement is referring to. It can be statistics, facts, evidence, expert opinions, or public attitudes. At this point, the following issue arises: “What is the author trying to demonstrate his point with?”. This is the body where the connection between the data and the argument is established.

Warrants are assumptions that show how and why the available data results in the claim. It gives credibility to the latter. In addition, it is often common knowledge for both the author and the audience, so in most cases, it is not expressed literally but only implied. The guiding question for determining the warrant of an argument has to be asked, “Why does the author draw this conclusion from the data?”.

Warrant Based Generalization

In the simplest Toulmin essays, the generalization essentially summarizes the common knowledge that applies to each specific case. Due to its simplicity, this technique is also used in public speaking as well as in Toulmin model essay.

Warrant Based on Analogy

An argument by analogy is an argument that is made by extrapolating information from one case to another. This is because they share many characteristics. Therefore, an argument by analogy is also very common.

Warrant Based on Sign

It is a matter of one thing deriving from something else. So one thing indicates the existence of another.

Warrant Based on Causality

The relationship between phenomena in which one major thing called the cause, given certain circumstances, brings about another thing called the effect.

Warrant Based on Authority

It is a reference to the views of persons who are recognized or influential in a particular technology or area of activity in society.

Warrant Based on Principle

Values and attitudes are the brightest and most important factors brought in argumentation. They can equally facilitate the achievement of mutual understanding, make it more difficult, and initially block the development of dialogue.

These are extensions aimed at reinforcing the statement expressed in the introduction. Such support should be used when the grounds themselves are not sufficiently persuasive to the readers and listeners.

It limits the credibility of the claim or describes the conditions under which such a claim is true. If the argument does not assume the existence of another opinion, it will be regarded as feeble. If you struggle to conceive of a contrary view, then writing the rebuttal may seem difficult. We advise you to read through the examples.

These can be words or phrases showing the author’s degree of confidence in the statement, namely: likely, possible, impossible, and unconditional.

The first three elements are considered essential to practical argumentation, while the last three are not always indispensable. An argument described in this way in a counter argument essay reveals its strength and limitations. This is the way it should be. There should be no argument that seems stronger than it is or applies more broadly than it is intended to. The point is not to outplay or defeat every counter-argument, but to get as close to the truth or a suitable solution as we are capable of. Once you have familiarized yourself with the process, you may find it complicated; however, don’t get frustrated and use an additional argumentative essay writing service to create a proper sample.

Sample of a Toulmin Argument Model

The following example of body paragraphs is for you to consider:

People should probably have firearms.

Claim: People should probably have firearms.
Grounds: People want to be protected.
Warrant: Self-defense with a firearm is much more effective.
Backing: Research shows that firearms owners are less likely to be robbed.
Rebuttal: Not everyone should have access to firearms. Children and people with intellectual disabilities, for example, should not own firearms.
Qualifier: The percentage of the population with intellectual health illnesses is much lower than that of the average human. The phrase ” probably” in the claim’s wording is a qualifier.

Essay Which Shows Toulmin Method

So why don’t we put all six points into practice and write a good argumentative essay to enhance understanding?

There is an age-old question of the 21st century. However, are current games more harmful or beneficial? To answer it as objectively as possible, one must rely on biology and psychology. Researchers at the University of Central Florida have proven that taking a short break from work to play a video game is far more effective in relieving stress than inactivity with total gadget avoidance and even meditation. Video games can be educational and informative. A popular stereotype is that games are bad for you. They overload the brain or are just a waste of time. Nonsense, there are plenty of benefits to be gained from gameplay if you know the limits.

Play is a way of making the brain stimulated. Games contribute to the socialization of people. Multiplayer games teach social interaction, trust, dialogue, group work, leadership, and management skills. It turns out that those who spend a lot of leisure on a PC or console solve difficult tasks easier. Attention to detail and the speed of brain and eye reactions, accelerated interaction between them, muscle response – all these things are trained to the highest degree. To do this kind of training in real life without threatening your health, you have to try very hard.

