toulmin model powerpoint presentation

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Toulmin model of argument

Published by Deborah Wilson Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Toulmin model of argument"— Presentation transcript:

Argumentative Strategy

A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments

The Toulmin Method and Essay One

Toulmin Argument Developing a Credible Argument. Claim Represents a controversial, debatable, and defendable position A CLAIM IS NOT –Merely an observation:

A RGUMENTATIVE W RITING B ASED UPON THE S TEPHEN T OULMIN M ODEL F OR A RGUMENT Created By, Jennifer Duke October 26, 2012.

Logical Reasoning & Argument (Logos) Chapter 12.

A tool for structuring arguments

Robert Trapp, Willamette University Basics of Argumentation 2010 Advocacy Institute International Debate Education Association and Willamette University.

Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

A Tool for Diagramming “Informal” Arguments

Toulmin’s argument model

The Logical Structure of Arguments (WA Chapter 4)

The Logical Structure of Arguments By: Justin Frank Heather Gregory Matt Howard.

Argument Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted.

{ Digging Deeper Into Argumentation.  When constructing an argument, consider whether your statement requires justification.  A statement that is a.

The Toulmin Model. Who was Stephen Toulmin?  March 1922 – December 2009  Author, Educator, Philosopher  Created theories to deal with practical issues.

Building on the Classical Argument P.A. McCabe-Remmell Department of English University of South Florida.

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

The Toulmin Model.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Toulmin 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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

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.

A  claim  is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.

The  grounds  of an argument are the evidence and facts that help support the claim.

Finally, the  warrant , which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim.

For example, if you argue that there are dogs nearby:

In this example, in order to assert the claim that a dog is nearby, we provide evidence and specific facts—or the grounds—by acknowledging that we hear barking and howling. Since we know that dogs bark and howl (i.e., since we have a warrant) we can assume that a dog is nearby. 

Now, let’s try a more academic approach. Let’s say that you are writing a paper on how more research needs to be done on the way that computer-mediated communication influences online and offline relationships (a paper, in other words, very much like the OWL's APA Sample paper ).

In this case, to assert the claim that additional research needs to be made on how online communication affects relationships, the author shows how the original article needs to account for technological, demographic, and modality limitations in the study.  Since we know that when a study lacks a perspective, it would be beneficial to do more research (i.e., we have a warrant), it would be safe to assume that more research should be conducted (i.e. the claim).

The other three elements—backing, qualifier, and rebuttal—are not fundamental to a Toulmin argument, but may be added as necessary. Using these elements wisely can help writers construct full, nuanced arguments.

Backing  refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases, the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a specific example that justifies the warrant.

The  qualifier  shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances. Words like “presumably,” “some,” and “many” help your audience understand that you know there are instances where your claim may not be correct. 

The  rebuttal  is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation. 

Including a qualifier or a rebuttal in an argument helps build your ethos, or credibility. When you acknowledge that your view isn’t always true or when you provide multiple views of a situation, you build an image of a careful, unbiased thinker, rather than of someone blindly pushing for a single interpretation of the situation.

For example:

We can also add these components to our academic paper example:

Note that, in addition to Stephen Toulmin’s  Uses of Argument , students and instructors may find it useful to consult the article “Using Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation” by Joan Karbach for more information. 

• Preferences

TOULMIN MODEL OF ARGUMENTATION - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TOULMIN MODEL OF ARGUMENTATION

Though it is not required, the toulmin model is highly ... it is a golden retriever.' warrant: generalization; most or all golden retrievers are friendly ... – powerpoint ppt presentation.

