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