Embedded Files
INTRODUCTION TO THE TOULMIN MODEL
Developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, the Toulmin Model is a method of argumentation used to effectively develop and analyze an argument. The Toulmin model is unique in that it is framed into six working parts that can be broken down and analyzed individually or as a combined whole. The six parts include the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. These components must be present in every argument. (Karbach 81). This model is an extremely useful tool for students, specifically English 145 students, as the method allows students to not only organize their ideas, but further develop their arguments to make them more effective. The strength of an argument is dependent on each of the individual parts, thus it is crucial to have a fully developed structure, without missing one or more of the steps. Toulmin refers to the working parts of his model, explaining how "Within each paragraph, when one gets down to the level of individual sentences, a finer structure can be recognized, and this is the structure with which logicians have mainly concerned themselves" (87). By understanding the six components of this method, students can develop a well-structured and logical argument that is more convincing to their audience. Another way that the Toulmin Model is useful, is in the analysis of other arguments. By using common terminology and understanding the individual aspects of logic, the user is then able to apply them to evaluate the strength of other arguments. Overall, the Toulmin model is a powerful framework that can help students improve their writing skills by organizing their argument into a cohesive piece of writing, while also providing the necessary understanding to analyze other arguments.
THE 6 PARTS OF THE TOULMIN MODEL
Claim: The assertion that the author is attempting to make upon the audience. In other words, the main argument.
Grounds: The evidence and the facts that supports the claim.
Warrant: The assumption that links the grounds back to the claim, and can be either implied or stated explicitly.
Backing: Any additional support for the warrant. If the warrant is implied, the backing could be a specific example.
Rebuttal: The acknowledgement of another valid viewpoint or side of the argument.
Qualifier: The degree of certainty in an argument. Specifically shows that it may not be true in all cases.
EXAMPLE PARAGRAPH 1
The Toulmin model can help us understand the arguments for and against sustainable fashion.
Claim: Sustainable fashion is necessary to reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry. The fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world.
Grounds: It is estimated that the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions, 20% of industrial water waste, and 92 million tons of textile waste each year. These numbers clearly show the negative impact of the fashion industry on the environment.
Backing: People have a moral responsibility to reduce their impact on the environment. This is based on the premise that we are responsible for the consequences of our actions. It is not enough to simply enjoy the benefits of fashion without considering the impact it has on the environment. People have a duty to future generations to leave the planet in a better condition than they found it.
Warrant: Sustainable fashion is one way to fulfill this duty.
Rebuttal: Sustainable fashion is expensive and impractical. However, this argument ignores the long-term impact of sustainable fashion. Sustainable fashion may be more expensive in the short term, but sustainable fashion is cheaper in the long term because sustainably sourced clothing is more durable and has a longer lifespan. Additionally, sustainable fashion is not impractical. There are many sustainable fashion options available that are stylish and affordable. Furthermore, sustainable fashion can be seen as an investment in the future. By investing in sustainable fashion, we are investing in a more sustainable future for ourselves and for future generations.
Qualifier: The idea that sustainable fashion is too expensive and impractical overlooks the bigger problem, which is the impact of fashion on the environment. Overall, sustainable fashion is an important issue that requires consumer attention and action to create a more sustainable future.
In conclusion, sustainable fashion is necessary to reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry. The moral responsibility people have to reduce our environmental impact provides the basis for sustainable fashion
Claim Backing
Grounds Rebuttal
Warrant Qualifier
EXAMPLE PARAGRAPH 2
Claim: The presence of harmful chemicals within many common laundry detergents has detrimental effects on both the environment and human health, thus rendering the use of laundry detergent as potentially hazardous.
Grounds: Laundry detergents contain harmful chemicals that can have negative impacts on both the environment and human health. Many laundry detergents contain phosphates, which can contribute to water pollution and harm aquatic life. Additionally, many laundry detergents contain surfactants and other chemicals that can cause skin irritation and other health problems.
Warrant: The harmful chemicals in laundry detergents are released into the environment when they are used and can accumulate over time, causing long-term damage. Furthermore, the chemicals can come into contact with human skin and cause a variety of health problems, especially for people with sensitive skin or allergies.