• According to the Toulmin Model, the parts of an argument are the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, and reservation. Though it is not required, the Toulmin model is highly favored on the English language AP examination for the argumentation essay.
• Claim Thesis.
• Data Backup for the claim.
• Warrant Shows why data supports claim.
• Backing Utilizing additional facts or reasoning to legitimize the warrant.
• Qualifier The qualifier is an adverbial phrase or word that diminishes the strength of a claim
• Rebuttal A counter argument
• Reservation Limitations of the argument which specifically invalidate the warrant.
• a CLAIM is made
• DATA, i.e., facts to support it, are offered
• a WARRANT for connecting the grounds to the claim is conveyed
• BACKING, the theoretical or experimental foundations for the warrant, is shown (at least implicitly)
• appropriate MODAL QUALIFIERS (some, many, most, etc.) temper the claim and
• possible REBUTTALS are considered.
• A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.
• The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?"
• example "You should send a birthday card to Mimi, because she sent you one on your birthday."
• example "I drove last time, so this time it is your turn to drive."
• There are three basic types of claims
• fact claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena
• judgment/value claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things
• policy claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken
• Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers.   Grounds answers the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?"
• Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.
• example "It looks like rain. The barometer is falling."
• example "The other Howard Johnson's restaurants I've been in had clean restrooms, so I'll bet this one has clean restrooms too."
• grounds can be based on
• evidence facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof,
• source credibility authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so
• analysis and reasoning reasons may be offered as proof
• The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.
• The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds.
• The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim
• example The baby is running a temperature. I'll bet she has an infection." warrant sign reasoning a fever is a reliable sign of an infection
• example "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever." warrant generalization most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly
• warrants can be based on
• ethos source credibility, authority
• logos reason-giving, induction, deduction
• pathos emotional or motivational appeals
• shared values free speech, right to know, fairness, etc.
• note these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three
• reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
• Since Socrates is a man,
• and since all men are mortal,
• Socrates is mortal.
• Since the picture is above the desk,
• and since the desk is above the floor,
• the picture is above the floor.
• Since a cardinal is a bird,
• and since all birds have wings,
• a cardinal has wings.
• A truly left wing politician does not tolerate animal cruelty.
• G. Houseman thinks hitting a dog is wrong.
• G. Houseman is a truly left wing politician.
• Every criminal opposes the government.
• Everyone in the opposition party opposes the government
• therefore, everyone in the opposition party is a criminal.
• the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it
• Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as
• This ice is cold.
• A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
• ...to infer general propositions such as
• All ice is cold.
• For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
• Anything struck with a cue moves.
• 1.  Argument based on GeneralizationA very common form of reasoning.  It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.  The soundness of an inductive generalization can usually be determined by asking the following questions
• Do we have a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion?
• Is the breadth of the conclusion drawn supported by the evidence?
• Are the terms of the conclusion consistent with the terms of the evidence?
• A hasty generalization is one in which there is an insufficient number of instances on which to base the generalization. Tina bought a used camera while she was up in Portland, and got a great deal. Portland must be a good place to buy used cameras.
• A sweeping generalization is one in which there seems to be sufficient evidence offered to draw a conclusion, but the conclusion drawn far exceeds what the evidence supports. The poll from Orange County shows the governor winning in a landslide. I guess he will also win across the state just as easily.
• The third question about a generalization asks about consistent terms. Consider the following examples
• I used only delicious ingredients, so this sauce must be delicious.
• The 49ers are the best team, so they must have the best players.
• The problem in both is that non-equivalent terms have been substituted the parts (ingredients) for the whole (sauce) in the first example, and the whole (team) for its parts (players) in the second. And, generally speaking, the whole is often more or less than the sum of its parts. Substituting the whole for its parts, the sauce for its ingredients, is sometimes called the fallacy of composition. Substituting the parts for the whole, or the players for the team, is sometimes called the fallacy of division.
• That restaurant has been closed by the health department. The inspectors must have found code violations.
• All trees are plants, including redwoods.
• 2. Argument based on AnalogyExtrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event.  Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts.  Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities? i.e. advertising cigarettes is like manslaughter
• 3. Argument via Sign/ClueThe notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome.  For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire.  Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college. 
• 4.  Causal ArgumentArguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X.  Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are
• Mixing up correlation with causation
• Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap.  Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
• 5.  Argument from AuthorityDoes person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question?  What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have?  Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on? 
• 6.  Argument from PrincipleLocating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies.  Evaluation Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions?  Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim?  Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable? 
• The second triad of the Toulmin model involves three additional elements
• Backing provides additional justification for the warrant.
• Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type of reasoning employed by the warrant.
• The qualifier states the degree of force or probability to be attached to the claim.
• The qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his/her claim
• The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument.
• The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations where the argument would not hold.
• 1. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
• 2. It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers, anticipating the objections that many readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the positions opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal with possible objections can thus work to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments.
• 3. By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is against, one clarifies the position that is being argued for. 
• When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take one of 3 approaches.
• Strategic concession acknowledgment of some of the merits of a different view. In some cases, this may mean accepting or incorporating some components of an authors' argument, while rejecting other parts of it.
• Refutation this involves being able to show important weaknesses and shortcomings in an opponent's position that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to be rejected.
• Demonstration of irrelevance showing that the issue in question is to be understood such that opposing views, while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in fact meet the criteria of relevance that you believe define the issue.

