Read Chapter 4 and 5 and complete the review questions.

CHAPTER • 1 parts The Essent1a ent· of an Arg

1 uI? Model The Tou nun

. u will be able to: Afiter studying thzs chapter, yo f the Toulmin model of h ix parts o L01 Identify and describe t e s . argument. 1 written, visual, and onhne . odel to ana yze L02 Use the Toulmm m

argument.

ecause people have been analyzing argument and writ~ng Btheories of argument for twenty-five hundred year~, the_re is: considerable tradition of theory to draw on to help with this t~s . This theoretical background is especially useful because theory desc:ibes argument, and once you possess good descriptions, argument will ~e more familiar and consequently easier for you to read, analyze, and wnte yourself. . In gaining a theoretical new understanding of argument, you will be adding to what you already know as you gradually build a stronger and larger body of knowledge and comprehension. Eventually, you will achieve "all-at-onceness," a quality Ann E. Berthoff utilizes in her book The Sense of Learning to describe the use of many ideas, bits of information, and strategies about reading, writing, and viewing that finally come together so that you are able to practice them unconsciously, simultaneously, and automatically. 1

For now, however, you are still expanding your knowledge. your goals in this chapter are to gain a better understanding of the anticipated outcomes of argument and to identify the component parts as they are identified by Stephen Toulmin in his model for argument.

I Ann E. Berthoff, The Sense of Learning (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 1990), 86

_ 91

_

►

t

►

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 113

The Outcomes of Argument: Probability versus Certainty By now you are probably coming to see how closely tied argument is to audience. Whatever the topic, all arguable issues require the possibility of at least two differ- ent views; it is in the nature of argument to invite differing perspectives on issues. In practical terms this means always keeping in mind the effects your argument might have on the audience you are aiming to address, as well as the effects, in turn, an audience's response may have on the argument you make. Argument outcomes span a range of possibilities, from achieving a closer agreement with a friendly audience to getting the attention of and even perhaps some consensus from a neutral or hostile audience. Notice that these outcomes of argument are usually not described as establishing "certainty" or "trµth" in the same sense that mathematics and science seek to establish certainty and truth. We do not argue about the fact that 2 + 3 = s· or that the area of a circle is Trr2 • Mathematical proofs seek to establish such truths. Argument seeks to establish what is probably true as well as what might be expedient or desirable on balance for the future. In other words, successful argument depends not only on what we want to say, but on how our listeners or readers respond. Arguers tell you what they think for now along with wh~t they think should be done, given their present information. On that basis, you decide what you think for now, given your present information.

Part of determining what is probable involves understanding the larger context within which a persuader is making ari argument: the assumptions and expectations a given audience brings; the views and values that are widely accepted within a given setting. As you can no doubt imagine, the factors that define a given context will change depending on the circumstances. This is why the realm of argument con- cerns the probably true rather than the definitively true. To understand this realm better, to see more clearly how the outcome of an argument relates to context and audience, it is useful to understand the parts that contribute to the whole argument.

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model

L01 Identify and describe the six parts of the Toulmin model of argument.

Stephen Toulmin, a modern English philosopher, developed a six-part model of argument in his book The Uses of Argument, and this model has been useful to many people for explaining the essen!ial parts of an argument.2 At the time To 1m· Wrote h · b k . . . u 1n is oo , his colleagues were logicians who were interested m· dis · truth th h . . . covenng ra er t an probabilities. Toulmin tells us that his book had a chill 1 among th . y we come by the b em. His graduate adviser at Cambridge, he explains, "was deeply pained

ook, and barely spoke to me for twenty years." Another colleague described

i Slephen Tou1m·

add d . m, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge; UK: Cambridge University Press, I 958) . I have adapted and e applications of th d I k . . e mo e to ma e It more useful for reading and wriung.

ii I I

114 Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Argument: The Toulmin Model

it as "Toulmin's anti-logic book."3 Given this, Toulmin exp;ct~d h_is book to be failure His editors, however, assured him that people -~er~ t:yi:Jg. it , danct Tou1ni~ found ~ut who many of these people were when he VISite . ~- n~e States sollle time later. Professors in speech departments and co~:n~ca : 0 ~ ~Partments an over the United States were using his book to teac s u en s O ecome better speakers and arguers. If you have ever taken a speec~ class, yo~ mah have already encountered the Toulmin model of argument. As_ time went . Y, t ~ model Was picked up by English departments to help students rmpr~v_e th~r r~adtg anct Writ- ing of argument. The Toulmin model has also be~n ~se in sc 00 s O law to help students learn to present legal argument. You will find t~at _you can employ the model to help you write essays, reports, letters. of apphcatwn, propos~ls, legal memos, or any other document intended to convince ot~ers. _The Toulmm model is also useful in designing or interpreting visual and m~ltimed~a arg~~ent, such as photos, advertisements, Web sites, TV shows, and movies, and m wntmg _or analyz. ing persuasive speeches. The Toulmin model is a very natural and pract~cal model because it follows normal human thought processes. You have had expenence With all its parts in the everyday arguments you carry on with your friends an~ family.

The Toulmin model has six parts. The first three parts are present m every argument, including both traditional and consensual argument. They are: ( 1) the claim; (2) the data, encompassing subclaims and specific supporting details, which we are calling support; and (3) the warrant. The other three parts are used as needed to strengthen an argument and adapt it to the needs and beliefs of a particular audience. These parts are: (4) the backing, (5) the rebuttal, and (6) the qualifier. Figure 4 .1 shows Toulmin's diagram of these six parts of the model.

To illustrate how these parts work together, let us examine an actual argu- ment. For example, the narrator of a television documentary makes the claim that critical thinking is more important now than it was seventy-five years ago. This is followed by support that includes pictures of modem scientists launch ing space shuttles and air traffic controllers directing airplanes to land. These individuals seem intent and busy. It appears to be clear that if they do not think critically, there will be trouble. Then the camera switches to children riding on an old-fashioned school bus of seventy-five years ago. One boy is saying that he wants to grow up and be a farmer like his dad. This youngster is relaxed and bouncing along on the bus. He does not look like he is thinking critically or that he will ever need to do so. The unspoken part of this argument-the assumption that the author of this progr~ hopes the audience will share-is the warrant. The author hopes the audi· ence will agree, even though it is not explicitly stated, that farmers of seventy-five years ago ~id no~ ~ave to think critically, that modern scientists and engineers do have to thmk cntically, and that critical thinking was not as important then as now. The author wants the audience to look at the two bits of support the scientist and the farme~'s son, ~nd make the leap necessary to accept the clai~. The author hop~s the audience will think, "That's right, those scientists and that young boy do?. t see~ to. sha:e the sa1:1e demands for critical thinking. Times have changed~ Cnt1cal th1nk1ng 1s more important now than it was seventy-five years ago.

