toulmin argument essay

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.

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.

Table of Contents

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.

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.

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.

Other Topics:

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

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.

30 The Toulmin Argument Model

Kirsten DeVries and Christina Frasier

Learning Objectives

• Examine a contemporary approach to argumentation.
• Identify the component elements of a thorough, well-reasoned argument.

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, and the terms involved can be added to those defined in earlier sections of this chapter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adapted from Let’s Get Writing!  by Elizabeth Browning; Kirsten DeVries; Kathy Boylan; Jenifer Kurtz; and Katelyn Burton,  CC BY-SA 4.0  

The Toulmin Argument Model Copyright © by Kirsten DeVries and Christina Frasier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

English Composition II - ENGL 1213

• Choosing An Issue
• Find eBooks
• Find Articles
• Search Tips
• Write It, Cite It
• Ask a Librarian
• The Research Proposal
• The Annotated Bibliography
• Essay 1 - The Classical Argument
• Essay 2 - The Rogerian Argument

Requirements

Writing prompt.

Throughout English Composition II, you have utilized research skills, problem solving skills, and analytic skills.  The Toulmin Essay provides the student the opportunity to revisit some elements of Classical Argument and analyze another form of argumentative structure.

The essay should include the folllowing:

• 3 to 4 pages (double-spaced), not including the Works Cited page
• In-text citations in the body of the essay
• Works Cited page with your credible sources
• A minimum of 4 sources

To complete this assignment, you should:

• Begin with the issue you used in the Classical Argument
• Gather and evaluate sources
• Establish a thesis and academic level paragraphs
• Write a rough draft and complete revision exercises
• Submit a polished, academic level essay using MLA citation and format

An argument written in this manner unfolds both the strengths and limits of the argument.  This is as it should be.  No argument should pretend to be stronger than it is or apply further than it is meant to.  The point here isn't to "win" or "beat" all the counterarguments; the point is to come as close to the truth or as close to a realistic and feasible solution as we possibly can.  Toulmin's model reminds us that arguments are generally expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than asserted as absolutes.  This lets the reader know how to take the reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied, and how general it is meant to be.  For this essay, you will craft a Toulmin argument utilizing your working annotated bibliography/research proposal and topic and how it applies to a global audience.

This assignment helps you practice the following skills that are essential to your success in school and your professional life beyond school.  In this assignment you will:

• Access and collect needed information from appropriate primary and secondary sources
• Synthesize information to develop informed views to produce and refute argumentation
• Compose a well-organized, Toulmin argument to expand your knowledge of a topic
• << Previous: Essay 2 - The Rogerian Argument
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 4:41 PM
• URL: https://libguides.occc.edu/comp2

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

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.

Figure 8.1 “Toulmin Argument”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ENGL001: English Composition I

Argumentation and the toulmin method.

Read this article to review the Toulmin method and qualifiers. Do you need to qualify your claim to avoid overgeneralization (assertions that are too broad)?

Argumentation

When teaching argumentation, it is important to show practical methods, as this is often an area that confuses students. By showing pragmatic approaches to structuring an argument, students can better articulate their thoughts. Moreover, the skill of argumentation can be applied to other assignments as well, such as the research paper, cause and effect, and compare and contrast.

The Toulmin Method

This is the statement the arguer wants the audience to believe. Claims such as "abortion should be protected by the constitution", "marijuana should be legal for medicinal purposes", and "the drinking age should be lowered", are examples of often over-used freshmen argument claims. The claim can serve as a thesis, and it is an essential starting point for any argument paper.

The grounds, or data, of an argument emphasizes the arguer's ethos (or credibility). It is imperative to an argument that the grounds be well founded, noncontroversial, and supportive. Claims supported with solid grounds become much stronger. For example, in an argument about lowering the drinking age, saying "my parents told me drinking is bad for you", is much less effective than saying, "scientists predict .5 percent of one's brain cells are lost every time he/she binge drinks".

This links the two previous steps. It creates the bridge between the claim and the grounds. Sometimes the warrant is implicit, unstated, or combined with the grounds.

4. Qualifier

This modifies the strength of an argument. Based on what kind of qualifier you choose, your argument becomes more or less believable. For example, the qualifier, "all people who drink become alcoholics", is so strong of a claim that it becomes unbelievable. Here, if the qualifier is toned-down, the statement becomes more believable: "Some people who drink become alcoholics".