PowerShow.com is a leading presentation sharing website. It has millions of presentations already uploaded and available with 1,000s more being uploaded by its users every day. Whatever your area of interest, here you’ll be able to find and view presentations you’ll love and possibly download. And, best of all, it is completely free and easy to use.

You might even have a presentation you’d like to share with others. If so, just upload it to PowerShow.com. We’ll convert it to an HTML5 slideshow that includes all the media types you’ve already added: audio, video, music, pictures, animations and transition effects. Then you can share it with your target audience as well as PowerShow.com’s millions of monthly visitors. And, again, it’s all free.

About the Developers

PowerShow.com is brought to you by  CrystalGraphics , the award-winning developer and market-leading publisher of rich-media enhancement products for presentations. Our product offerings include millions of PowerPoint templates, diagrams, animated 3D characters and more.

The Toulmin Model

Apr 06, 2019

110 likes | 152 Views

The Toulmin Model. A Summary. Claim. Synonyms: proposition, conclusion, thesis, main point. Answers the question, “What is the author trying to prove—what’s the bottom line?”. Support. Synonyms: data, grounds, proof, evidence, premises.

Share Presentation

• additional information
• same way facts
• toulmin model
• specific examples
• observed events

Presentation Transcript

The Toulmin Model A Summary

Claim • Synonyms: proposition, conclusion, thesis, main point. • Answers the question, “What is the author trying to prove—what’s the bottom line?”

Support • Synonyms: data, grounds, proof, evidence, premises. • Answers the question, “What additional information does the author supply to convince me of the claim?” • The support for the claim provides the evidence, reasoning, opinions, examples, and factual information about the claim that make it possible for the reader to accept it. Support is always explicitly stated and will not have to be inferred. It can appear either before or after the claim and is required to be acceptable and convincing.

Common Types of Support • Facts • Must be described in a written argument. • Vivid, real, and identifiable. • Examples—detailed reports of observed events, specific examples of real happenings, references to events (either historical or recent), and statistical data.

Common Types of Support • Opinions • Develop when people start to interpret the facts. • In argument, interpretation of facts is prevalent—you need to be able to distinguish between parts that are factual, parts all agree upon, and parts that represent someone else’s opinion. • Opinions can come from an author(ity) or from other experts that an author quotes. • Opinions may be formed based on considerable knowledge and excellent judgment or they may be ill-founded and based on ignorance, hearsay, or gossip.

Common Types of Support • Examples • Can be real or made-up • Are used to clarify, to make material more memorable and interesting, and to prove. • Examples that are real function in the same way facts do—they are convincing because they are grounded in reality.

Warrants • Synonyms: unstated assumptions, presuppositions of the author, unstated premises. • Answers the question, “Where is the author coming from or what is causing the author to think this way?”

Qualifiers • Examples: sometimes, maybe, might, many, some, few, possibly, probably • Arguments are not expected to demonstrate certainties. Instead, they usually only establish probabilities. Claims are qualified to meet anticipated objections of an audience.

Backing • Evidence to make questionable warrants acceptable to an audience.