Researchers at the Open University of Catalonia have found that video games can positively affect memory, solve difficult issues, build algorithms, and improve attention span and other cognitive abilities of the brain. They stated that video game enthusiasts have an increase in the right side of the hippocampus, which is responsible for memory, over time. Studies have also shown their effectiveness in second language acquisition, learning math, and science. This is potentially good news for pupils, students, and the millions of people who love to play.

In addition, video games have changed significantly in recent years; they have become more complex, realistic, and socially oriented. Although video games have a pure entertainment status, their popularity has been deployed in the service of medicine with the aim of increasing patient health motivation.

Are all computer games completely harmless, and are they a great form of leisure? When it comes to the harms of computer games, they are mainly associated with excessive use. Taking a break will reduce the negative effects. To label them as “bad”, “violent”, and “aggressive” is to overlook many aspects inherent in modern games. People choose games with their advantages and disadvantages depending on their own inner motivation.

Don’t underestimate the importance of computer games as a stress reliever after a stressful day. It’s important to be able to distract yourself and just relax. And joining a virtual world is one of the easiest and most effective ways to escape from external problems for a while.

Most people who have experienced gaming either perceive the activity in a negative or a positive way. The indifferent ones, by and large, are few.

How To Write A Good Compare And Contrast Essay: Topics, Examples And Step-by-step Guide

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

The Best Online AP Courses For High School Students [Full Guide]
Explaining Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy with Demonstrative Examples

Improve your writing with our guides

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

Backing (argument)

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

An Introduction to Punctuation
Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
B.A., English, State University of New York

In the Toulmin model of argument , backing is the support or explanation provided for the warrant . The backing is often characterized by the word because .

Examples and Observations

"[Stephen] Toulmin's The Uses of Argument , which appeared in 1958, is mainly known for the model of argumentation presented in this book. This model represents the 'procedural form' of argumentation: the various steps that can be distinguished in the defense of a standpoint. According to Toulmin, the soundness of argumentation is primarily determined by the degree in which the warrant , which connects the data adduced in the argumentation with the claim that is defended, is made acceptable by a backing . . . . "What kind of backing is required, however, is dependent on the field to which the question at issue belongs. An ethical justification, for instance, requires a different kind of backing from a legal justification. Toulmin concludes from this that the evaluation criteria for determining the soundness of argumentation are 'field dependent.'" (Frans H. Van Eemeren, "Argumentation Theory: An Overview of Approaches and Research Themes," in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts , edited by Anders Eriksson, et al. Continuum, 2002)
Different Kinds of Backing "Toulmin . . . emphasizes the difference between backing and warrant: backings can be categorical statements of fact just like data, while warrants always are general bridge-like statements . . .. A central point in Toulmin's book [ The Uses of Argument ] is that different kinds of backings occur in different fields of argument. Among Toulmin's examples of backings are statutes and acts of Parliament, statistical reports, appeals to the results of experiments and references to taxonomical systems. All can provide the backing that warrant the arguments as they are acceptable in particular fields." (Bart Verheij, "" Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin's Scheme." Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation , edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Springer, 2006)
Backing as Evidence " Initial Statement: It should be investigated whether Peter murdered George. Claim: Peter shot George. Backing: Witness W states that Peter shot George. [Here] . . . the backing statement is the kind of evidence you need to collect in a murder investigation. Of course, the witness may be lying, or what he says may not be true. But if he says that Peter shot George, that statement needs to be investigated in any proper investigation. It is relevant in that context." (Douglas N. Walton, Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law . Cambridge University Press, 2008)
What Is the Toulmin Model of Argument?
Warrants in the Toulmin Model of Argument
Data Definition and Examples in Argument
Argument (Rhetoric and Composition)
Definition and Examples of Conclusions in Arguments
What is Judicial Rhetoric?
Proof in Rhetoric
Definition and Examples of the New Rhetorics
Premise Definition and Examples in Arguments
Definition and Examples of Evidence in Argument
Propositions in Debate Definition and Examples
Definitions and Examples of Debates
Informal Logic
testimony (rhetoric)
Definition and Examples of Praeteritio (Preteritio) in Rhetoric