5. Rebuttal

It is often important to include and possibly debunk rebuttal arguments. For example, saying "despite scientists claim about the effects of drinking on the brain, it has been shown to be no less damaging than using a cell phone", shows that you can anticipate your critics.

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

IV. Types of Argumentation

4.4 Toulmin: Dissecting the Everyday Argument

Rebecca Jones

Philosopher Stephen Toulmin studies the arguments we make in our everyday lives. He developed his method out of frustration with logicians (philosophers of argumentation) that studied argument in a vacuum or through mathematical formulations:

All A are B. All B are C.

Therefore, all A are C. [1]

Instead, Toulmin views argument as it appears in a conversation, in a letter, or some other context because real arguments are much more complex than the syllogisms that make up the bulk of Aristotle’s logical program (for a review of syllogisms see section 3.4 of this text). Toulmin offers the contemporary writer/reader a way to map an argument. The result is a visualization of the argument process. This map comes complete with vocabulary for describing the parts of an argument. The vocabulary allows us to see the contours of the landscape—the winding rivers and gaping caverns. One way to think about a “good” argument is that it is a discussion that hangs together, a landscape that is cohesive (we can’t have glaciers in our desert valley). Sometimes we miss the faults of an argument because it sounds good or appears to have clear connections between the statement and the evidence, when in truth the only thing holding the argument together is a lovely sentence or an artistic flourish.

For Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement or a set of statements. The better the demand is met, the higher the audience’s appreciation. Toulmin’s vocabulary for the study of argument offers labels for the parts of the argument to help us create our map. [2]

Claim:  The basic standpoint presented by a writer/ speaker.

Data:  The evidence which supports the claim.

Warrant:  The justification for connecting particular data to a particular claim. The warrant also makes clear the assumptions underlying the argument.

Backing:  Additional information required if the warrant is not clearly supported.

Rebuttal:  Conditions or standpoints that point out flaws in the claim or alternative positions.

Qualifiers:  Terminology that limits a standpoint. Examples include applying the following terms to any part of an argument: sometimes, seems, occasionally, none, always, never, etc.

The following paragraphs come from an article reprinted in UTNE magazine by Pamela Paxton and Jeremy Adam Smith titled: “Not Everyone Is Out to Get You.” [3] Charting this excerpt helps us to understand some of the underlying assumptions found in the article.

Example: “Trust No One”

That was the slogan of The X-Files, the TV drama that followed two FBI agents on a quest to uncover a vast government conspiracy. A defining cultural phenomenon during its run from 1993–2002, the show captured a mood of growing distrust in America.

Since then, our trust in one another has declined even further. In fact, it seems that “Trust no one” could easily have been America’s motto for the past 40 years—thanks to, among other things, Vietnam, Watergate, junk bonds, Monica Lewinsky, Enron, sex scandals in the Catholic Church, and the Iraq war.

The General Social Survey, a periodic assessment of Americans’ moods and values, shows an 11-point decline from 1976–2008 in the number of Americans who believe other people can generally be trusted. Institutions haven’t fared any better. Over the same period, trust has declined in the press (from 29 to 9 percent), education (38–29 percent), banks (41 percent to 20 percent), corporations (23–16 percent), and organized religion (33–20 percent). Gallup’s 2008 governance survey showed that trust in the government was as low as it was during the Watergate era.

The news isn’t all doom and gloom, however. A growing body of research hints that humans are hardwired to trust, which is why institutions, through reform and high performance, can still stoke feelings of loyalty, just as disasters and mismanagement can inhibit it. The catch is that while humans want, even need, to trust, they won’t trust blindly and foolishly.

Figure 4.4.1 [4] below demonstrates one way to chart the argument that Paxton and Smith make in “Trust No One.” The remainder of the article offers additional claims and data, including the final claim that there is hope for overcoming our collective trust issues. The chart helps us to see that some of the warrants, in a longer research project, might require additional support. For example, the warrant that TV mirrors real life is an argument and not a fact that would require evidence.