Rebuttal • Answers the question, “What are the other possible views on this issue?” • Rebuttals establish what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an argument, and may also present counter-arguments or new arguments which represent different perspectives on the issue. • Rebuttals may appear as answers to arguments that have already been stated, or the author may anticipate an audience’s rebuttal and include answers to possible objections before they are stated. • Cited from: http://www.uta.edu/english/SH/The%20Toulmin%20Model.htm

• More by User

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

290 views • 17 slides

Toulmin Model of Argument and Case Building

Toulmin Model of Argument and Case Building. Controversial NO Exercise NO Organ donation NO Give blood NO Adopt shelter animals NO Voting NO Tanning NO Smoking NO Dieting Etc. New Arguments NO Abortion NO Gun control NO Legalizing pot NO Lowering drinking age NO Gay marriage

698 views • 21 slides

The Toulmin Model. Who was Stephen Toulmin ?. March 1922 – December 2009 Author, Educator, Philosopher Created theories to deal with practical issues using moral reasoning. Developed a system to break down any type of arguments and the assumptions that surround it.

465 views • 13 slides

The Toulmin Model. Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument (1958). This method acknowledges the complications of life by using qualifiers. Examples of qualifiers: s ometimes o ften p resumably u nless a lmost rarely p ossibly i n general

531 views • 12 slides

Toulmin Argument

Toulmin Argument. A powerful and practical tool for analyzing and shaping arguments. Components of an Argument. Claim : Declarative statement of opinion that’s debatable or controversial. Often the response to the question: What’s your opinion?. Components of an Argument.

368 views • 8 slides

The Toulmin Argument

The Toulmin Argument. The everyday argument. Components. The most basic components are: Evidence Warrants A claim. Beware!.

256 views • 9 slides

The Toulmin Model. A tool for diagramming “ informal ” arguments. Here are three claims. Rate them. Issue: What car should we buy. Claim 1: We should buy the Chevy Metro because it is very economical. Claim 2: We should buy the Volvo station wagon because it is very safe.

487 views • 29 slides

The Toulmin Model, developed by British philospher Stephen Toulmin, identified a 6-step process of logical argumentation which employs both inductive (general/specific) and deductive logic (specific/general) .

1.48k views • 35 slides

Teaching with the Toulmin Model

Teaching with the Toulmin Model. PPT Available on EdPowerPD.com WIKI. Tindley Teacher Institute 2014. DO NOW (3 min.). In what ways do students struggle with argumentative thinking, planning, and writing?. Objectives. TWBAT identify and explain the components of a Toulmin essay

830 views • 27 slides

The Toulmin Method

Analyzing An Argument. The Toulmin Method. Terms to know. Claim: the thesis or central argument What statement is the author defending?. Terms to know. Qualifier: careful arguers are wary of making absolute claims

247 views • 10 slides

The Toulmin Model. A Tool for Understanding Argument. Learning Targets. I can identify the components of the Toulmin Method. I can use the Toulmin Method to analyze an argument and to structure a lit analysis. Make some inferences based on this picture. Possible Inferences.

814 views • 17 slides

Toulmin Terms

Toulmin Terms. Getting to Know Them, Getting to Know All About Them. Way to Remember Toulmin Terms. He’s got a c oming d ate w ith the P resident Coming= claim Date = data With= warrant Barak= backing. Data. Toulmin Interview.

249 views • 10 slides

The Toulmin Model of Argument

The Toulmin Model of Argument. White and Billings. Toulmin Basics. Toulmin’s model is systematic in its reasoning; at the same time, it demands that this reasoning be scrutinized for its ethical underpinnings. Toulmin Model. Claim Data Warrant Backing Qualifier Rebuttal. Claim

505 views • 12 slides

Toulmin Model of Reasoning

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

1.53k views • 8 slides

The Toulmin Model. A tool for structuring arguments. Stephen Toulmin. Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009), was a British philosopher who became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning.

803 views • 45 slides

Toulmin: The Basics

Toulmin: The Basics. Stage 1: The Argumentative Paragraph. PRE -WRITING. DURING/AFTER WRITING. DURINGWRITING. Unpacking the Essential Question. Essential Question: Are you a good friend?. Key words or phrases that have “shades” of meaning or mean different things in different situations.

241 views • 13 slides

The toulmin Model of Rhetorical Argument

Building on the Classical Argument P.A. McCabe-Remmell Department of English University of South Florida. The toulmin Model of Rhetorical Argument. Stephen E. Toulmin.

122 views • 11 slides

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model. AP English 11. Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning.

134 views • 12 slides

453 views • 43 slides