3uLogic and th e Criticism of Arguments,• in J ames L. Golden, Goodwin F. Berquist, an d William E. Coleman, The Rhetoric of Western Thought, 4th ed. (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1989), 375.

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 115

Figure 4.1 A Diagram of

(S) support

, ___ __,-----~ Therefore, (Q)

Qualif ier

the Toulmin Model of Argument Showing the Six Parts: Claim, Support, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier

~ + ~~

Since 0N)

Warrant

Because (B)

Backing

(Q) --- ------------- Because Qualifier - - - - -

(RJ Rebuttal t .;;..: . ' .

Since 01'1)

Warrant

, Because (8)

Backing

r (S)

Support • \. .,.

Note that an argument can be configured either as "support therefore claim" or as "claim because support."

Those three parts-the claim, the support, and the warrant-are the three parts you will find present in any argument. If we wanted to evaluate this assumption, we could ask some follow-up questions. First: Is there a logical connection between the author's claim and the support s/he provides? Does juxtaposing images ·of "scientists" and "farmer's children" logically reinforce a claim about the changing importance of "critical thinking"? If so, how? Second: What are some of the broader assumptions or views that might encourage an a~dience to accept this logic? What general attitudes toward or assumptions about "farm work" and "scientific work" might cause an audience to make the leap and accept the claim? We will have more to say about each of these types of questions in the pages that follow. For now, it is enough to note that you will find these three parts-the claim, the support, and the warrant-in any argument. Suppose, at this point, however, that some members of the audience do not accept the claim. An additional three parts of the model are available to make the argument stronger. Here is how these parts could be incorporated into th~ argu-ment. It might be presented like this: The camera then shifts to an elderly man, who says "W · • , an a rmnute. What makes you assume farmers didn't think? My daddy ~as a farmer, and he was the best critical thinker I ever knew. He had to th~nk h out weather, crops, growing seasons, fertilizer, finances, harvesting, and selling t ~crops.The thinking he had to do was as sophisticated as that of any modem scientist" Thi di h e the unstated · s au ence member is indicating that he does not s ar . . . Warrant h f d ds on their thinking t at armers of seventy-five years ago had fewer eman

116

. Model ument: The roulm,n

Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Arg this rejoinder, _the a~hor, to make . . In response to rrant. This bac ng takes the

processes than mod~r~ sCien;::~des backing for th~::rator of the program: "At least h argument convmong, p era cuts to the bad small farms. They gre"• t e rt The earn ars ago h •v form of additional suppo . f seventy-five ye f whatever else t ey needed f the farmers o h rest or 1· . two out of three o d ded or sold t e was not as comp 1ca ted anct . f ·ues an tra . d f them . food for their ami · . . king require O father was an exception." . d dec1s10n ma . t'sts Your k . The thinking an . d by modern sc1en i : that should ma e tne argu.

demanding as tha~~;~~:king allows for _exc_epu~:: on the belief, assumed to be Even thoug~ . to the older man, it still r~ ·ty of old-time farmen; did not

ment more con:1~~tnJf the audience, that the m~~r:hem as modern scientists do. accepta~l::~:hcritical thinking demands plac;! smaller unit of argument Within haveNth. that this backing takes the form o t and it is used to back up the ot1ce · argumen ,

nt It is linked to the mam this smaller argument has a the argume • F thermore, weakest part of the main argumen~. :n. I) the claim is that most farmers did claim-support-warrant structure ~fit~ 0 . 2 ( the support is that two out of three not have to think like modern scienu_sts, _( ) d that this man's father was an did not have to think like modern sCienti

st s,d~ that the older man will believe . h t again unstate ' IS . except10n; and (3) t e warr~n, h' f ther was an except10n.

the statistics and accept the idea that ldis ~- Is there a logical connection between To evaluate this warrant, we cou . as. · "l Heated thinking"? Are the

working on a "small farm" and engagmg m ess co~p rs a o livin on small statistics about "two out of three farmers seventy-fiv~ yea g . g If h to Such questions is yes It IS far more likely the older farms" accurate? t e answer , .

man will be convinced by the argument here. If he shares these ~ss_umpt10ns about "small farm work" and "critical thinking," or believes these statistics are accurate, there is a much greater chance he will accept the idea his father was an exception. If he resists this backing for the new warrant by asking, "Hey, where did you get those statistics? They're not like any I ever heard," then another argument would need to be developed to cite the source of the figures and to convince the man of their reliability. As you can see, the requests for backing, for more information to serve as further proof, can go on and on. Let us leave the man def ending his father and the narrator, though, and look at what else might appear in this argument.

Suppose the camera now shifts to a modern science professor who wants to challen?e the logical connection between "small farms" and "uncritical thinking" by ~aking a rebut~al. She does so by making her own claim: "The critical thinking reqwre~ seventy-fiv: years ago was demanding and sophisticated. Critical thinkers of the time had to figure out how to t h and they had to develop th t h 1 ge t ~ country out of a severe recession, e ec no ogy to wm World W Il ,, Th . . e then supported with factual ev·d h . . ar . ese opm10ns ar

I ence t at mcludes p1ct f . di "d hinkin' As with backing a rebuttal follow th ures o m VI uals t g. • ' s e structure of a . h 1s a clear claim (i.e., critical thinki f . rgument. Once agam, t ere and sophisticated) followed by sup;ir~ (t:ven~~-five ~ea~s ago was demanding problems dealing with war and re . . ., cnt1cal thmking addressed complex . cess10n) and d . d assumpt10n or warrant (i.e addressi·n ' un erwntten by an unstate . . . ., g an economi . technology reqmres cnt1cal thinking) A h d c recession or creating warfare t . . an y way t thi k act, Is as a counterargument: a response to th . 0 n about a rebuttal, in . 1 . e mam ar Its own c aim-support-warrant structure. gument that relies upon

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 117

After all of these_ cha!leng_es, exceptions, and requests for more information,

thor at this pomt fmds 1t necessary to qualify the original claim in order to

tbe ;uit acceptable to more of the audience members. Qualifying involves adding

111a ls and phrases to the claim like sometimes, seems to be, may be, or possibly to

W~e it more a~cep~ 1

abl_e_ to th~ a~dience. In this case, the narrator now restates 111 ualified claim: Cnt1cal thmkmg, because of modern science, seems to some

we qle to be more important now than it was seventy-five years ago." Compare pe_o~ith the original claim that critical thinking is more important now than it was th~enty-five years ago. Figure 4.2 diagrams this argument according to the Toul-

sein model. You have probably never systematically used this or any other model

: read or write argument. The model can serve as a kind of guide for reading and

~nalyzing arguments, both written and visual, and also for writing or composing

wern. Authors do not usually use the model as an exact formula, however. Rather,

it describes what can be, but is not necessarily always, present in an argument.

consequently, when you read or view argument, you will at times easily recognize

parts of the model and at other times you will not. Some arguments, in fact, may

not contain one or more of the parts at all, such as a rebuttal, for example. You are

not getting it wrong if you read and do not find all of the parts. When you write

(Support) Modern traffic

controllers think critically; farm <.;___.---_ ....,. Therefore,

!

boys of seventy-five 1 years ago were not required to do so. - ....-- ~ -

(Warrant) Since farmers of seventy-five years ago did not have the

same demands to think critically that modern

scientists and engineers have.