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Global Warming

Argumentative Essay On Toulmin Model Global Warming

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Global Warming , Pollution , World , Evidence , Nature , Development , Environmental Issues , Environment

Words: 2750

Published: 12/12/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Outline This essay will look at the issue of global warming using the Toulmin model (Toulmin, 1; Fullerton.edu, 1). As such, the following sections will be discussed in the essay in line with the model: Claim: Looking at the issue of global warming, it is clear that there are many causes culminating into the pollution of the environment, and the degradation of the ozone layer. There are various factors that can lead to this. The end result is global warming which threatens life on the planet. As such, it is the responsibility of the inhabitants of earth to stop this catastrophe. This essay therefore claims that man has contributed to global warming and holds the key to stopping it. Grounds: This is where the essay will seek to prove that man has actually participated in propelling global warming. It will therefore provide evidence and facts that prove that man’s activities have in one way or another led to the disruption in the cause of nature. As such, his activities lead to global warming and climate change. It will also seek to give evidence that if man changed his ways and put in place some measures, he could as well help in controlling this catastrophe. The grounds will be based on two major arguments and the evidence for them: that man’s activities have greatly contributed to global warming and two, that a change in the order that man does things would go a long way in saving the environment from total degradation. Warrants: in this section, the essay will seek to prove or show the actual relationship between man’s activities and the degradation of the environment. In other words, this is where a correlation will be drawn between the role of man and global warming. Once the link is established, the essay will then prove that if man reversed the order in which he carried out his activities, then the same would be reflected on the environment, thus reducing the pollution rates. Backing: this is where hard evidence will be given for the argument. In this section, the essay will seek to provide some facts through statistical and scientific evidence to show how man has contributed to environmental degradation. For instance, it will provide statistics on the emission rates of carbon dioxide and how these contribute to global warming. It will also give evidence on the various effects of global warming on life in the planet. This is expected to give a strong founding for the essay. Modal Qualifiers: Toulmin (340) observes that in this section, the essay should give evidence that the proposed action would be universally accepted and would not have any negative impacts on the people or the environment. As such, this essay will seek to show that the proposed mitigation measures could go a long way in saving the whole world from the dangers of environmental change. Rebuttal: This is the essay section that will deal with a counter argument on the issue of man’s contribution to causing and preventing environmental degradation. In this section, the essay will seek to prove that there are various causes that lead to global warming, some of which are natural. Since man has no control over the natural events, this argument will be used to prove that man can do nothing to cause or control the process of environmental degradation and global warming. It will seek to show that man is an observer who does nothing but cope with all the environmental challenges that Mother Nature brings along his way.

Claim The issue of global warming is a global concern that has put the leaders of the world in a tight position to find a solution for the climate change issue that is threatening the life on earth. According to the National Geographic (1), these worries are justified. This is mainly because the temperatures on the earth’s surface seem to be rising day in day out. As a result, the levels of the seas are rising and the glaciers in the high peaks on earth as well as the Polar Regions are gradually melting. This poses the threat of an even greater rise in the sea levels. On overall assessment, it emerges quite clearly that man has a great significance to the environmental issues. He has the ability to cause a total disruption of the environment just as he has the ability to control it. As such, it is upon man to decide on what he wants to do with his environment.

There is sufficient evidence to show that man has contributed to the course of environmental pollution which has ultimately led to global warming. There are some activities that man engage in that lead to increased emission. For instance, there is the use of motor vehicles. The car exhaust system leads to emission of carbon dioxide which leads to accumulation of the gas into the atmosphere (Strasburg, 1). Similarly, man, as he seeks comfort, ends up using some home devices that contribute to the release of green house gases. These are appliances such as the air conditioners. However, the greatest contribution that man has to the problem is the through industrial processes. Man engages in various processes that lead to the accumulation of these gases into the atmosphere (Citidata.com, 1; Dick, 1).

Of course, there are adverse effects of these activities to the life of plants and animals on the planet such as change in the weather patterns which affects productivity of the land, poses a threat to the animal habitat such as the polar bears and also poses health threats to man himself (nrdc.org, 1; Time for Change, 1). Due to these effects, man has to derive a way to solve the problem.

