Building an Argument with the Toulmin Model

The Toulmin Model is as useful for building arguments as it is for analyzing the arguments of others—you just work in reverse. Rather than identifying an argument’s Claim, then working down to Grounds, Warrant, and Backing, when creating your own analytic arguments, you must begin with Backing, then work up towards Warrants, Grounds, and finally a Claim.

If you begin with a research question, then pursue evidence on that question in an open-minded way, your argument can build toward a Claim that is well supported and carefully considered. It may seem backwards, because the Claim is often what we focus on first when analyzing someone else’s argument. However, when you are composing your own, the Claim should be the conclusion of your work, otherwise you are likely to argue yourself into an illogical corner. Let’s consider the hypothetical research question below as an example of building an argument using the Toulmin Model:

Question: What sort of animal makes the best pet?

In considering this question, we should first determine what we mean by the word “best.” Is best, in this case, synonymous with “most popular”? If so, then we would need to search out data for pet ownership by type. But what if, instead, by best we mean “easiest to care for” or “most useful”? All of these definitions of “best” could be argued for and would go a long way towards determining the path of your research and the argument you would end up composing.

But for this example, let’s assume that “easiest to care for” is the main defining characteristic for “best pet,” and, overall, your research leads you to conclude that cats are the easiest type of pet to care for. How would we use the Toulmin Model to ensure that we had a complete, logically sound argument? Return to the six parts of the structure and fill in each one with your argument’s information.

Claim: Cats make the best pets.

Grounds: Because they are the easiest animals to care for.

Backing for Grounds: Evidence that you found in your research, presumably data on pet ownership, such as the cost of food and medicine, the responsibilities of ownership, and the time required to maintain the pet’s well being per day.

Warrant: Ease of care is the most important aspect to determining what makes the best pet.

Backing for Warrant: Evidence that you found in your research, specifically on how cost and ease of ownership affects people’s perception of their pets and their ability to maintain them.

Rebuttal: What about for people who are allergic to cats?

Qualifier: Cats make the best pets, except for people with severe cat allergies.

If your definition of a “good pet” is a pet you can play frisbee with at the park, a cat might not fit the bill.

Note how changing the Warrant can change the whole argument: if we define “best pet” as the pet that offers the most interactive physical activities, like walking, hiking, and playing in the park, then dogs would certainly win out over cats. Again, the importance of the Toulmin model is that it reminds us of the need for both Warrant and Grounds.

Even if you choose not to compose your argument using the Toulmin model, once you are finished with a first draft, you can use Toulmin analysis as a way to analyze your own logic. Most importantly, check to make sure the four required elements—Claim, Grounds, Backing, and Warrant—all are present and reasonable. If you are unable to do so, this is a strong indication that you should revisit your sources and conclusions, then revise your argument so that you are able to complete the Toulmin model structure, which means both that you understand your own argument and that it is logically sound in its reasoning.

Building an Aristotelian (Classical) Argument

The Aristotelian or classical argument is a style of argument developed by the famous Greek philosopher and rhetorician, Aristotle. In this style of argument, your goal as a writer is to convince your audience of something. The goal is to use a series of strategies to persuade your audience to adopt your side of the issue.

Here is the basic format for an Aristotelian, or classical, argumentative essay:

1. Introduce your issue. At the end of your introduction, most professors will ask you to present your thesis. The idea is to present your readers with your main point and then dig into it.
2. Present your case by explaining the issue in detail and why something must be done or a way of thinking is not working. This will take place over several paragraphs.
3. Address the opposition. Use a few paragraphs to explain the other side. Refute the opposition one point at a time.
4. Provide your proof. After you address the other side, you’ll want to provide clear evidence that your side is the best side.
5. Present your conclusion. In your conclusion, you should remind your readers of your main point or thesis and summarize the key points of your argument. If you are arguing for some kind of change, this is a good place to give your audience a call to action. Tell them what they could do to make a change.

According to Aristotle, there are three main ways to present your case persuasively:

• Ethos is an appeal to the character of the speaker or writer.
• Pathos appeals to the emotions of the audience.
• Logos uses a well-reasoned argument to appeal to your audience’s logical side.

We will cover these modes of persuasion in more detail in the section on Audience.

Building a Rogerian Argument

Rogerian argument is an organizational technique for persuasive argument that works especially well when your reader is not likely to agree with you. It was developed by a Carl Rogers, a psychologist. This argument technique can be effective for persuasion because you obtain the “buy in,” or agreement, from someone whose opinion differs from yours at the beginning. In a Rogerian argument, you demonstrate that you understand the other person’s viewpoint, even that you have empathy for it. By showing this, a person is more likely to listen to your point of view.

Describing his philosophy of persuasion, Barack Obama said:

I forget whether it was Clarence Darrow, or Abraham Lincoln, or some apocryphal figure in the past who said, look, the best way to win an argument is to first be able to make the other person’s argument better than they can. And for me, what that meant was that I had to understand their world view.

And I couldn’t expect them to understand mine if I wasn’t extending myself to understand theirs.

Although Obama doesn’t explicitly refer to Rogerian argument, he is clearly thinking in a similar direction.

Here is one organizational technique for a Rogerian argument:

• Introduction. Write a paragraph about the topic in general just to give the context about the topic and draw the reader in. Do not place your main idea – or even give away your opinion – in your introduction. Think of it like playing poker; You don’t want to give away your hand.
• Body Paragraph 1. This paragraph is where you should explain the other person’s opinion on your main topic that you can concede or agree with a little bit and explain that point of view thoroughly (for a whole paragraph). Do not place your main idea – or even give away your opinion — in body paragraph 1 in a Rogerian argument. The reason for explaining the other person’s point of view for a whole paragraph is to show that you understand their viewpoint. People are much more likely to listen to your viewpoint if you show that you understand their viewpoint first.
• Body Paragraph 2. The beginning of this paragraph will begin with a concession statement in which you acknowledge the viewpoint that you previously explained but then emphasize the problem with that viewpoint. In this paragraph you begin to give away your opinion by explaining how the idea that you wrote about in body paragraph 1 is illogical or problematic from an ethical standpoint. Explain the problem with that viewpoint for the whole paragraph. This is your counter­-argument paragraph.
• All Subsequent Body Paragraphs until the Conclusion. In these paragraphs you develop separate reasons for your point of view in each paragraph. This is more like what you do in a traditional, argumentative essay. Although you are giving your opinion, do not state your thesis yet. You should be building toward it. ·
• Conclusion. Give your thesis at the beginning of your conclusion. Basically, your whole argument has led up to this. Your thesis may very well be a two-part sentence with a concession in it, which allows it to relate to the totality of your paper (including the first body paragraph). The rest of your conclusion should focus on the future. How should things be in the future with regard to this topic? What changes could be made? What needs to change in order for things to get better?