Transcript The Toulmin Method - Bakersfield College

The Toulmin Method
Essay One Topic Proposal
Part One: Describe your topic. What element(s) of the food system will
you be examining? Remember that your essay, once finished, must
suggest a solution; think in terms of a topic that will allow you to suggest
what you want your imagined audience to do.
Part Two: Thinking about what you have read about the Toulmin method,
plan the argument you will make in your essay.
Provide the following:
Claim: The conclusion of the argument(s) you make in your essay—
in other words, the idea that will become your thesis statement.
Backing: Give a summary of the evidence that you will provide.
Rebuttal: Exceptions or counterarguments to your claim.
Note--this is not entitled to be the outline of or plan for your essay;
rather, it is a brainstorming exercise designed to help you think critically
about the arguments you will make the and the approach you will take.
The Toulmin Method
Stephen Toulmin, originally a British
logician, is now a professor at USC. He
became frustrated with the inability of
formal logic to explain everyday
arguments, which prompted him to
develop his own model of practical
reasoning.
The first triad of his model
consists of three basic elements:
the claim, ground, and warrant.
A “claim” is the point an arguer is
trying to make. The claim is the
assertion an arguer wants us to accept.
• The claim answers the question, “So what is
your point?”
• Example: “You should eat less fast food
because it is very unhealthy.”
• Example: “Slaughter houses are very cruel, so
we should support legislation to make them
more humane.”
There are three basic types of claim:
• Fact: Claims that focus on empirically verifiable
phenomena;
• Judgment/value: Claims that involve opinions,
attitudes, and subjective evaluations;
• Policy: Claims that advocate courses of action
that should be undertaken.
• The claim is the point an arguer is trying to
make—the assertion an arguer wants us
to accept.
• Policy claims advocate courses of action
that should be undertaken.
• A policy claim, therefore, is something the
thesis statement of an argumentative
essay or research paper must contain.
Identify the types of claim:
fact, judgment/value, or policy.
• “You should eat less fast food because it is very
unhealthy.”
• “Obesity is unattractive.”
• “Obesity is unhealthy.”
• “Slaughter houses cause animals to suffer, so
we should support legislation to make them
more humane.”
Identify the types of claim:
fact, judgment/value, or policy.
•
•
•
•
Claim: “You should eat less fast food.” Policy.
Claim: “Obesity is unattractive.” Judgment/value.
Claim:“Obesity is unhealthy.” Fact.
Claim: “We should support legislation to make
them more humane.” Policy.
The term “ground” refers to the proof
or evidence an arguer offers.
The grounds answer the questions, “What is
your proof?” or “Why?”
Grounds can consist of statistics,
quotations, reports, findings, physical
evidence, or various forms of
reasoning.
Example: “Fast food consumption has risen
500 percent since 1970 and today
pervades nearly every segment of society,
including some public school cafeterias. At
the same time, obesity among children
has tripled.”
Grounds can be based on
• Evidence: Facts, statistics, reports, or physical
proof;
• Source Credibility: Authorities, experts, celebrity
endorsers, political pundits, friends, or parents;
• Analysis and Reasoning: Logical deductive and
inductive reasoning may be offered as proof.
Not all grounds are equal
• Some information offered as factual may
not be true;
• Celebrity endorsers, political pundits,
family, and friends often aren’t as reliable
as researchers and scientists;
• Induction and deduction can be weak or
flawed.
Satirist Stephen Colbert coined the term
“truthiness.”
Truthiness is a quality
characterizing a
“truth” that a person
claims to know
intuitively “from the
gut” or because it
“feels right” without
regard to evidence,
logic, intellectual
examination, or facts.
What is the claim (assertion) in each
statement? What are the grounds (ideas
offered as proof)? Look for implications as
well as statements.
• “Betty is gaining weight; I bet she went off her
diet."
• “That hamburger is probably loaded with
calories.”
The “warrant” is the inferential
leap that connects the claim with
the grounds.