Backing: A study conducted by the University of Washington found that many common laundry detergents contain toxic chemicals that can harm human health and the environment. Another study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that the use of laundry detergents contributes to the accumulation of chemicals in indoor dust, which can cause health problems when inhaled.
Qualifier: While not all laundry detergents contain harmful chemicals, many popular brands do, and it can be difficult for consumers to identify which products are safe. Additionally, some people may be more sensitive to the chemicals in laundry detergent than others, and may experience more severe health effects.
Rebuttal: Some may argue that the negative effects of laundry detergent are outweighed by the benefits of having clean clothes. However, there are alternative, eco-friendly laundry detergents and washing methods that are just as effective at cleaning clothes without the harmful chemicals. In addition, the long-term effects of exposure to these chemicals on both human health and the environment cannot be ignored.
In conclusion, the use of laundry detergent has negative effects on both the environment and human health. The chemicals in laundry detergents can contribute to water pollution, harm aquatic life, and cause a variety of health problems when inhaled or when in contact with skin. While not all laundry detergents contain harmful chemicals, it can be difficult for consumers to identify which products are safe. Eco-friendly laundry detergents and washing methods are available as an alternative to traditional laundry detergents, and their use can help to reduce the negative impacts of laundry detergent on the environment and human health. Therefore, it is important for consumers to be aware of the potential negative effects of laundry detergent and to choose safer alternatives whenever possible.
Claim Backing
Grounds Rebuttal
Warrant Qualifier
EXAMPLE PARAGRAPH 3
Cobalt is a key component of many technological devices, such as smartphones, laptops and electric cars. However, most of the world's cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where it is mined under appalling conditions that violate human rights and environmental standards. Therefore, consumers should boycott products that use cobalt from unethical sources and demand more transparency and accountability from companies that rely on this mineral.
Claim: Consumers should boycott products that use cobalt from unethical sources and demand more transparency and accountability from companies that rely on this mineral.
Grounds: Most of the world's cobalt comes from the DRC, where it is mined under appalling conditions that violate human rights and environmental standards. Cobalt mining in the DRC involves child labor, toxic leaks, high radioactivity levels, and armed conflicts.
Warrant: Consumers have a moral duty to avoid supporting practices that harm people and the planet, especially when they have alternatives available.
Backing: Ethical consumerism is based on the principle that consumers can influence social change by choosing products that reflect their values and beliefs. By boycotting products that use cobalt from unethical sources, consumers can send a clear message to companies that they will not tolerate such practices and force them to adopt more responsible sourcing policies.
Qualifier: This argument applies to consumers who have access to information about the origin of cobalt in their products and who have viable alternatives to choose from.
Rebuttal: Some might argue that boycotting products that use cobalt from unethical sources is unrealistic or ineffective since cobalt is essential for many technologies and there are few alternative sources available. However, this argument ignores the fact that there are initiatives to improve the traceability and certification of cobalt supply chains, as well as efforts to develop alternative materials or recycling methods for cobalt. Moreover, boycotting products that use cobalt from unethical sources does not mean giving up on technology altogether, but rather choosing products that use less or no cobalt at all, such as solar panels or hydrogen fuel cells.
Claim Backing
Grounds Rebuttal
Warrant Qualifier
[Template for Each Element]
This template can be used to organize your argument. Fill in each box with a sentence or two for each step of a Toulmin argument about your topic.
Starting with the claim, the diagram above outlines how the backing, grounds, and rebuttal are all key parts of the broader objective of providing evidence.
Stephen Toulmin, 1985
"An argument is like an organism. It has both a gross, anatomical structure and a finer, as-it-were physiological one. When set out explicitly in all its detail, it may occupy a number of printed pages or take perhaps a quarter of an hour to deliver; and within this time or space one can distinguish the main phases marking the progress of the argument from the initial statement of an unsettled problem to the final presentation of a conclusion. These main phases will each of them occupy some minutes or paragraphs, and represent the chief anatomical units of the argument— its ‘organs’, so to speak. But within each paragraph, when one gets down to the level of individual sentences, a finer structure can be recognised, and this is the structure with which logicians have mainly concerned themselves. It is at this physiological level that the idea of logical form has been introduced, and here that the validity of our arguments has ultimately to be established or refuted."
— Stephen H. Toulmin
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse