Introduction to the Toulmin Model of Argument Construction
&Diagramming Arguments
Minnesota Debate & Advocacy Workshop (MDAW)Prof. Robert Groven
Department of Communication StudiesAugsburg College
Formal Reasoning: Used in philosophy,
mathematics and computational sciences
Strict rules of logic Doesn’t change with
audience Assumes data of equal
validity Focused on absolutes
Informal Reasoning: Used everywhere
outside listed fields Pragmatic rules of logic Requirements and focus
adapts to audience Assumes data of
unequal validity Focused on probability
not absolutes
Formal v. Informal Argument
3 Required Elements: Claim- conclusion you are trying to prove Data/grounds- external evidence supporting the claim Warrant- reasons how or why the data proves the
claim
3 Optional Elements: Backing- additional information to support a
controversial warrant Qualifier- language describing the level of probability,
certainty, or degree of force for the claim Rebuttal- conditions or exceptions to the truth of the
claim
Basic Elements of Toulmin Model
Data: John looked out the window at the sky and says he saw a blue sky.
[Source: John, only student near the window]
Warrant: John is a credible witness.
Claim: The sky is blue.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Color of the Sky
Basic structure with source certification warrant
If the data is accurate:
(empirically verifiable assumption)Data: John looked out the window at the sky
and says he saw a blue sky.
[Source: John, only student near the window]
Then, the claim is true: Claim: The sky is blue.
Because of the following reasons/warrant: (analytically verifiable assumption) Warrant: John is a credible witness.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Color of the Sky
“If, then, because:” Informal Reasoning Test
Data: John looked out the window at the sky and says he saw a blue sky.
[Source: John, only student near the window]
Warrant: John is a credible witness. Backing 1: John is normally truthful. Backing 2: John is not color blind.
Claim: The sky is blue.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Color of the Sky
Basic structure with source certification & backing
Data: John looked out the window at the sky and says he saw a blue sky.
[Source: John, only student near the window]
Warrant: John is a credible witness. Backing 1: John is normally truthful. Backing 2: John is not color blind.
Claim 1: The sky is probably [qualifier] blue.
Claim 2: I am absolutely certain [qualifier], the sky is blue.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Color of the Sky
Basic structure with source certification, backing, and qualifier
Data: John looked out the window at the sky and says he saw a blue sky.
[Source: John, only student near the window]
Warrant: John is a credible witness. Backing 1: John is normally truthful. Backing 2: John is not color blind.
Claim 1: The sky is probably [qualifier] blue, unless cloud cover appeared since John looked last [rebuttal].
Claim 2: As long as John isn’t joking [rebuttal], I am absolutely certain [qualifier], the sky is blue.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Color of the Sky
Basic structure with source certification, backing, qualifier, and simple rebuttal
Each group packet should include two items: 1) 3 Puzzles: do each in order: #1 first, #2 second, and #3 third 2) 1 envelop with labels for all 6 Toulmin elements
Solve each puzzle by matching the correct Toulmin label with each statement. Lay them out on the relevant sheet of paper.
You do not need to use all the labels
Some statements may contain more than one Toulmin element and therefore will require more than one label
Move quickly, don’t dwell on any one puzzle. Answer your best, and move on to the next.
Toulmin Puzzles
Data 1: Our sleigh travels an average of 20 m.p.h. [source: Uncle Bill who owns the sleigh]
Data 2: Grandma’s house is 40 miles away.[source: Uncle Bill travels to grandma regularly]
Warrant 1: 40 miles/20 mph = 2 hours [Analytic warrant: multiplication/division principals]
Warrant 2: Uncle Bill is very accurate about travel times in general [source certification].
Backing: Uncle Bill has estimated the length and time of many trips in the past and been accurate every time.
Claim: I feel confident [qualifier], it will take 2 hours to get to grandma’s house riding in our sleigh, unless Aunt Charlotte needs a long bathroom break, in which case it will take 2 hours and 30 minutes [rebuttal].
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Calculating distance to grandma’s house
Basic structure with computational warrant
Data: The National Weather
Service [source] reports that barometric pressure is rising rapidly, humidity is at 78% and rising, the wind is from the north, and it is raining heavily 50 miles north of this location.
Warrant: These weather conditions [sign reasoning] normally indicate rain will come to an area within 24 hours. Backing 1: Weather fronts typically remain consistent over 200 miles or less. Backing 2: Rising barometric pressure, rising wind, and increasing humidity
correlate with incoming rain fronts 90% of the time.
Claim 1: It will rain today. Claim 2: It will probably [qualifier] rain today. Claim 3: There is a 90% chance [qualifier] it will rain today.
Claim 4: There is a 90% chance [qualifier] it will rain today, unless the wind shifts to the south [rebuttal].
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Weather Forecast
Basic structure with qualifier, rebuttal & sign warrant
Data: The Department of Justice Report [source] on the Ferguson Missouri race disputes, included devastating proof that their court judges, administrators, police leadership and political leadership were engaged in a deliberate and systematic policy of squeezing black communities with enormous fines and penalties for minor offences based on little or no evidence of wrongdoing.”
Warrant: Policies which systemically identify and disadvantage one racial group without a substantial, rational justification are guilty of racial discrimination. Backing: Under the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, differential treatment
by race warrants strict scrutiny and can only be justified by a compelling state interest.
Claim: Newer studies may show these problems have been resolved by widespread leadership changes and the DOJ’s new mandate [rebuttal], but as of today, there is no doubt that [qualifier], racial discrimination in United States is a widespread, intentional, and systematic practice by elites in powerful leadership positions in the criminal justice system.