(Backing) Because at least two out of three had small farms and did not have to do much

critical thinking. J

(Qualifiers) Because of

modern science

To some people

(Rebuttal) Un/ess'this is not

+

(Claim) Critical thinking

seems more important now than it was seventy-five

years ago.

so.- Farmers seventy-five years ago had to thlnk -· ------1

to get out of the recess.ion and win

World War II.

Figure 4.2 An Example of the Six Elements in the Toulmin Model

' 118

. Model . The Toulrri1n Arguroent. Ch

apter 4 The Essential Parts of an eed to make all parts explicit . d

o not n f h • e1ti. . allY) you bout each o t e six pans th ltet

ent v1su · ' d tails a at . ·

(or create an arguI11 rovide some e \\r1U

. cuons p The following se d theJ11 better• help you understan

CLAIM . "What is the author trying to pr

t by asking, ?" , __ ove">"

. l ·roof an argumen . "What do I want to prove. l i'ie cla· ·.

Discover the c at by asking, . . .. .

1

m. 1s l

claiJ11 of your own d t"fying the claim as soon as p u :,s1ble h l

Or. p an a . e ar ument. I en 1 e Ps

the main point of th g nt is all about. . . . + ~

ou focus on what the argume . sition conclusion, and mazn pozn •. .:-,ometirn_

Y synonyms !or claim are thesis, pr<:::, or ~agazine will ref er to the 'prnpositio;'. an author of an argument ma news?. p wi·n ask "What is your point?" Both ,

. · on television ' . h 1 . are

or an individual arguing fers to the clann as t e cone us1on, don cl

. When someone re .

ot

referring to the aUI_1- d f n argument. The claim can appear at th

confuse it with the idea at the in ~ c:s in the argument. The claim is sometim: end, but it can also appear at ot er P ~led the statement of claim. This sentence c~ stated in all sdenthencthe o_r ssteantetmene~;\~: purpose sentence, the statement of focus, or the

also be ca e t e eszs , statement of proposition. . . d

• th. text to describe the main elements m argument, along

The terms use m is . . .

with some of their synonyms, appear in Box 4. _1. Become familiar with the~ so that

you will understand other writers on the subJect who may v~ry the tenmno\ogy.

To locate the claim, what should you look for? The clann may be explicitly

stated at the beginning of an argument, at the end, or somewhere in the middle.

Alternatively, it may not be stated anywhere. It is sometimes implied, in which case

you will be expected to infer it. To infer an implicit claim, use what you already

know about the subject along with what you have just read to formulate your own statement of it. To help illustrate what this looks like, consider the following example. Let's

say an author wants to convince an audience to accept the claim that "single-

career couples make better parents than dual-career couples." Rather than state

this pro?osition out_right, h~wever, the author seeks to accomplish this goal by

prese_nt~ng her audience with two contrasting parenting portraits. The first: a

descn~tlon of a working father and stay-at-home mother filled with references

~~::i:r kids' countless play dates, rewarding at-home a~ivities, high grades at happy. Aldl of whdich the author supplements with visual images that depict a an reste mother interactin · h h In

contrast the second d . . g wit er contented-seeming children.

, escnpt10n present · ·1 ·n

severe crisis filled wi"th f s a portrait of a two-career fam1 Y 1

, re erences to sq bbl" ki · ·r

a husband and wife barel . ua mg ds, a house in messy disrepal '

side observations about hoywoon speahking terms. To this portrait, the author adds

. verse eduled b • . · · e~

the farmly enjoys as a whole B d every ody 1s, how little "quality tiJll

what the implied claim is. . ase on these contrasting family portraits, it is dea! Authors often make conscious d · •

d

whether to make it explicit or implicit~~~~;s ab_o~t where to plac~ a claiIIl ~ 11

about the audience. A claim at the be . . de~isrnns are related to their oonoOS g1nnmg is straightforward and draws we

►

so>< 4.1

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 119

Argument Terminology: Terms Used in This Book and Some of Their Synonyms

•, What Terms Are Used in Argument'? TERMS

claim

Rebuttal

Statement of claim

Subclaims

Support

Warrants

SYNONYMS thesis proposition conclusion

challenge counterargument

thesis statement purpose sentence

reasons main ideas micro-arguments arguments

evidence opinions reasons examples facts data grounds

assumptions general principles widely held values commonly accepted beliefs appeals to human motives

main point macro-argument controlling idea

disagreement

statement of focus statement of proposition

- -- lines of argument supporting arguments specific issues

proof premise statistics explanations information personal narratives images

cultural values presuppositions unstated premises generally accepted truths underlying logic

reader in right away. Or an author may decide to lead up to the claim, in which case it may appear either in the middle or at the end. "W De~aying the claim pulls the audience in and increases interest and attention. f hat is this author after?" the audience wonders, and reads to find out. The end 0 an essay is the most emphatic and memorable place for a claim. Many authors

:efer to put the claim there to give it as much force as possible. There is some risk c Valved in putting the claim at the end. Students who use this strategy must be :refu1 to insert cues along the way so that readers understand where the argu-••1ent. . is headed and do not feel they are being led through a random chain of

120

· Model Ar ument: The Toulmin

Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an g . . der pay special atten tion be

. t ted claim requires that the r~\erence that the author expcallse topics The uns a ake the 1n . ·

11 ects . . h der's responsibility to m . d inferred claim especia y convinei. .

1t 1s t e rea . the reader may fm an ng Because of this effort, . .

bl d rgamzes the entue arg and memora e. . rcitly state , 0 . . Ulllen1 The claim, whether implied or exis ~elated to it. The b~st way to Wentify it, if i~ d everything else in the argument lete the following statement as soon

an I ate is to comp . h t ,, W as is not obvious or easy to oc : h ants me to bebeve t a . . . hen You

di • "This aut or w · h You have finished rea ng. h claim. As a wnter, you can c eek You t you have t e r have finished that statemen '

1 • this statement:

own claim during revision by comp etmg

1 want my audience to agree that . • · . h cept of the claim, and you will be able 10

If you can do this, you understand t e cont ou read and to use a claim to articu- . · t · the argumen s Y

recognize the mam poID ID ri·te You can also use this same type · · · argument you w ·

late the mam poIDt ID any . 1

. . a visual or multimedia argument you of open statement to determIDe the c arm m view or produce.