There are various ways in which man can achieve this. For instance, he can reduce engagement in activities that increase the pollution. For instance, he can use cars that have good engines, leading to proper utilization of fuel hence reduce the emission rates. Similarly, he can reform his industries so become more environmental friendly. For instance, he can find ways to detoxify gases released from the industrial chimneys before they are released into the atmosphere. Other changes can be made in the manner in which the processing industries go about their work so that they can reduce the emission rates (Global warming Facts, 1; Sierra Club, 1). Use of renewable energy could also go a long way in ensuring that the emission is reduced.

So far, the essay has shown that there are various activities that man can be engaged in to prevent the pollution of the environment. However, this does not specifically mean that if man observes the recommendations so far the issue of global warming would be solved. As such, there is need for sufficient evidence to prove that his activities can actually lead to the end of the problem.

This is the rational for this argument: the natural balance has been in existence for quite a long time. Man’s activities led to the disruption in the balance. As such, since man is the problem, he can as well be the solution by putting in place measures to restore the balance that he contributed in distorting. These are the measures indicated by Sierra Club (1) which include processes such as reducing waste materials, reusing some of the materials and recycling others. This would go a long way in ensuring that the ecological balance is maintained.

Other man’s activities lead to over-exploitation of the available resources, which again leads to the degradation of the environment. As such, if man put into place measures to control such effects, then there is a possibility that he could lead to a stop to the environmental threat. In conclusion, this section has sought to show the exact relation between man’s activities and global warming. It has emerged that there is a very strong correlation between the two. As such, if man controlled his activities, there is every possibility that this would be an efficient way of controlling the global warming process.

In this section, the main aim is to prove that there are various changes that ma can put in place to ensure that global warming is brought to a slow. First of all, it is important to look at the current trend in global warming. The national Geographic (1) indicates that the average temperatures on the earth’s surface have gone up by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about 0.8 degrees Celsius. If this is not brought to check, then the levels could continue rising which could lead to serious repercussions on the earth’s surface. The arctic regions are quickly wearing away and if the trend continues, then they could totally disappear by the summer of 2040, which is of course a threat to the life of animals living in these regions (nrdc.org, 1).

On a similar note, the coral reefs are suffering bleaching effect due to the change in water temperatures, where some have recorded bleaching rates of as high as 70%. Glaciers and mountain snows are also receiving the blunt end of the global warming effects where, for instance, the Glacier National Park has observed a reduction in the number of glaciers from 150 glaciers in 1910 to only 27 glaciers at the present. These statistics send a shocking wave to the environmentalists in the world. It is clear that unless something is done, then the world is doomed to suffer from the wrath of nature.

It is not the animals who have contributed to this disruption. Rather, it is the creature that is supposed to be the custodian of nature: man. However, since man knows the exact causes of the problem, he can as well contribute to ending the saga. All he has to do is reverse his manner of doing things so that they are more environmental friendly. He has the ability and means; all he needs is the will and the motivation to do it.

Modal Qualifiers

According to NASA (1), it comes out quite clearly that more often than not, man’s activities are concerned with the emission of green house gases which lead to the issue of global warming. For instance, man usually drives to and from work. It is very common to find that in one homestead there are more than one automobile. The meaning of this is that every time that the different members of the family go out, they usually lead to more emission. If the number of automobile per household was reduced, this could go a long way in curbing the issue of emission.

Sierra Club (1) observes that manufacturing industries are always releasing gases into the atmosphere. Of course, this goes a long way into polluting the environment and increasing the concentration of the GHG gases. Suppose these emission rates were cut down or controlled so that there is reduced accumulation of GHG gases into the atmosphere. The results would be gratifying for the whole world. There is also the issue of deforestation. Most of the time, man is involved in activities that lead to destruction of the forest cover in the world. Activities such as charcoal burning, clearing land for farming and overstocking contribute to making the land bare. This has serious repercussions on the environment since the trees contribute to the cleaning of air. As such, if man reduced the frequency at which he cuts down trees, then the gross effect would be conservation of the environment.