The warrant is typically implicit (unstated)
and requires the reader or listener to
recognize the underlying reasoning that
makes sense of the claim in light of the
grounds.
The warrant performs a “linking”
function by establishing a mental
connection between the grounds and
the claim:
• Example: Claim: “Betty is gaining weight; I bet
she went off her diet.” Warrant: sign reasoning;
weight gain is a typical sign of eating too much.
• Example: Claim: “That hamburger is probably
loaded with calories.” Warrant: generalization;
most hamburgers are highly caloric.
Common Warrants
•
•
•
•
•
•
Argument based on Generalization
Argument based on Analogy
Argument via Sign/Clue
Causal Argument
Argument from Authority
Argument from Principle
Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of reasoning that
assumes that what is true of a well-chosen
sample is likely to hold for a larger group
or population, or that certain things
consistent with the sample can be inferred
of the group/population.
Argument based on Analogy
• Extrapolating from one situation or event
based on the nature and outcome of a
similar situation or event. Has links to
“case-based” and precedent-based
reasoning used in legal discourse. What is
important here is the extent to which
relevant similarities can be established
between two or more contexts. Are there
sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant
similarities?
Argument via Sign/Clue
This is the notion that certain types of
evidence are symptomatic of some wider
principle or outcome. For example, smoke
is often considered a sign for fire. Some
people think high SAT scores are a sign a
person is smart and will do well in college.
Causal Argument
This is arguing that a given occurrence or event
is the result of, or is effected by, factor
X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the
different forms of warrant. The big dangers with
it follow:
• Mixing up correlation with causation
• Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc
trap. Closely related to confusing correlation
and causation, this involves inferring “after the
fact, therefore because of the fact.”
Argument from Authority
This involves using an authority figure or text.
Important questions follow:
• Does person X or text X constitute a genuinely
authoritative source on the issue in question?
• What political, ideological, or economic interests
does the authority have?
• Is this the sort of issue in which a significant
number of authorities are likely to agree on?
Argument from Principle
•
•
•
•
•
•
This involves locating a principle that is widely regarded
as “right” and showing that a situation exists in which this
principle applies. Questions to ask follow:
Is the principle widely accepted, and in what groups?
Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there
“rival” principles that lead to a different claim?
Does it accurately apply to the situation in question?
Is the principle applied consistently?
Are the practical consequences of following the principle
sufficiently desirable?
Is the principle based on traditional, religious, cultural, or
other bases that may negate legal rights or other widelyaccepted principles?
Warrants can be based on
•
•
•
•
Ethos: Source credibility, authority;
Logos: Reason-giving, induction, deduction;
Pathos: Emotional or motivational appeals;
Shared values: Free speech, fairness, etc.
• Note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive; there is
considerable overlap among the three.
Identify how ethos, pathos, and logos
can be used for the following:
• “You should eat less fast food because it is very
unhealthy.”
• “Obesity is unattractive.”
• “Obesity is unhealthy.”
• “Slaughter houses cause animals to suffer, so
we should support legislation to make them
more humane.”
Identify how ethos, pathos, and logos
can be used for the following:
• “You should eat less fast food because it
is very unhealthy.” Ethos and Logos:
Source credibility and authority can be
used by drawing on credible experts, and
scientific evidence can be supplied.
Identify how ethos, pathos, and logos
can be used for the following:
• “Obesity is unattractive.” This is a value
judgment, so it cannot be proven as a
“fact”; some cultures, for example,
appreciate what typical Americans would
call obesity. In an argument, you would be
most likely to draw on pathos--emotional
or motivational appeals.
Identify how ethos, pathos, and logos
can be used for the following:
• “Slaughter houses cause animals to suffer, so
we should support legislation to make them
more humane.” Ethos and Logos: The opinions
of authorities (Temple Grandin, for example) can
be supplied, and evidence can be produced to
document cruelty; pathos would be used in the
documentation of suffering.