SUPPORT · h t ·n an argument by asking "What ad.ditional information Discover t e suppor 1 . , . ,, .

does the author supply to convince me of this drum? Or, 1f you are the author, ask "What information do I need to supply to convince my audience?" You can su~arize the most essential elements of an argument as a claim with support. Aristotle wrote in the Rhetoric that the only necessary parts of an argument are the statement of proposition (the claim) and the proof (the support). There has been general agreement about those two essential parts of an argument for more than twenty-three hundred years.

The synonyms that Toulmin uses for support are data and grounds, the British equivalents. In the United States, you will often read arguments in which the author claims to be "grounding" a claim with particular support and data is some- times used as a synonym for facts and figures. Other synonyms for support are proof, evidence, and reasons. Authors also refer to major evidence as premises. When you encounter that term in your reading, remember that premises lead to and support a conclusion (a claim). Do not confuse premises with the claim.

Subclaims

At the first level of support are the subclaims whi"ch th . gurnents . · , are e supporting ar or reasons for the claim. Here is an example that illust t h

1 . hi arnong

. . ra es t e re at10ns ps an Issue area, at the most general level in the exampl .fi

1 d • ue tbat

. e, a spea c re ate 1ss represents an Idea about the general issue area a cla • th . d . spoose

h ·t· 1 d · d f ' rm at 1s ma em re to t e specI 1c re ate issue, an our subclaims that are d th dai!Jl· . . . . · . use to support e

The subdanns are at the most spec1f1c level m this example b h present . ecause t ey re ideas about the claim.

The Parts of an Argument according to th

e Toulmin Model 121

, issue Area: The Environmen t

specific relat~d issue: How seriou s are the worl , .

Clazm: The environment is th . 1

d s environmental problems?

e smg e-most · faces today.

senous problem the world

Subclaims: l. The rain forests a b .

2. Increasing po ul:;io ei1;1g d estr~yed, causing global warmi

ng.

of the world. p n Is depl etmg resources in some parts

3. Many important 4. The ozone layer w~~rhsou

rces are being polluted by indus try.

is b · d 'w IC prote cts us from harmful sun rays

e1ng estroyed by chemicals. ,

Specific Support

The second level of support is th ;r;

·

.d . . e specz1zc support. Specific supp

ort provides the

eVI ence,_ opiruons, reasoning , examples, and factual infor

mation about a claim

or sub~a~ that make it possible for us to

accept it. Look back at the cla ims and

subclaims m the example abo ve If you are to take thi 1 ·

· 1 ·11

. . · s c aim senous y, you w1

want some addit10nal specific support to make it convincing

.

To locate such sup~ort, wha t should you look for in the a

rgument? One bit

of good news: support IS alwa ys explicitly stated, so you wi

ll not have to infer it

as Y~~ sometim~s have to infer the claim. Thus, an understan

ding of the types of

specific support IS all you real ly need to help you recognize

it. Let us look at some

of the most common types.

Facts

In a court of law, factual suppo rt (the murder weapon, for ex

ample) is laid out on

the table. In written argumen t, it must be described. Factua

l support can include

detailed reports of observed ev ents or places; specific examples

of real happenings;

references to events, either histo rical or recent; and statistical rep

orts. Factual support

is vivid, real, and verifiable. T wo people looking at it togeth

er would agree on its

existence and on what it looks like. They might not agree on

what it means to each

of them-that is, they might in terpret it differently. Neverthe

less, essentially, they

Would agree on the facts them selves.

Opinions

~hen people start interpreting facts and events, opinion ente

rs the picture. Opin-

ions may be the personal opi nions of the author or the op

inions of experts the

~Uthor selects to quote. The a uthor can use direct quotatio

ns, set off in quota-

tion marks, or summaries or p araphrases of what someone e

lse thinks or reports.

Furthermore, opinions may b e informed, based on conside

rable knowledge a~d

excellent judgment, or they m ay be ill-founded, based on h

earsay and gossip.

The most convincing opinions are those of experts, whether

they are tho~e of the

author or of another person. E xperts possess superior backgr

ound, educatwn, a?d

ex.'Perience on an issue. Contr ast in your own mind the opi

nions of experts with

122 ument: The Toulmin Model Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Arg t b

. ed in the stree s y reporters h are surpns . . the uninformed opinions of people w oded baseless opinion is ~o~g and rarely and asked to give their opinions. Ul-founl o' pinions and the oprmons of experts . f ed persona 1 convincing. In contrast, m orm . . than the facts themse ves. can be more interesting and convmcmg

Examples hort They are used to clarify, to d up long or s . . Examples can be real or ma e ' . t· g and in argument particularly ble and mteres m , ' ' make material more memora

1 h as instances of actual events or to provide proof. _Exam~le~ ~hat ar:/e~a~::,cfunction in the same wa~ that fact references to particular mdividuals . P_ b se they are grounded m reality. Th convmcmg ecau does in an argument. ey are . nted by the writer and, like opinions, Made-up, or hypothetical examples, are mve 1 experience is one type of h t be the case. Persona can only demonstrate w a m~y- t Writers often go into considerable example that is frequently use m argu~en . d them to think and behave as detail about the experiences that have mfluence d . d . d · · h h pinions an reasonmg enve they do. Combining personal expenence ':"'1t t e o from it is a common way to develop a claim.

Images Images are also used to support claims and subclaims and make them more vivid and believable to the audience. You have already encountered several examples of images used in this way. Look back at the three images of American flags associated with World War II, the Vietnam War, and the war in Iraq on page 109, and the sperm donor on page 99. Images used as support make abstract ideas more concrete and easier to grasp. They also make them more memorable. Different authors manage support in different ways, depending on the require-ments of the subject, their purpose, and their audience. When the issue is an abstract idea and the audience is informed, the author may present mainly opinions and few, if any, facts or examples. Such arguments include a claim and blocks of logical reasoning organized around subclaims to develop and prove the claim. If you were to outline the argument, you might not need more than two levels, as in the claim and subclaim example on pages 120-121. When the subject requires more specific support or the audience needs more information to be convinced, specific materials at lower levels are required to ground the subclaims in factS, figures, quotations from others, visual images, or author opinions. The next example expands on the example on page 121 by adding specific support.

4

• Issue Area: The Environment Specific relat~d issue: Ho': serious a_re the world's environmental problems? Claim: The envuonment 1s the single-most serious problem the world faces today.

"The support in the example is drawn from Jeffrey Kluger and Andrea Dorfman, "The Challenges We Face: Time, August 26, 2002, A71+.

r The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model

Subclaim: The rain forests are being destroyed, causing global warming. Support: Global warming could cause the oceans to rise, the

number of storms to increase, and more droughts. (opinion) Subclaim: Increasing population is depleting resources in some parts

of the world. Support: One-third of the world does not have enough food and

is in danger of starvation. (fact) Subclaim: Many important water sources are being polluted by industry.

Support: By 2025, two-thirds of the world's population may live in areas where there is a serious water shortage. (opinion)

Subclaim: The ozone layer, which protects us from harmful sun rays, is being destroyed by chemicals.

Support: It was widely reported in the spring of 2013 that the hole in the ozone layer was significantly larger than it had been the previous year. (fact)

Quality support helps build common ground between the arguer and the audience. Rantings, unfounded personal opinions that no one else accepts, or feeble reasons like "because I said so" or "because everyone does it" are not eff ec- tive support. Audiences usually do not believe such statements, they do not share experiences or ideas suggested by them, and they lose common ground with the arguer when they read or hear them.

Common ground is far likelier when an author spends time thinking about what an intended audience does and does not know, and thus what opinions and information an audience would best respond to. In the case of the foregoing envi- ronmental discussion, the decision about what support to offer depends on what the intended audience knows about the issue of global warming. For an audience steeped in scientific knowledge, support that relies on anecdote might not be very useful. For an audience conditioned to be skeptical of scientific authority, a careful presentation and explanation of scientific data is probably warranted.

When reading argument, to help you focus on and recognize the support, complete this sentence as soon as you finish:

The author wants me to believe that . .. [the claim] because . . . [list the support].

When you read to revise your own writing, you can complete this statement: I have convinced my audience to believe [the claim] because [list your support].

WARRANTS

:~rrants are the assumptions, general principles, conventions of specific disciplines ely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, and appeals to human motives tha; are an irn f 5 portant part o any argument. After taking a close look at the claim-support . thin . . WI a given argument, we rrught ask ourselves a very basic question: How

5 Toultnin's . . e warrants are somewhat similar to Bitzer's constraints in the rhetorical situation . Bitzer, however, Xtends the . d d the type of t . concept of constramts to also include the resources available to the writer o r pro ucer an ext bemg d . t than warrants. create • whether wntten, spoken, or visual. Thus constraints is a broader concep

123

124 . Model . The roulm1n rnent. f an Argu

uthor needs h

Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O h assumptions an a er or his ? what are t e d d by this argument? The Warr

to there· be persua e . ( , h ant do we get from he~e order for thern to As the unstated assumpt10~ s, t a: links a audience to share ~ gets answered. d ....,,1nes whether an audience Will accet1t

thi question · what eteu .. _..,_..~ d t part f th t'

is where s the warrant is h can be spelle ou as o e VVrit- dairn to its supp~rt, made. Even though t ey . stances it would be redundant and

nt being t In many Ill ' the argurne suallY they are no . ent might go as follows: ten argument, u For exarnple, an argum

. boring if they were. . f the United States is doing a poor Job. . . The president o t ·t has been in ten years. Claim. omy is the wars i support: The econ t· an assumption that logically compels

.f. e type of warran • 1 b .

Toulmin ident1 ies on . d for For the examp e a ove, we might ntees the conclusion being argue . or guara f 11 s· . he logical warrant as o ow . define t

. ars then the president is doing If the economy is the worst it has been m ten ye , apomj~.

. .

. . fact the worst it has been m ten years, Assuming I believe that the ~cono~y is_ m • ob when the economy is the

and assuming I believe the president is do~~g t~i:;:~sident is doing a poor job. The worst it has been in ten years, I must agre~ a . t te the argument's claim-support surest way to identify a logical warrant is to res a . s resentin the

"if/then" proposition (shown above). To avmd alway P g. structure as an ·

d 1 · e can also find logical warrant as a verbatim restatement of the support an c arm, ': . ht read· alternative ways to phr°:se the same logic. In this _case, ~uch ~ rephras~g rmg · When the economy is weak, it is a sign the president is domg a bad ]Ob. .

To Toulmin's model, however, we might also add a second type of warra~t. a contextual warrant. Contextual warrants ref er to the broader assumptions, beliefs, or values that influence how an audience will respond to a given argument. For the above example, contextual warrants include: the generally accepted belief that the president is responsible for the economy; the widespread assumption that the economy, as one of the president's chief responsibilities, is also a valid barometer of presidential performance. Note that neither of these assumptions logically com· pels an audience to accept this argument. If an audience shar·es these assumptions, however, it is more likely they will find this argument more plausible or compelling.

To sum up: For our purposes, warrants can be divided into two types: logical warrants and contextual warrants. Logical warrants direct oui;. attention to the assumptions that are internal to a given argument. Contextual warrants, on the other hand, direct our attention to those more general assumptions ·that frame our understanding of and reaction to a given argument. Each constitutes an important aspect of the warrant overall, and each plays an important role in determining boW an audience will respond.

Here is another example, and this one relies on a value warrant. Claim: Businesses have a compelling interest in opposing envi· ronmental protection laws. Support: Obeying environmental protection laws that call for clean air, for example, costs industry money that could otherwise be realized as profit.

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 125 Logical Warrant: Utilizing the "If, then" formula, we might state the logical warrant in these terms: "If obeying environmental protection laws costs industry money that would otherwise be realized as profit, then businesses have a compelling interest in opposing them." If we wanted to cast the warrant in language that did not simply reiter-ate the terms of the claim-support structure, we might say: "Profits are a higher priority for businesses than environmental concerns when making decisions about their operations." contextual Warrants: The contextual warrant encompasses those broader assumptions that relate to the issue an argument raises, and that influence the views an audience might have about this issue. In this case, examples of a contex-tual warrant include the widely held belief that profits should stand as the primary measure of a business's success; the common assumption that financial consid-erations and environmental concerns are typically in tension with each other.

Warrants originate with the arguer. But it is important to remember that the prerogative to respond to and assess warrants rests with the audience. An audience may correctly identify the logic underlying a given claim-support structure, but still disagree with the point being made. An audience may share with the arguer a com-monly held belief, and yet use this belief as the basis for drawing a very different conclusion. We can imagine, for example, an audience who shares with an arguer the view that the president is responsible for the economy, and yet who comes to a very different conclusion about whether the economy constitutes a fair measure of presidential performance. Warrants can be shared by the arguer and the audi-ence, or they can be in conflict. Furthermore, if the audience shares the warrants with the arguer, the audience will accept them and the argument is convincing. If the warrants are in conflict and the audience does not accept them (they believe private enterprise, not the president, is responsible for improving the economy), the argument is not convincing to them. Warrants provide critical links in argument. For instance, they link the support ~o the claim by enabling an audience to accept particular support as proof of or Justification for a particular claim. Without the linking warrant, the support may not be convincing. Here is an example.