All along, this argument has held the position that man contribute to the environmental degradation that leads to global warming. Furthermore, it has stressed on the fact that if man changed the manner in which he interacted with his environment, there is a possibility that he could curb the global warming menace. This argument could be logical to some extent. However, there is another argument that shows that man has no control over global warming at all.

First of all, there is the scientific argument which claims that the green house gases are not the only pre-cursors to global warming. As such, in as much as man contributes to the release of these gases into the atmosphere, this has little or no effect on the rate of global warming (Dick, 1).

However, the strongest argument against man’s contribution towards the control of environmental pollution and global warming is the argument that most of the significant causes of global warming are natural (Strasburg, 1). For instance, there are the volcanic eruptions that lead to the rise in the temperature levels. As a matter of fact, there is no way that man has control over these volcanic activities. Therefore, he is left in a helpless situation where he just observes as the environmental and natural forces work to his disadvantage.

There are also other factors such as the water vapors. Day in day out, water from the water bodies around the world vaporizes into vapor which accumulates in the atmosphere and contributes to the global warming. There is no way that man has control over this and as such, he has no means to control it. The same case applies to the solar cycles and the cosmic rays which work together to bring an overall effect of global warming. The mechanism by which these forces work is far beyond the control of man (Sarsburg, 1).

This essay has looked at the Toulmin model and how it can be used in finding a solution for a problem. It has given the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, modal qualifiers as well as the rebuttal. The issue that has been addressed by the essay is global warming, where the essay sough to prove as to whether or not man has the ability to control the problem. The Toulmin model was followed all through the essay.

Works Cited

City-Data.com. ‘Man’s Contribution to Global Warming.’ 2012. Web, 26th March 2012, http://www.city-data.com/forum/green-living/605770-man-s-contribution-global-warming.html Dick, Phillip K. ‘Is Man Caused Global Warming a Scientific Fact?’ 2011. Web, 26th March 2012, http://lrak.net/globalwarming.htm Fullertion.edu. ‘Toulmin Model of Argument.’ N.d. Web, 26th March 2012, https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/13647e25076a8d62 Global Warming Facts. ‘Global Warming.’ 2010. Web, 26th March 2012, http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html Nasa.gov. ‘Global Climate Change.’ 2012. Web, 26th March 2012, http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ National Geographic News. ‘Global Warming Fast Facts.’ 1996. Web, 26th March 2012, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html NRDC. ‘Consequences of Global Warming.’ 2012. Web, 26th March 2012, http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons.asp Sierra Club. ‘Clean Energy Solutions: Ten Things You Can Do to Help Curb Global Warming.’ 2012. Web, 26th March 2012, http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/tenthings/default.aspx Strasburg, McIntire Jeff. ‘Top Global Warming Causes – Natural or Human?’ 2009. Web, 26th March 2012, http://blog.sustainablog.org/2009/06/the-top-causes-of-global-warming-natural-or-human/ Time for Change. ‘Cause and Effect for Global Warming.’ N.d. Web. 26th March 2012, http://timeforchange.org/cause-and-effect-for-global-warming Toulmin, S. ‘The Uses of Argument.’ 1969. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Think Quest. ‘Global Warming.’ 2012. Web, 26th March 2012, http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/global_warming.htm

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1530

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Meter research papers, john deere case studies, vietnam war course work, iraq course work, starbucks course work, parenting course work, industrialization course work, sculpture course work, award course work, athletes course work, telephone no literature review examples, racism in us essay sample, htc corporation report examples, individual cultural diversity issue and its relevance to workplace dynamics essay sample, kant case study example, koppen climate classification system essay examples, free book review about steve jobs, chief characteristics of postmodernism as described by lyotard and jameson essay samples, essay on following are the influences on business buyers, example of research paper on consumer models and and understanding of the manager 039 s problems, good example of research paper on effect of communication on interpersonal relations, good research paper on leadership interview project, berkleys position essay, good essay about decision analysis, good example of healthcare ethics essay, creative writing on social justice leader, marketing essays examples, laminar and turbulent pipe flow report, article review on chinese art and literature, quot essays, almon essays, scholars essays, air quality essays, proposals essays, new kind essays, third world countries essays, tourism sector essays, hacking essays, higher learning essays, institutions of higher learning essays, pertaining essays, headaches essays, rights movement essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