Example of Visualizing an Argument

Charting your own arguments and the arguments of others helps you to visualize the meat of your discussion. All the flourishes are gone and the bones revealed. Even if you cannot fit an argument neatly into the boxes, the attempt forces you to ask important questions about your claim, your warrant, and possible rebuttals. By charting your argument you are forced to write your claim in a succinct manner and admit, for example, what you are using for evidence. Charted, you can see if your evidence is scanty, if it relies too much on one kind of evidence over another, and if it needs additional support. This charting might also reveal a disconnect between your claim and your warrant or cause you to reevaluate your claim altogether.

The Toulmin method is a useful way of determining the validity of an argument and is oftentimes the model used in legal proceedings. But the Toulmin method can leave you feeling as if you’re stuck in an either/or situation as it focuses on justifying the arguer’s reasons only. For a method that incorporates a humanistic approach, consider using the Rogerian method.

This section contains material from:

Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” In Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1 , edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 156-179. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010. https://writingspaces.org/?page_id=243 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

• Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (Mahwah: Erlbaum, NJ, 2002), 131. ↵
• Stephen Toulmin,   The Uses of Argument, ( Ca mbridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). ↵
• Pamela Paxton and Jeremy Adam Smith, “Reimagining a Politics of Trust: Not Everyone Is Out to Get Yo u,” UNTE Reader, September-October 2009, https://www.utne.com/politics/reimagining-a-political-community-of-trust . ↵
• This image was derived from “Figure 5: This Chart Demonstrates the Utility of Visualizing an Argument” by Rebecca Jones in: Rebecca Jones, “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?,” i n Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1 , eds. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky (West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010), 156-179, https://writingspaces.org/?page_id=243 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License . ↵

A type of logic or reasoning associated with Aristotle involving a conclusion based on statements called premises which lead to a conclusion.  A major premise is a statement of universal truth or common knowledge. A minor premise is a statement related to a major premise but concerns a specific situation. Together, major premises and minor premises form a conclusion. For example, “all dogs are mammals (major premise) and all dogs are mammals (minor premise), so, therefore, all dogs are animals (conclusion).”

To express an idea in as few words as possible; concise, brief, or to the point.

4.4 Toulmin: Dissecting the Everyday Argument Copyright © 2022 by Rebecca Jones is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

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.

What Is the Toulmin Model of Argument?

Definition and Examples

• 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

The Toulmin model (or system) is a six-part model of argument (with similarities to the syllogism ) introduced by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his 1958 book The Uses of Argument . 

The Toulmin model (or "system") can be used as a tool for developing, analyzing, and categorizing arguments.

Purpose of the Toulmin Model

"When I wrote [ The Uses of Argument ], my aim was strictly philosophical: to criticize the assumption, made by most Anglo-American academic philosophers, that any significant argument can be put in formal terms ... In no way had I set out to expound a theory of rhetoric or argumentation: my concern was with twentieth-century epistemology, not informal logic . Still less had I in mind an analytical model like that which, among scholars of Communication, came to be called 'the Toulmin model,'" (Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument , revised ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

The Six Components of an Effective Argument

"What is it that makes arguments work? What makes arguments effective? The British logician Stephen Toulmin made important contributions to argument theory that are useful for this line of inquiry. Toulmin found six components of arguments:

• Claim : A statement that something is so.
• Data : The backing for the claim.
• Warrant : The link between the claim and the grounds.
• Backing : Support for the warrant.
• Modality : The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument.
• Rebuttal : Exceptions to the initial claim," (J. Meany and K. Shuster, Art, Argument, and Advocacy . IDEA, 2002).

"[Toulmin's] general model of ' data ' leading to a ' claim ,' mediated by a ' warrant ' with any necessary ' backing ,' has been very influential as a new standard of logical thinking, particularly among scholars of rhetoric and speech communication. He takes seriously the contexts in which arguments emerge and looks to evaluate them in ways relevant to those contexts," (C. W. Tindale, Rhetorical Argumentation . Sage, 2004).

Using the Toulmin System

"Use the seven-part Toulmin system to begin to develop an argument ... Here is the Toulmin system:

• Make your claim.
• Restate or qualify your claim.
• Present good reasons to support your claim.
• Explain the underlying assumptions that connect your claim and your reasons. If an underlying assumption is controversial, provide backing for it.
• Provide additional grounds to support your claim.
• Acknowledge and respond to possible counterarguments.
• Draw a conclusion, stated as strongly as possible," (Lex Runciman, et al.,  Exercises for the Everyday Writer , 4th ed. Beford/St. Martin's, 2009).