Claim: Support:

Expected logical warrant:

The appeals process for criminals should be shortened ... because the appeals for criminals on death row can cost more than $2 million per criminal. If a criminal appeal costs more than $2 million per criminal, then the appeals process should be shor~~n_:f~ (This individual shares the author's warrant, the ID made, and the argument is convindng.)

126 lmin Model f n Argument: The Tou Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O a ore than $2 millio

Alternative logical warrant:

Expected contextual warrants:

eal costs m n Per If a criminal app dy other than shortening th criminal, then a rem.Ide be found. (This individual supe ess shou · k b · appeals proc . warrant, the hn etween claim. plies an opp~sing t made, and the argument is not and support is no convin~in_~~ dollars is an unreasonably high Price Two milh . inal appeal; the appeals process t pay for a cnm ·f· . . f . o d without sacn 1e1ng its auness or can be shortene

f · ess ef ectiven · · too much to ensure a f · N amount of money is air Alternative contextual O . hortening the appeals process would rants . appeals process, s . war . f ·ts fairness or effectiveness. detract rom 1

1 rrant in the following argument. Supply your own logical and contextua wa

Claim:

Support:

Logical Warrant:

Contextual Warrant:

The government should abolish loan funds for college students... . because many students default on their loans, and the government cannot tolerate these bad debts. . . can you identify the logical warrant underlymg this claim-support? Try writing this out using the "if/then" formula outlined earlier. Now try rephrasing this war-rant in different terms. What are some of the broader assumptions or views that would help an audience accept this argument? What are some of the broader assumptions or views that would make such acceptance less likely?

These examples demonstrate that the warrant links the evidence and the claim by justifying particular evidence as support for a particular claim. Notice also, however, that the warrant attempts to establish a link between the author and the audience as well. Shared warrants result in successful arguments. ~hen~~ warrant is not shared or when there are conflicting warrants, the audience wil question or disagree with the claim. Besides being related to what people commonly believe value want, or accept , , wee as background knowledge about a subject warrants are also culture-bound. 5 d values, beliefs, and training vary from culture to culture, the warrants associate with them also differ from culture to culture. Tension between Japan and tb: United States was caused by a Japanese official's claim that American workers ard lazy and do not work hard enough. American workers were angry and count~r~ with a rebuttal about how hard they think they work. Japanese and _AII1e~c e workers have different work schedules, attitudes, and experience with leis:e and work time. Consequently, the part of both arguments that was unstated, fa warrant, described hard work in different ways for each culture. The lack 0

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 127

sbared warrant caused the tension. Furthermore, neither side was conv inced by

tbe other's argument.

Japanese claim: Support: Japanese warrant: American rebuttal:

Support: American warrant:

American workers are lazy ...

because they work only 40 hours a week.

People who work only 40 hours a week are lazy.

American workers are hardworking ...

because they work 40 hours a week.

People who put in 40 hours a week are industrious and

hardworking.

perhaps now you have begun to appreciate the importance of shared warrants

in argument. Shared warrants are crucial to the success of an argumen t because

they are the most significant way to establish common ground between r eader and

writer in argument. Shared warrants and common ground, as you can im agine, are

particularly important in international negotiations. Skillful negotiato rs analyze

warrants to determine whether or not both parties are on common grou nd. If they

are not, communication breaks down and argument fails.

To help you discover the logical warrants that underlie an author's clai m, and

to assess the validity of this logic, answer the following questions:

What is left out here? Do I believe that this evidence supports this claim? Why or why not?

To help you compare this logical warrant to the contextual warran ts that are

shaping your response to this claim, answer the following questions:

What does this author seem to value? Do I share those values?

What is causing the author to say t,hese things? Would I say these things

differently? How or why?

As the author of argument, you should consider your audience and w hether

or not they will accept your warrants. Let's turn now to the other three parts of the

Toulmin model that an arguer can use to adapt an argument to a particul ar audience.

Create-Your-Own-Warrant Exercise

t Choose an issue with which you are familiar.

t Answer the question, What makes this issue arguable or debatable?

t Determine what your own perspective is on this issue.

t Write your perspective as an argument (i.e., using the claim-support structure ).

t Next, write down what you see as the logical warrant for this claim (hint: start

by using the "if/then" formula; then try rephrasing this in different te r~s).

a. ( ) f r this daJin.

• Then, write down what you see as the contextual warrant 5 0

128 · Model

t . The Tot1lm1n f Argumen • Chapter 4 The Essential Parts o an

BACKING themselves may require their OWn_ You should have a sense by now that war:::~dience, particularly if t?e audience rt to make them more acceptable to thor An author may provide backing suppo 'th the au . h . , does not happen to share t?em wi "back up" a warrant, wheneve~ t e au~ence is or additional evid~nc~ and ideas ~ are the author, you should provide backing also. in danger of rejectmg it. When yo 1 to generally accepted knowledge and Backing sometimes appears a~ ~pdpeal s r groups of people who belong to a ld b st indivi ua s o 11 d beliefs that are he Y mo b r fs are sometimes spe e out explicitly as specific discipline or culture. These ~ ie they are implied and the audience has backing for a warrant, an~ at other t~me; the argument and making inferences. to supply them by examinmg the logic o

Here is an example of backing for a warrant.

Claim:

Support:

Logical Warrant:

Contextual Warrants:

Backing:

. hould be allowed to come into the United Immigrants s States . . . . h U S . because immigration has benefited t e . . economy m the past. . If immigration has benefited the U.S. economy m_the past, then immigrants should be allowed to come mto the United States. Current economic conditions are similar to past condi- tions; immigration policy should be dictated by economic need. Now, as in the past, immigrants are willing to perform necessary, low-paying jobs that American citizens do not want. Immigrants perform these jobs better than citizens and for less pay. Thus, their inclusion in the workforce is better for the American economy overall.

Look for backing in an argument by identifying the warrant and then by asking whether or not you accept it. If you do not, try to anticipate additional information that would make it more acceptable. Then examine whether the author supplied that or similar additional support. When you are the writer, consider your audi-ence. Will they accept your warrant? Can you strengthen it by supplying additio~al information or by appealing to common values and beliefs that will help justilY your claim?

REBUTTAL A rebuttal establishes what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an arguill:~ and may present counterarguments or new arguments that represent entirelY · · f · f tbe ferent perspectives or pomts o view on the issue. To attack the validity o ts claim, an author ~ay demonstrate that the support is faulty or that the warr~et are faulty or unbelievable. Counterarguments stan all over again, with a new of claims, support, and warrants.

The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 129

gere is an example of a rebuttal for the argument ab t • • • ou 1mm1grat10n: Rebuttal 1: lm~igrants actually drain more resources in schooling,

me~cal care, and other social services than they contrib- ute 1n taxes and productivity.