Policy Specific Toulmin ExamplesExample: Race Discrimination in U.S. Criminal Justice
Data: The Department of Justice Report [source] on the Ferguson Missouri race disputes, included devastating proof that their court judges, administrators, police leadership and political leadership were engaged in a deliberate and systematic policy of squeezing black communities with enormous fines and penalties for minor offences based on little or no evidence of wrongdoing.”
Warrant: The findings in the DOJ Feguson report are accurate representatives of other credible findings about most criminal justice systems across the United States.
Claim: Racial discrimination in United States is a widespread, intentional, and systematic practice by elites in powerful leadership positions in the criminal justice system.
Policy Specific Toulmin ExamplesExample: Race Discrimination in U.S. Criminal Justice
The Classic Over-claim: Hasty Generalization
Types of Claims: Claims of Fact: observable descriptions or summaries Claims of Value: ideal or abstract evaluations Claims of Policy: advocating future change
Policy claims implicitly combine facts and values
Policy arguments therefore require a “fit” or match between the claim, data and warrant.
A policy claim requires either policy data or warrant, or data & warrants which combine fact and value.
Toulmin ExamplesSpecial Problem: Policy Claims
Data: The Senate Intelligence Committee Report [source] says: “Since USA Freedom Act passed, the NSA has already created a new bulk data collection system which compiles with the law, by culling phone meta-data directly from physical decryption keys in phone routers instead of telecommunication providers.”
Warrant: The Senate Report has been independently verified by the New York Times and the New York Attorney General’s Office [source certification].
Claim: The new NSA collection program using physical decryption keys in router should be shut down.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Drone Surveillance
Fact Data/Policy Claim Mismatch
Data: The Senate Intelligence Committee Report [source] says: “Since USA Freedom Act passed, the NSA has already created a new bulk data collection system which compiles with the law, by culling phone meta-data directly from physical decryption keys in phone routers instead of telecommunication providers.”
Warrant 1: The Senate Report has been independently verified by the New York Times and the New York Attorney General’s Office [source certification].
Warrant 2: Bulk collection of phone meta-data without a warrant is violates the U.S. Constitution’s search & seizure clause.
Claim: The new NSA collection program using physical decryption keys in router should be shut down.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Drone Surveillance
Fact Data/Policy Claim Mismatch
Data: The Senate Intelligence Committee Report [source] says: “Since USA Freedom Act passed, the NSA has already created a new bulk data collection system which compiles with the law, by culling phone meta-data directly from physical decryption keys in phone routers instead of telecommunication providers.”
Warrant 1: The Senate Report has been independently verified by the New York Times and the New York Attorney General’s Office.
Warrant 2: Congress’ intent in passing the USA Freedom Act was to
prevent the NSA or any government agency from bulk collection of phone metadata, therefore any program doing so should be banned by further Congressional action or Executive decision.
Claim: The new NSA collection program using physical decryption keys in router should be shut down.
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Drone Surveillance
Fact Data/Policy Claim Mismatch
Good claims: *Concrete *Specific *Narrow *Provable *Verifiable *Controvertible
Good Data:
*Transparent bias/interests *High quality source/author *High quality & relevant method
*Close fit to claim
Good Warrants: *Transparent motives/reasoning *Logical validity or *Absence of known logical fallacies *Close fit between claim & data (“bridges the gap”)
Informal Criteria for Evaluating Toulmin Elements
Groups produce one original example Toulmin argument relevant to the topic.
Must include and label all 6 elements. You may create reasonable,
imaginary data and sources. Data must be a direct quote.
Write the argument with labels on the board when your group is ready.
Group Toulmin Examples
Example exercise: Sally & Her GPA Focus on over-claiming data & unexamined warrants
Example exercise: Ms. Scarlett & the Blue Car Focus on evaluating warrants: how many warrants are
needed? How much backing is needed?
Example exercise: The Problem of Augsburg Parking Focus on implicit warrants & the limits of data
Toulmin ExamplesFocus on Common Problems
Up next:
Get to know, Monsieur Foucault!
The End.
Introduction to the Toulmin Model
Data 1: When I move the light switch on the lamp to the “on” position the light bulb does not light [source: my personal testimony].
Data 2: When I put the same light bulb in another lamp, and move the switch to the on position, the light bulb lights up [source: my personal testimony].
Warrant: A working light bulb always lights if electricity is is flowing through the circuit [physics principles/causal reasoning]
Claim: If the lamp’s electrical outlet functions [rebuttal modal condition 1], then some part of the lamp is probably [qualifier] broken, but if the lamp’s electrical outlet functions, then the lamp may not be broken [rebuttal modal condition 2].
Toulmin ExamplesExample: Broken Lamp
Basic structure with qualifier, modal rebuttal, backing, & causal warrant
Example: Calculating distance to Chicago
Data 1: My car can travel 80 m.p.h. (source: average from my record book)
Data 2: Chicago is 480 miles away from here (source: my Atlas’ distance estimates)
Claim: It will take 6 hours to get to Chicago from here driving in my car
Warrant: Multiplication/division principals: 480 miles/80 mph = 6 hours
Problem: warrant assumes driving continuously at 80 mph but speed limits are between 55mph & 70mph and bathroom breaks will be needed.
Toulmin Examples
Example:
Data 1: Data 2: Warrant: Claim:
Toulmin Examples
Diagramming Toulmin Arguments
Diagramming Toulmin Arguments
Diagramming Toulmin Arguments
Diagramming Toulmin Arguments