The Toulmin Model and the Syllogism

"Toulmin's model actually boils down to a rhetorical expansion of the syllogism ... Although the reactions of others are anticipated, the model is primarily directed at representing the argumentation for the standpoint of the speaker or writer who advances the argumentation. The other party remains in fact passive: The acceptability of the claim is not made dependent on a systematic weighing up of arguments for and against the claim," (F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation . Cambridge University Press, 2004).

• Warrants in the Toulmin Model of Argument
• Backing (argument)
• Data Definition and Examples in Argument
• Argument (Rhetoric and Composition)
• What Does It Mean to Make a Claim During an Argument?
• Definition and Examples of Syllogisms
• Definition and Examples of Valid Arguments
• Audience Analysis in Speech and Composition
• Definition and Examples of the New Rhetorics
• Techne (Rhetoric)
• Propositions in Debate Definition and Examples
• What Does Argumentation Mean?
• Definition and Examples of Conclusions in Arguments
• What Is Deductive Reasoning?
• Informal Logic

Arguing on the Toulmin Model

New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation

• © 2006
• David Hitchcock 0 ,
• Bart Verheij 1

Department of Philosophy, Mc Master University, Hamilton, Canada

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Artificial Intelligence, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

• The only book-length comprehensive study of Stephen Toulmin’s influential model for the layout of arguments
• New essays on argument analysis and evaluation by 27 scholars from 10 countries in the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, psychology and speech communication
• Novel contributions to the theory of non-formal inferences, to the theory of defeaters, to the debate over relativism in argument evaluation, and to the classification of the components of arguments

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library (ARGA, volume 10)

54k Accesses

160 Citations

20 Altmetric

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

Access this book

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (25 chapters)

Front matter, introduction.

• David Hitchcock, Bart Verheij

Reasoning in Theory and Practice

• Stephen E. Toulmin

A Citation-Based Reflection on Toulmin and Argument

• Ronald P. Loui

Complex Cases and Legitimation Inference: Extending the Toulmin Model to Deliberative Argument in Controversy

• G. Thomas Goodnight

A Metamathematical Extension of the Toulmin Agenda

• Mark Weinstein

Toulmin's Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism

• Lilian Bermejo-Luque

Systematizing Toulmin's Warrants: An Epistemic Approach

• James B. Freeman

Warranting Arguments, the Virtue of Verb

• James F. Klumpp

Evaluating Inferences: The Nature and Role of Warrants

• Robert C. Pinto
• Robert H. Ennis

The Voice of the Other: A Dialogico-Rhetorical Understanding of Opponent and of Toulmin's Rebuttal

• Wouter H. Slob

Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin's Scheme

Bart Verheij

Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model

David Hitchcock

The Fluidity of Warrants: Using the Toulmin Model to Analyse Practical Discourse

Artificial intelligence & law, logic and argument schemes.

• Henry Prakken

Multiple Warrants in Practical Reasoning

• Christian Kock

The Quest for Rationalism without Dogmas in Leibniz and Toulmin

• Txetxu Ausín

From Arguments to Decisions: Extending the Toulmin View

• John Fox, Sanjay Modgil

Using Toulmin Argumentation to Support Dispute Settlement in Discretionary Domains

• John Zeleznikow
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• artificial intelligence
• communication
• formal logic
• intelligence

About this book

Editors and affiliations, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Arguing on the Toulmin Model

Book Subtitle : New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation

Editors : David Hitchcock, Bart Verheij

Series Title : Argumentation Library

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5

Publisher : Springer Dordrecht

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law , Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Hardcover ISBN : 978-1-4020-4937-8 Published: 26 January 2007

Softcover ISBN : 978-90-481-7233-7 Published: 19 November 2010

eBook ISBN : 978-1-4020-4938-5 Published: 24 January 2007

Series ISSN : 1566-7650

Series E-ISSN : 2215-1907

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : VIII, 440

Topics : Epistemology , Artificial Intelligence , Logic

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Visual Communication Guy

Learn Visually. Communicate Powerfully.