Rebuttal 2: Modern immigrants are not so willing to perform menial low-skilled jobs as they were in past generations. '

gere is an example of a counterargument for the immigration argument: Claim: Laws should be passed to limit immigration ... Support: because we have our own unskilled laborers who need

those jobs. Logical Warrant: If there are unskilled, native-born laborers who need

jobs, laws should be passed to limit immigration. Contextual Warrants: Native-born workers are willing to hold these jobs;

native-born workers would perform these jobs as well as immigrants; legally curtailing immigration would succeed in motivating or enabling employers to higher native-born workers instead.

Rebuttals can appear as answers to arguments that have already been stated, or the author may anticipate the reader's rebuttal and include answers to possible objections that might be raised. Thus, an author might write a rebuttal to the claim that we should censor television by saying such a practice would violate the First Amendment. Or, if no claim has been made, the arguer could anticipate what the objections to television violence might be (violence breeds violence, children who see violence become frightened, etc.) and refute them, usually early in the essay, before spelling out the reasons for leaving television alone.

Look for a rebuttal or plan for it in your own writing by asking, "What are the other possible views on this issue?" When reading ask, "Are other views repre- sented here along with reasons?" Or, when writing ask, "How can I answer other views?" Phrases that might introduce refutation include some may disagree, others may think, or other commonly held opinions are, followed by the opposing ideas and your reasons and evidence for rejecting them.

QUALIFIERS Remember that argument is not expected to demonstrate certainties. Instead, it establishes probabilities. Consequently, the language of certainty (always, never, the best, the worst, and so on) promises too much when used in claims or in other parts of the argument. It is not uncommon for an author to make a claim and, while still writing, begin revising and qualifying it to meet the anticipated objections of an audience. Thus words such as always and never change to

some· none sometimes; is or are change to may be or might; all changes to many_ ~rd 1

ng, uage ch 'bl Quaiifie a . anges to a few; and absolutely changes to probably or possz Y· whether the lS b L ok to see 1 te etter for demonstrating probability in argument. 0 . obable or abso u h rnent 1npr aut or has stated the claim in other parts of the argu

130 r ument: The Toulmin Model

Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an A g

t figure out why or why not. For

L02 Use the Toulmin model to analyze written, visual, and online argument.

· argument O · h 11 · · d then read the entire . f the first claim t at a immtgrants terms, an . . l"f ed vers10n o . . . .. 1 _., 1 the followmg is a qua 11 . These quahf1cat10ns WOLW : make examp e, h Umted States. d h b ., . should be allowed to enter t e e eople who off ere t e re l.JH :'! ]s and . . 1 1 ·m more acceptable to th p the ongma c a1

counterargument. h U ·ted States only if they can prove Immigrants should be allowed t~ entefrf_t . e t rui·ncome to offset social services and . b 'eldmg su ic1en h . b that they already have JO s y1 1 "lable to perform t ese JO s. that no American citizens are current y ava1

Value of the Toulmin Model d t ges that make it an excellent model for The Toulmin model has some a van a . d . . • • d · · gument Its most essential a vantage is that readmg wntmg, an viewing ar . . h f f h · • · ' d d audience participation 1n t e orm o s ared 1t mv1tes common groun an d d" · ·. h "b"l"ty of interaction between author an au 1ence. warrants, mcreas1ng t e poss1 1 1 .

By subdividing warrants into two categories, furthe~more, w~ give ourselves an especially useful strategy for analyzing the role different kinds_ of unstated assumptions play within an argument. As we have seen, the logi~al ":'ar~ant works well as a tool for identifying and verifying the internal logic w1thm a claim-support statement. We have also seen, though, that the overall persuasive- ness of an argument rests upon more than its internal logic alone. Contextual warrants supplement our analysis of logical warrants by helping us uncover the associated assumptions that help determine whether an audience will find an argument persuasive.

The model works for reading or writing not only in debate and single- perspective argument but also in academic inquiry, negotiation, dialectic, or any other form of argument that requires exchange and attempts to reach agree- ment. It can even be a useful tool for one-on-one argument or personal decision making.

Writers of argument find the Toulmin model useful as both an invention strategy and a revision strategy. It can be used to help an author come up with the essential parts of an argument in the first place, and later it can be used to check and evaluate the parts of a newly written argument. See page 143 for a writing assignment that uses the Toulmin model as a tool to help the writer think about the parts of a position paper. See page 142 for an example of a student-written position paper with its Toulmin elements labeled in the margins.

Readers of argument find the model useful for analyzing and describing the essential parts of a written argument. Listeners find it just as useful for analyzing and describing the essential parts of an argumentative speech. Viewers find they can use the model to analyze visual argument, whether it appears alone as an argument, independent of text with only a few words of explanation, such as in some paintings, cartoons, photographs,. or Web sites; or as support for ideas in a

·rten text such as photographs, drawings, graphs, and charts that illustrate and wn , ·d · 1 . m· video images that support i eas presented on television in moVIes, exp am; or as '

Claim:

Support:

Logical Warrant:

Backing:

Rebuttal:

Qualifier:

Contextual Warrants:

9 ca-. - ac-a, c: D• • •• 10 CA,! • • • t C-• • D• ._ 11 ca~ • • • cc • t:.D• .- ,ta - .-e a •C• •D• ct • ta c A• • • • .-, • D1o •a• 14 . .. .. , . . - • Oa - · · 11 ca~ ._. cc- . ...... . 11 _, ... . • O• • D• • • • 11 - • • ·• • C• 110 • • • • II • A• , . ,. • C• "-D• ... 19 c A, 11 ta• 11:Ca ... cl • IO • A• 11 a, • O• __., c••

- t.8 , cc :. • D• • • • D c a c - • C• CD• ... D - •■• •-cu, •D• •• • .. .. .. a c a ) - c lh, •

- cu - •C• •D• C - · a~ c■• ._C• •D• •• • 11 ._. ca a •C• • D• • l a

CA• - c.C• cD• ~■•

Value of the Toulmin Model 131

Figure 4.3 A Toulmin Analysis of a Cartoon That Makes an Argument

This job applicant is probably not prepared for this particular job ... because he has taken tests in high school that rely on answer sheets, and he cannot communicate effectively. If the knowledge learned and tested in standardized tests is irrelevant to jobs in the real world, it will fail to prepare students for those jobs. Many people believe that standardized tests fail to measure the critical thinking skills and communication skills, especially writing, that are required for success in the workplace. A rebuttal is implied against the position that standardized testing is an adequate test of students' knowledge and job skills. If we wanted a rebuttal that argues against the claim being advanced by this cartoon, we might write: While certain standardized tests fail to impart a measure of useful knowledge, others, in fact, do teach and measure skills that will be effective on the job. The job applicant is not prepared for this particular job because he has taken tests in high school that rely on answer sheets, like those used with standardized tests, and he is unable to communicate in the ways this particular employer finds effective. Standardized tests detract from people's ability to think critically; one of the key requirements of many jobs is to communicate clearly; standardized tests do not help students develop effective communication skills; a key purpose of standardized tests is to prepare students for future jobs.