IMAGES

The Toulmin Argument Model
Toulmin Essay Outline With Examples: How to Write
Toulmin Argument Structure: Argumentative Essay Example Explained
How to Build Strong Argumentation by Using the Toulmin Method
How to Use Toulmin Analysis
Guide to Toulmin Argument

VIDEO

Planning a Q3 using Toulmin Model Sentences, part 3
EZ-Argue (Body Paragraph 1 & 2) Tutorial Video
Toulmin Model MVI 0494
Argumentation
The Toulmin Model of Argumentation
English 2020: Argumentative Speech

COMMENTS

Sample Toulmin Argument
Sample Toulmin Argument. Now that you have had the chance to learn about Toulmin, it's time to see what a Toulmin argument might look like. Below, you'll see a sample argumentative essay, written according to MLA formatting guidelines, with a particular emphasis on Toulmin elements. Click the image below to open a PDF of the sample paper.
Toulmin Argument Model
The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument (see Figure 9.1 for an example): ... Toulmin Exercise. Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a newspaper or a magazine think piece or a scholarly journal. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument.
Toulmin Argument
What is the Toulmin Method? Developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, the Toulmin method is a style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing.In Toulmin's method, every argument begins with three fundamental parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.
Guide: Using the Toulmin Method
A Toulmin Model for Analyzing Arguments (modified from Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell, The Aims of Argument, p. 34) Claim: ... In the case of our example argument, we might say that the essay seems immediately compelling for a number of reasons (style, use of examples, the attractive color photo, etc.); then we might note that our ...
8.4: Toulmin Argument Model
Toulmin Argument Model. Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was ...
Guide to Toulmin Argument
Toulmin argumentation can be diagrammed as a conclusion established, more or less, on the basis of a fact supported by a warrant (with backing), and a possible rebuttal.Toulmin Model. Chiswick Chap, CC BY-SA 3.0. Stephen Toulmin's (1958) model of argument conceptualizes argument as a series of six rhetorical moves: Claim. Data, Evidence. Warrant.
How to Write a Great Essay Using the Toulmin Method
The grounds give place to the warrant, which is the assumption that connects the grounds to the main idea, or the claim. An example of the Toulmin method structure: Claim: The street is safely guarded in the night. Grounds: There are police officers that go through the street every hour from 8 PM to 6 AM. Warrant: The main function of a police ...
Toulmin Argument Model
Toulmin Argument Model. In simplified terms this is the argument of "I am right — and here is why.". In this model of argument, the arguer creates a claim, also referred to as a thesis, that states the idea you are asking the audience to accept as true and then supports it with evidence and reasoning. The Toulmin argument goes further ...
Toulmin Argument Model
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was considered Toulmin's ...
The Toulmin Model of Argument
Example of the Toulmin Model Applied to an Argument. Let's break down the following argument: Schools should ban soda from their campuses to protect student health. Claim: Schools should ban soda from their campuses. Grounds: Banning soda would protect student health. Warrant 1: Poor diet leads to health problems in adolescents.
Toulmin Argument Model: Benefits, Parts and Example
The Toulmin model is a process for evaluating or creating an argument named after English philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin. Toulmin came up with this model for examining arguments during the 20th century. Also called the Toulmin method, the Toulmin model is a structured way to analyze or construct logical and thorough arguments.
3 Strong Argumentative Essay Examples, Analyzed
Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample. Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to ...
PDF Toulmin Argument
model focuses on identifying the basic parts of an argument. You can use Toulmin's model in two ways. First, analyze your sources by identifying the basic elements of the arguments being made. Second, test and critique your own argument. Toulmin identifies the three essential parts of any argument as the claim; the data (also called grounds ...
Toulmin's Model of Argumentation
The British-American philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin (1922-2009) gained an impressive reputation in the field of argumentation theory with The Uses of Argument, first published in 1958, in which he introduces a new model for the "layout of arguments" (Toulmin 2003). Footnote 1 Although in this monograph Toulmin uses consistently the term argument and never uses the term argumentation, the ...