• About The VCG
• Contact Curtis
• Five Paragraph Essay
• IMRaD (Science)
• Indirect Method (Bad News)
• Inverted Pyramid (News)
• Martini Glass
• Narrative Format
• Rogerian Method
• Toulmin Method
• Apostrophes
• Exclamation Marks (Points)
• Parentheses
• Periods (Full Stops)
• Question Marks
• Quotation Marks
• Plain Language
• APPEALS: ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS
• CLUSTER ANALYSIS
• FANTASY-THEME
• GENERIC CRITICISM
• IDEOLOGICAL CRITICISM
• NEO-ARISTOTELIAN
• O.P.T.I.C. (VISUAL ANALSYIS)
• S.O.A.P.S.T.O.N.E. (WRITTEN ANALYSIS)
• S.P.A.C.E.C.A.T. (RHETORICAL ANALYSIS)
• BRANCHES OF ORATORY
• FIGURES OF SPEECH
• FIVE CANONS
• LOGICAL FALLACIES
• Information Design Rules
• Arrangement
• Organization
• Negative Space
• Iconography
• Photography
• Which Chart Should I Use?
• “P” is for PREPARE
• "O" is for OPEN
• "W" is for WEAVE
• “E” is for ENGAGE
• PRESENTATION EVALUTION RUBRIC
• POWERPOINT DESIGN
• ADVENTURE APPEAL
• BRAND APPEAL
• ENDORSEMENT APPEAL
• HUMOR APPEAL
• LESS-THAN-PERFECT APPEAL
• MASCULINE & FEMININE APPEAL
• MUSIC APPEAL
• PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL APPEAL
• PLAIN APPEAL
• PLAY-ON-WORDS APPEAL
• RATIONAL APPEAL
• ROMANCE APPEAL
• SCARCITY APPEAL
• SNOB APPEAL
• SOCIAL APPEAL
• STATISTICS APPEAL
• YOUTH APPEAL
• The Six Types of Résumés You Should Know About
• Why Designing Your Résumé Matters
• The Anatomy of a Really Good Résumé: A Good Résumé Example
• What a Bad Résumé Says When It Speaks
• How to Write an Amazing Cover Letter: Five Easy Steps to Get You an Interview
• Make Your Boring Documents Look Professional in 5 Easy Steps
• Business Letters
• CONSUMER PROFILES
• ETHNOGRAPHY RESEARCH
• FOCUS GROUPS
• OBSERVATIONS
• SURVEYS & QUESTIONNAIRES
• S.W.O.T. ANALYSES
• USABILITY TESTS
• CITING SOURCES: MLA FORMAT
• MLA FORMAT: WORKS CITED PAGE
• MLA FORMAT: IN-TEXT CITATIONS
• MLA FORMAT: BOOKS & PAMPHLETS
• MLA FORMAT: WEBSITES AND ONLINE SOURCES
• MLA FORMAT: PERIODICALS
• MLA FORMAT: OTHER MEDIA SOURCES
• Course Syllabi
• Checklists and Peer Reviews (Downloads)
• Communication
• Poster Prints
• Poster Downloads
• Handout & Worksheet Downloads
• QuickGuide Downloads
• Downloads License Agreements

How To Organize a Paper: The Toulmin Method

What is the Toulmin Method?

The Toulmin Method of Argumentation is a complex argumentation structure that allows you to establish your argument while considering your opponents’ points of view. While this method is intended for giving complex and well-supported arguments that are mindful of what opponents will say in response to your claims, the Toulmin Method is a one-sided argument that does not attempt to build common ground, as the Rogerian Method does.

The goal of the Toulmin Method is to persuade the reader that your argument is reasonable and effective based on thorough research and organization.

When Do I Use the Toulmin Method?

You will find the Toulmin Method most useful to write theoretical essays or academic papers. The Toulmin Method is effective in presenting thorough support for your argument. Thus, it is ideal for arguments in which there will be much dissent or controversy surrounding the argument. It is also useful for making complex arguments.

How Does the Toulmin Method Work?

When you write using the Toulmin Method, you need to be prepared to know and explain every facet of your argument. The goal is to be as detailed and persuasive about your argument as possible, countering opposing views etc.

