As you have learned already, arguments exist in nearly every imaginable form of communication. Because arguments occur in such a wide variety of genres and types of media, analyzing them with consistency and accuracy can be tricky.

One of the most famous systems for understanding arguments was proposed by British philosopher named Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009). Toulmin’s area of philosophy was logic, meaning that he mainly focused on questions about how we come to know and believe things in systematic, repeatable ways, and he is most famous for developing a method for analyzing arguments that can be applied to nearly any text you might come across. This method, usually referred to as the Toulmin Model of Argumentation, provides a structure and a set of definitions for dissecting an argument into its most important parts and then showing how those parts relate to and depend on each other to make a logically-sound argument. The Toulmin Model can also be used to show when an argument is missing necessary elements and does not hold together logically. As you will see, the Toulmin Model can be used to both quickly break down others’ arguments and build your own.

The first step in employing the Toulmin Model to analyze arguments is to learn the six parts of the structure and how they relate to one another.

1. Claim: The purpose or goal of the argument. The fundamental purpose of the argument is to convince the audience of the claim. If the argument has an effective thesis statement, the claim will typically be expressed in it. However, not all arguments explicitly state their claims.
   • Example: There should be more laws to regulate texting while driving in order to cut down on dangerous car accidents.
2. Grounds: The main reason or reasons given to justify or support the Claim. The grounds will often make up the second part of a well-written thesis statement, in that they give a “grounding” to the Claim.
   • Example: The National Safety Council estimates that 1.6 million car accidents per year are caused by cell phone use and texting.
3. Warrant: The bridge or connection between the Claim and the Grounds; the belief or idea that makes the connection between the Claim and Grounds logical. This is probably the most significant contribution to argument analysis made by the Toulmin Model because it forces us to consider a critical part of argumentation that is often overlooked and taken for granted. Because the Warrant often depends on a moral or value judgment to connect the Claim and Grounds, the Warrant provides an opportunity to analyze the ethics of an argument.
   • Example: Being distracted by texting on a cell phone while driving a car is dangerous and causes accidents.
4. Backing: Additional support of the warrant. Sometimes the warrant is self-evident enough that it doesn’t need much backing; other times a large portion of the argument will be given over to supporting the warrant.
   • Example: Sending or reading a text typically distracts a driver for around 5 seconds. As the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s anti-distracted-driving website puts it: “At 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed.” (“Distracted Driving”
5. Rebuttal: An anticipated objection to the Claim. Like rebuttals in debates or legal cases, this is a critical response to the Claim, in part or in whole. Not all arguments will include rebuttals, but the best, most thoroughly argued ones do because rebuttals are anticipations of contrary arguments before they are made.
   • Example: Although police officers are busy already, making anti-texting laws a priority saves time, money, and lives. Local departments could add extra staff to address this important priority.
6. Qualifier: An adjustment or narrowing of the Claim in response to a Rebuttal. Qualifiers preserve the logical integrity of an argument, while also acknowledging and accommodating reasonable Rebuttals.
   • Example: Anti-texting-and-driving laws also need to have provisions built in to support local law enforcement in administering the new laws.

Using the Toulmin Model

So how does the Toulmin Model actually help you work with an argument? The most important way is by calling attention to the relationships between the various parts of an argument. Where a line of reasoning might look watertight as a whole, breaking down the parts can reveal gaps or contradictions that can be explored further.

For some people, a good basketball program would be an argument to go to a particular college. For others, not so much.

For example: Lisa is trying to choose which college to go to. Her older brother thinks she should go to State. Here’s his argument:

“You should go to State because it’s a really good school: It has the best engineering program in the region. Remember my friend Rob? He goes there and he says the other students are all really cool and relatable. Plus it has a great basketball team.”

Lisa replies:

“That’s fine, but I want to major in communications, not engineering. And no offense, but I’m not sure I want to hang out with people that Rob finds relatable. And I don’t like basketball.”

In terms of Grounds, Lisa’s brother makes a fine argument here. He’s listed three reasons why someone might want to go to State. However, his Warrant could use some work. In this case, the Warrant needs to connect the Claim (“Lisa should go to State”) to the Grounds (“Here’s why…”) by way of things that Lisa would find convincing.