The Toulmin Model of Argument
What the Toulmin Model of Argument offers the writer is a way to think about and structure one's argument. The model breaks down the key parts of an argument so that the argument can be as clear and precise and thought out as possible. I hope you find the Toulmin Model of Argument a useful tool when writing or analyzing an argumentative essay.
Toulmin Argument Structure: Argumentative Essay Example Explained
Example of Toulmin Claim Formulation and Its Practical Use. It is important to note the practical use of Toulmin's argumentative model in everyday life. For example, " In 10 years, the world is highly likely to use electric cars only. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020) points to a forty-percent annual increase in electric car sales.
Organizing Your Argument
Three argumentative methods —the Toulmin Method, Classical Method, and Rogerian Method— give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument. Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment's directions if ...
How to write an argumentative essay
Examples of argumentative essay prompts: Two-sided Question. ... The Toulmin Model. This model is commonly used in academic essays. It mounts an argument through the following four steps: Make a claim. Present the evidence, or grounds, for the claim. Explain how the grounds support the claim.
Toulmin Argument
Toulmin Argument. The Toulmin method, developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin , is essentially a structure for analyzing arguments. But the elements for analysis are so clear and structured that many professors now have students write argumentative essays with the elements of the Toulmin method in mind. This type of argument works well when ...
Toulmin Method: Guide to Writing a Successful Essay
Argumentative essays are a genre of writing that challenges the student to research a topic, gather, generate and evaluate evidence, and summarize a position on the issue. It helps to get as much benefit out of the study as possible. The Toulmin model essay could be part of the shaping and self-understanding of the individual, and one day it ...
PDF Using the Toulmin Method
The Toulmin Method is a way of doing very detailed analysis, in which we break an argument into its various parts and decide how effectively those parts participate in the overall whole. When we use this method, we identify the argument's claim, reasons, and evidence, and evaluate the effectiveness of each.
Definition and Examples of Backing in the Toulmin Model
Examples and Observations "[Stephen] Toulmin's The Uses of Argument, which appeared in 1958, is mainly known for the model of argumentation presented in this book. This model represents the 'procedural form' of argumentation: the various steps that can be distinguished in the defense of a standpoint. ... Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays ...
Argumentative Essay On Toulmin Model Global Warming
This essay will look at the issue of global warming using the Toulmin model (Toulmin, 1; Fullerton.edu, 1). As such, the following sections will be discussed in the essay in line with the model: Claim: Looking at the issue of global warming, it is clear that there are many causes culminating into the pollution of the environment, and the ...

9 Toulmin Argument Model

Toulmin Exercise

Attributions

Share This Book

Margin Size

8.4: Toulmin Argument Model

Toulmin Argument Model

Toulmin Exercise

Table of Contents

Related Concepts

Why Does Toulmin Argument Matter?

When should writers or speakers consider Toulmin’s model of argument?

Summary of Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argument

The 6 Elements of Successful Argument

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

Writing Studies

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Speech & Writing

7 Toulmin Argument Model

Preview the Toulmin Argument Model

Stephen Toulmin and His Six-Part Argument Model

When to Use the Toulmin Argument Model

Key Takeaways

Chapter Attribution

Image Attributions

Share This Book

62 Toulmin Argument Model

Share This Book

The Toulmin Model of Argument

Example of the Toulmin Model Applied to an Argument

Link: Argumentative Essay Using Toulmin Strategies

Choose Your Test

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Argumentative Essay Example 2

Argumentative Essay Example 3

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

What's Next?

Ask a Question Below

Improve With Our Famous Guides

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

Stay Informed

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Share this entry

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Toulmin Model of Argument Podcast

Share this:

Follow Blog via Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Twitter feed