The main elements that are typically included in the Toulmin Method are as follows:

• Claim: A claim is the main argument that you are trying to express. In terms of the 5-Paragraph Essay , it’s the thesis statement.
• Grounds: The grounds are what the claim is based on. It is the supporting evidence that is needed to understand and accept the claim.
• Warrant: The warrant is the piece that connects the grounds to the claim. It explains how you got from the information in the grounds to the claim. It may include legal principles, ethical principles, and laws of nature, etc.
• Backing: This is the support and justification for the warrant.
• Qualifiers: Qualifiers limit your claim by placing conditions on the arguments that do not fully support the claim. These are the “usually,” “will likely,” and “possibly” claims that are not certain.
• Rebuttal: The rebuttal is where you identify opposing arguments to your claim. Any argument will have rebuttals, so this is where you would identify them, to present that you have acknowledged that they exist and can give your evidence to counter these claims.

The Toulmin Method may not convince an opposing party that you are right, but it shows that you have solid evidence and reasoning behind your argument, regardless of what they may think of the argument itself.

The image below shows how the parts of the Toulmin Method are all connected to one another and perhaps don’t necessarily follow a linear format as the steps listed above suggest. The steps only show one possible way of organizing the Toulmin Method. The image shows that there may be a need to go back and re-visit different steps in order to fully support all areas of the argument.

Example of the Toulmin Method

Imagine that you want to present an argument stating that smoking tobacco should be banned on all college campuses. This would be your claim .

The grounds on which you would base this claim would possibly note the health risks associated with secondhand smoke.

The warrant may present the idea that the health risks of secondhand smoke hinder learning, which may be warranted by a study that shows the effects of secondhand smoke on learning.

It may be appropriate to indicate that the health risks will “possibly” hinder learning, or that the hindrance occurs only in at risk groups such as those with asthma to qualify the argument.

A rebuttal to the argument could be that smoking tobacco is a way that some students relax in between classes or that it is only harmful if extremely high levels of secondary smoke are ingested.

Toulmin, Stephen, et al. An Introduction to Reasoning . Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.

Shop for your perfect poster print or digital download at our online store!

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 50 great argumentative essay topics for any assignment.

General Education

At some point, you’re going to be asked to write an argumentative essay. An argumentative essay is exactly what it sounds like—an essay in which you’ll be making an argument, using examples and research to back up your point.

But not all argumentative essay topics are created equal. Not only do you have to structure your essay right to have a good impact on the reader, but even your choice of subject can impact how readers feel about your work.

In this article, we’ll cover the basics of writing argumentative essays, including what argumentative essays are, how to write a good one, and how to pick a topic that works for you. Then check out a list of argumentative essay ideas to help you get started.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is one that makes an argument through research. These essays take a position and support it through evidence, but, unlike many other kinds of essays, they are interested in expressing a specific argument supported by research and evidence.

A good argumentative essay will be based on established or new research rather than only on your thoughts and feelings. Imagine that you’re trying to get your parents to raise your allowance, and you can offer one of two arguments in your favor:

You should raise my allowance because I want you to.

You should raise my allowance because I’ve been taking on more chores without complaining.

The first argument is based entirely in feelings without any factual backup, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven. Your parents are more likely to respond positively to the second argument because it demonstrates that you have done something to earn the increased allowance. Similarly, a well-researched and reasoned argument will show readers that your point has a basis in fact, not just feelings.

The standard five-paragraph essay is common in writing argumentative essays, but it’s not the only way to write one. An argumentative essay is typically written in one of two formats, the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin model is the most common, comprised of an introduction with a claim (otherwise known as a thesis), with data to support it. This style of essay will also include rebuttals, helping to strengthen your argument by anticipating counterarguments.

The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Both essay styles rely on well-reasoned logic and supporting evidence to prove a point, just in two different ways.

The important thing to note about argumentative essays as opposed to other kinds of essays is that they aim to argue a specific point rather than to explain something or to tell a story. While they may have some things in common with analytical essays, the primary difference is in their objective—an argumentative essay aims to convince someone of something, whereas an analytical essay contextualizes a topic with research.

What Makes a Good Argumentative Essay?

To write an effective argumentative essay, you need to know what a good one looks like. In addition to a solid structure, you’ll need an argument, a strong thesis, and solid research.