The second triad of the Toulmin
model involves three additional
elements:
• Backing
• The qualifier
• The rebuttal
• Backing provides additional justification for the
warrant; backing usually consists of evidence to
support the type of reasoning employed by the
warrant; it tells us why grounds support claims.
• The qualifier states the degree of force or
probability to be attached to the claim; the
qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his
or her claim.
• The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or
limitations to the argument; the rebuttal admits to
those circumstances or situations where the
argument would not hold.
The qualifier states the degree of force or
probability to be attached to the claim;
evaluate the qualifiers below; which is most
forceful?
• “Betty is gaining weight; I think she may
have gone off her diet.”
• “Betty is gaining weight; she has obviously
gone off her diet.”
What are some rebuttals to these
claims?
• “Betty is gaining weight; I bet she went off
her diet.”
• “That hamburger is probably loaded with
calories.”
• “Slaughter houses are very cruel, so we
should support legislation to make them
more humane.”
“Betty is gaining weight; I bet she went off
her diet.”
• Betty may still be on her diet, but she may
have quit exercising.
• Betty may have a medical condition that
contributes to weight gain.
“That hamburger is probably loaded with
calories.”
• The “hamburger” might be a vegetarian
substitute.
• The hamburger may be of relatively small
size, made of extra lean meat, and on a
lower-calorie, whole-grain bun.
“Slaughter houses are very cruel, so we
should support legislation to make them
more humane.”
• “Making slaughter houses more humane would
probably drastically raise the cost of meat.”
• “Animals were ‘created’ for humans to use; it
doesn’t matter if they suffer. Lots of people just
don’t care.”
(Note: these are examples of possible rebuttals an arguer should
anticipate dealing with—they are not my opinion.)
Why provide counterarguments?
• Unlike many forms of writing, academic
arguments will often include discussions of
possible objections and counterarguments
to the position being advanced.
• Academic arguments typically take place
in disciplinary communities in which a
variety of competing or divergent positions
exist.
Why provide counterarguments?
• When preparing to “speak” to the
community by writing an argument, writers
are aware of the arguments against which
they must build their claims, and of the
counterarguments which are likely to
emerge.
• Dealing with counterarguments and
objections is thus a key part of the process
of building arguments, refining them,
interpreting and analyzing them.
There are several main reasons for introducing
counterarguments and objections.
• By demonstrating that the author is aware of opposing
views and is not trying to “sweep them under the table,”
it thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem
fair and honest to readers, and as a consequence be
more persuasive.
• Demonstrating that the writer is thinking carefully about
the responses of readers and anticipating the objections
that many readers may have shows audience
awareness.
• By contrasting one's position with the arguments or
alternative hypotheses the writer is against, he or she
clarifies the position that is being argued for.
Essay One Topic Proposal: Part One
• Describe your topic. What element(s) of
the food system will you be examining?
• Remember that your essay, once finished,
must suggest a solution; think in terms of a
topic that will allow you to suggest what
you want your imagined audience to do.
• Your claim, therefore, should be a matter
of policy.
Part Two: Thinking about the Toulmin
method, plan the argument you will make in
your essay. Provide the following:
•
•
•
Claim: The conclusion of the argument(s) you
will make in your essay--in other words, the
idea that will become your thesis statement.
Backing: Give a summary of the evidence that
you will provide.
Rebuttal: Exceptions or counterarguments to
your claim.
Remember—there are three
types of claim:
• Fact: Claims that focus on empirically
verifiable phenomena;
• Judgment/value: Claims that involve
opinions, attitudes, and subjective
evaluations;
• Policy: Claims that advocate courses of
action that should be undertaken.
• The thesis statements for this class must
be argumentative (debatable);
• They should let your readers know what
you want them to do to solve a problem;
• Your claim, therefore, should be able to be
categorized as a policy claim, not simply a
factual claim.
• Your claim will also be your opinion, but
you should not rely on subjective values.