This cartoon will be convincing to you if you share the warrant and the backing. If you place a different value on standardized tests than this cartoonist, it will not convince you.

or online. Figure 4.3 provides an example of a Toulmin analysis of a cartoon that makes an argument.

The Toulmin model can be used to write or to a,nalyze both consensual and adversarial arguments. It accommodates all of the various forms of arguments. The model is summarized in a handy chart for quick reference for the use of both readers and writers in the Summary Charts (page 424).

132

. Th Toulmin Model f Argument. e

Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O an

ine Arg lmin Mode

• 11

hanged the ways we encounter and responrj + · f d' · I It h s dramat1ca Y c ·· tO The rise o 1g1ta cu. ure a 'd Web-based arguments come in a varietv

argument From onlme ads to YouTube vr eos, . ., of different forms employing an array of different tools to p~esent and sdupport their cla irns. Thes

' h T 1 ·n model can be use to analyze arg e changes present challenges to the ways t e ou mi . . urnent, Because their claims can take textual, visual, video, or graphic form, onlme arguments demand

approach more specifically tailored to a multimedia en~ironment. Because ~hey draw upon ideaan

information, and evidence from a range of sources, online arguments require closer attentio s,

to the credibility of the support they use to advance their claims. And because they provide n

their audiences with so many opportunities to respond, online arguments invite more scrutin

of the interactive form rebuttals can take. The outline below provides you with a framework~

analyzing an online argument in Toulmin terms. How does each set of questions help you ta·, or T I

· 1

1 or a ou mm ana ysis to the specific features of on line argument? Then take a closer look at th

example of online argument that follows. What kind of argument does this digital selectio e And h~w does the discussion that follows provide you with a model for conducting this ki ~ makei analysis yourself? n of

• t t Claim

• Through what medium (Web site, social media post video etc) is the cla. • Wh t

1 • d' ' ' · 1m presented?

a mu time ia elements (textual, visual, video, graphic) are used to convey it? .

•• t Support

• What type of support is offered?

• What form (textual, visual, video graphic) does th· ' is support take?

• • • Logical Warrant

• What is the logical connection between thi I . • c s c aim and sup rtJ an you state this connection in an "if/th ,, f po . en orm?

• t • Rebuttal

• What opport · · unities for audience feedb k . • Do these opportunities strengthen or d~c. ~re included?

imin1sh the claim b . emg made?

''' Qualifier ·

• What additional multimedia elements are used t . o qualify th I . e c arm being made?

Value of the Toulmin Model 133

ed)

, , t Contextual Warrants

• What assumptions or associations do people typically bring to this particular medium?

• How do these assumptions or associations influence the claim being made?

••,Claim

GETIING HOME SAFELY IS JUST ACLICKAWAY

S erCar.govITlieRigtltSeat

• Parents and caregivers need to ensure their children are properly buckled up when in the car .

• The claim is presented in an online public service announcement (PSA) devoted to raising

awareness about the importance of child passenger safety.

• The PSA uses written text ("Getting Home Safely Is Just a Click Away") and visual imagery

(a picture of ruby red shoes, a picture of a young girl in a car seat) to convey this claim.

••• Support • Because this child is buckled up safely, she is secure in the knowledge that she will get home

safely.

• The PSA uses its visual imagery to present this support. The image of the smil ing girl conveys

the Web site's point about traveling safely, while the red slippers capture the idea of

returning home. continued

134 · Model r ument: The Toulmin Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an A 9

t t t Logical Warrant th ir children will arrive h() . h roper car seats, e rne • If parents and caregivers fit children tot e P safely.

•••Rebuttal " . . . h'ld fety resources, such as campaigns," • The PSA provides viewers with I mks to other c I sa

ff marketing tools," and "events/presentations." , . f ation to support the PSA s key • These links are designed to give viewers further m orm claim.

• It also includes a "search" field for viewers to find further connections themselves.

•••Qualifier • The child here can feel confident about her own safety because she has been properly placed within the appropriate car seat.

•••Contextual Warrants • Because they address issues that are in the broader public interest, PSAs are generally regarded as credible or trustworthy sources. • This Web site builds upon this credibility through its reference to The Wizard of Oz, which evokes greater feelings of trust and identification in its audience.

Activity Choose a multimedia text (Web site, social media post, video, podcast, etc.) that makes a claim about a topical issue. Then use the framework above to analyze this text in Toulmin terms.

Review Questions I. Name and describe the six parts of the Toulmin model. Which parts, stated or inferred, can be found in any argument? Which parts are used, as needed, to make an argument more convincing to a particular audience? (L01)

2. What are some synonyms for the claim, the support, and the warrant? Consult Box 4.1 (page 119). (L01) 3. What are subclaims? What are some types of specific support? (L01)

J

Exercises and Activities 135

pefine warrants. Why d_oes argument work better when warrants are shared by 4 · tbe arguer and the audience? How does backing strengthen a warrant? (L01 )

Give some examples of qualifiers. (L01) 5,

pescribe the difference between logical and contextual warrants. How does 6 · each help you evaluate the effectiveness of an argument? (L01)

Exercises and Activities

J!. Group Work and Class Discussion: Truth versus Probability

This activity invites you to compare topics that are true and therefore not argu- able with topics that are probable and thus open to argument. Think about one other course you are taking this semester and write down one example of something you have learned in that course that is absolutely true or untrue about which you could not argue. Then write one example of something you have learned in that course that is only probably true or untrue and that you therefore see as arguable. Make a class list of these examples. Think carefully about everything you put in the true and untrue columns. These must be topics that no one would argue about because they have been proved to be true or untrue. Here are some key words to help you think about these two types of information.

True: certain, fact, exact statement, right, correct, valid; wrong, incorrect, invalid

Probable: possible, opinion, qualified, reasonable, sound; unreasonable,

unsound

You will be learning both types of information in college. Which topics on the probable list might be good topics for argument papers?

B. Group Work and Class Discussion: Using the Toulmin Model to Analyze

an Advertisement

Study the advertisement that appears on the next page. Answer the following questions.

1. What is the claim? Complete the sentence, "The author wants me to believe that . . . " Is the claim stated or implied?

2· What is the support? Complete the sentence, "The author wants me to believe that ... [the claim] because ... [support]." Look for subclaims (reasons) and specific support (e.g., facts, opinions, examples).

3 · W~at is the logical warrant? Using the "if, then" (support, claim) model, Wnte out what you see as the internal logic underlying this argument. Remember that logical warrants supply the link between support and claim.

4 · What are the contextual warrants? What does the author value or believe reg ct · . ar mg the claim? Are these values stated or implied? What assump- tions does this advertisement invite its viewers to make?