An Argument

Unlike other forms of essays, you are trying to convince your reader of something. You’re not just teaching them a concept or demonstrating an idea—you’re constructing an argument to change the readers’ thinking.

You’ll need to develop a good argument, which encompasses not just your main point, but also all the pieces that make it up.

Think beyond what you are saying and include how you’re saying it. How will you take an idea and turn it into a complex and well thought out argument that is capable of changing somebody’s mind?

A Strong Thesis

The thesis is the core of your argument. What specific message are you trying to get across? State that message in one sentence, and that will be your thesis.

This is the foundation on which your essay is built, so it needs to be strong and well-reasoned. You need to be able to expand on it with facts and sources, not just feelings.

A good argumentative essay isn’t just based on your individual thoughts, but research. That can be citing sources and other arguments or it can mean direct research in the field, depending on what your argument is and the context in which you are arguing it.

Be prepared to back your thesis up with reporting from scientific journals, newspapers, or other forms of research. Having well-researched sources will help support your argument better than hearsay or assumptions. If you can’t find enough research to back up your point, it’s worth reconsidering your thesis or conducting original research, if possible.

How to Come Up With an Argumentative Essay Topic

Sometimes you may find yourself arguing things you don’t necessarily believe. That’s totally fine—you don’t actually have to wholeheartedly believe in what you’re arguing in order to construct a compelling argument.

However, if you have free choice of topic, it’s a good idea to pick something you feel strongly about. There are two key components to a good argumentative essay: a strong stance, and an assortment of evidence. If you’re interested and feel passionate about the topic you choose, you'll have an easier time finding evidence to support it, but it's the evidence that's most important. 

So, to choose a topic, think about things you feel strongly about, whether positively or negatively. You can make a list of ideas and narrow those down to a handful of things, then expand on those ideas with a few potential points you want to hit on.

For example, say you’re trying to decide whether you should write about how your neighborhood should ban weed killer, that your school’s lunch should be free for all students, or that the school day should be cut by one hour. To decide between these ideas, you can make a list of three to five points for each that cover the different evidence you could use to support each point.

For the weed killer ban, you could say that weed killer has been proven to have adverse impacts on bees, that there are simple, natural alternatives, and that weeds aren’t actually bad to have around. For the free lunch idea, you could suggest that some students have to go hungry because they can’t afford lunch, that funds could be diverted from other places to support free lunch, and that other items, like chips or pizza, could be sold to help make up lost revenue. And for the school day length example, you could argue that teenagers generally don’t get enough sleep, that you have too much homework and not enough time to do it, and that teenagers don’t spend enough time with their families.

You might find as you make these lists that some of them are stronger than others. The more evidence you have and the stronger you feel that that evidence is, the better the topic.  Of course, if you feel that one topic may have more evidence but you’d rather not write about it, it’s okay to pick another topic instead. When you’re making arguments, it can be much easier to find strong points and evidence if you feel passionate about our topic than if you don't.

50 Argumentative Essay Topic Ideas

If you’re struggling to come up with topics on your own, read through this list of argumentative essay topics to help get you started!

• Should fracking be legal?
• Should parents be able to modify their unborn children?
• Do GMOs help or harm people?
• Should vaccinations be required for students to attend public school?
• Should world governments get involved in addressing climate change?
• Should Facebook be allowed to collect data from its users?
• Should self-driving cars be legal?
• Is it ethical to replace human workers with automation?
• Should there be laws against using cell phones while driving?
• Has the internet positively or negatively impacted human society?

• Should college athletes be paid for being on sports teams?
• Should coaches and players make the same amount of money?
• Should sports be segregated by gender?
• Should the concept of designated hitters in baseball be abolished?
• Should US sports take soccer more seriously?
• Should religious organizations have to pay taxes?
• Should religious clubs be allowed in schools?
• Should “one nation under God” be in the pledge of allegiance?
• Should religion be taught in schools?
• Should clergy be allowed to marry?
• Should minors be able to purchase birth control without parental consent?
• Should the US switch to single-payer healthcare?
• Should assisted suicide be legal?
• Should dietary supplements and weight loss items like teas be allowed to advertise through influencers?
• Should doctors be allowed to promote medicines?

Government/Politics

• Is the electoral college an effective system for modern America?
• Should Puerto Rico become a state?
• Should voter registration be automatic?
• Should people in prison be allowed to vote?
• Should Supreme Court justices be elected?
• Should sex work be legalized?
• Should Columbus Day be replaced with Indigenous Peoples’ Day?
• Should the death penalty be legal?
• Should animal testing be allowed?
• Should drug possession be decriminalized?

• Should unpaid internships be legal?
• Should minimum wage be increased?
• Should monopolies be allowed?
• Is universal basic income a good idea?
• Should corporations have a higher or lower tax rate?
• Are school uniforms a good idea?
• Should PE affect a student’s grades?
• Should college be free?
• Should Greek life in colleges be abolished?
• Should students be taught comprehensive sex ed?

Arts/Culture

• Should graffiti be considered art or vandalism?
• Should books with objectionable words be banned?
• Should content on YouTube be better regulated?
• Is art education important?
• Should art and music sharing online be allowed?

How to Argue Effectively

A strong argument isn’t just about having a good point. If you can’t support that point well, your argument falls apart.

One of the most important things you can do in writing a strong argumentative essay is organizing well. Your essay should have a distinct beginning, middle, and end, better known as the introduction, body and opposition, and conclusion.

This example follows the Toulmin model—if your essay follows the Rogerian model, the same basic premise is true, but your thesis will instead propose two conflicting viewpoints that will be resolved through evidence in the body, with your conclusion choosing the stronger of the two arguments.

Introduction

Your hook should draw the reader’s interest immediately. Questions are a common way of getting interest, as well as evocative language or a strong statistic

Don’t assume that your audience is already familiar with your topic. Give them some background information, such as a brief history of the issue or some additional context.

Your thesis is the crux of your argument. In an argumentative essay, your thesis should be clearly outlined so that readers know exactly what point you’ll be making. Don’t explain all your evidence in the opening, but do take a strong stance and make it clear what you’ll be discussing.

Your claims are the ideas you’ll use to support your thesis. For example, if you’re writing about how your neighborhood shouldn’t use weed killer, your claim might be that it’s bad for the environment. But you can’t just say that on its own—you need evidence to support it.

Evidence is the backbone of your argument. This can be things you glean from scientific studies, newspaper articles, or your own research. You might cite a study that says that weed killer has an adverse effect on bees, or a newspaper article that discusses how one town eliminated weed killer and saw an increase in water quality. These kinds of hard evidence support your point with demonstrable facts, strengthening your argument.

In your essay, you want to think about how the opposition would respond to your claims and respond to them. Don’t pick the weakest arguments, either— figure out what other people are saying and respond to those arguments with clearly reasoned arguments.

Demonstrating that you not only understand the opposition’s point, but that your argument is strong enough to withstand it, is one of the key pieces to a successful argumentative essay.

Conclusions are a place to clearly restate your original point, because doing so will remind readers exactly what you’re arguing and show them how well you’ve argued that point.

Summarize your main claims by restating them, though you don’t need to bring up the evidence again. This helps remind readers of everything you’ve said throughout the essay.

End by suggesting a picture of a world in which your argument and action are ignored. This increases the impact of your argument and leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

A strong argumentative essay is one with good structure and a strong argument , but there are a few other things you can keep in mind to further strengthen your point.

When you’re crafting an argument, it can be easy to get distracted by all the information and complications in your argument. It’s important to stay focused—be clear in your thesis and home in on claims that directly support that thesis.

Be Rational

It’s important that your claims and evidence be based in facts, not just opinion. That’s why it’s important to use reliable sources based in science and reporting—otherwise, it’s easy for people to debunk your arguments.

Don’t rely solely on your feelings about the topic. If you can’t back a claim up with real evidence, it leaves room for counterarguments you may not anticipate. Make sure that you can support everything you say with clear and concrete evidence, and your claims will be a lot stronger!

What’s Next?

No matter what kind of essay you're writing, a strong plan will help you have a bigger impact. This guide to writing a college essay is a great way to get started on your essay organizing journey!

Brushing up on your essay format knowledge to prep for the SAT? Check out this list of SAT essay prompts to help you kickstart your studying!

A bunch of great essay examples can help you aspire to greatness, but bad essays can also be a warning for what not to do. This guide to bad college essays will help you better understand common mistakes to avoid in essay writing!

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

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!”