Toulmin Model
Classical Argumentation
1. Claim:
An explicit statement that firmly claims what
side of an issue the author will take/argue.
2. Modals/Qualifiers:
This is the necessary section wherein the
author needs to explain the context of his/her
argument. He/She may need to define terms or
historical context or the limitations of the
argument; meaning, are you defending the
ethics of capital punishment in general and
philosophical terms or are you arguing why
capital punishment should still be supported by
the State of Texas specifically in murder cases
of only 3+ victims? BE SPECIFIC.
3. Grounds:
These are the authors reasons for WHY he/she
is arguing her perspective. This includes
evidence to also support his/her view on the
issue. Typically comprised and a balance of
logos and pathos as are the other parts of
Toulmin (Warrant/Backing/Rebuttal).
4. Warrant:
Think of this like explicating textual evidence
from your work on critical analysis. This is the
moment in the argument wherein you
CLEARLY/SPELL OUT the connection between
the Grounds and the Claim.
5. Backing:
Sometimes the author may need additional
support to explain the connection between the
Grounds and Claim (i.e. Warrant), so he/she
may bring in secondary evidence/reason.
6. Rebuttal:
This is a look at the most likely objections to an
authors claim. Rebuttals are essential in
creating solid ethos, proving the author has
considered the likely opposing argument to her
claim, and yet, she is so sound in her
reason/evidence, her viewpoint is still the more
effective, preferable, justified, etc.
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI.
Rebuttal
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII.
Conclusion
OR
Rebuttals are comprised of two parts:
Concession: The author concedes there are
certain valid aspects of her oppositions
perspective. She should also back these up
with EVIDENCE AND SOUND REASON.
Refutation: However, the author then
demonstrates that, regardless of these aspects,
her position is still more just, effective,
preferable, etc.
Suggested/Possible Toulmin Essay
Outline:
I.
Introduction
a. Hook audience
b. Deliver firm/explicit claim
II.
Definition/Historical Context
III.
Grounds 1
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV.
V.
Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
Grounds 3
a. Evidence/Reason
I.
Introduction
a. Hook audience
b. Deliver firm/explicit claim
II.
Definition/Historical Context
III.
Grounds 1
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV.
Rebuttal to Grounds 1
a. Concession
b. Refutation
V.
Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI.
Rebuttal to Grounds 2
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII.
Grounds 3
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VIII.
Rebuttal to Grounds 3
a. Concession
b. Refutation
IX.
Conclusion
Rogerian Model A Diplomatic Mode of
Argumentation, Problem-Solution
Potential/Suggested Outline for Rogerian
I.
1. State the problem.
2. Give the opponents position
3. The writer then grants whatever validity he/she
finds in the oppositions perspectivefor
instance, the writer may recognize certain
circumstances wherein the position would be
acceptable.
4. Then the writer discusses how his/her
perspective/position, if taken into account by
the opposition, would further
strengthen/improve/solve the problem
Introduction
a. Hook
b. Writer explains the PROBLEM
c. Writer begins to show why this problem needs to be
addressed.
II.
The writer further defines the problem, perhaps showing
how depending on different circumstances, different
solutions may be more applicable.
a. The writer explains any definitions/historical context to
further develop/illustrate problem
b. The writer illustrates various perspectives that could be taken
on the issue
c. The writer hints at his perspective
III.
The writer focuses on the oppositions perspective
a. The writer clearly illustrates what the opponents
perspective is
IV.
The writer begins to give solid validity to the opponents
position.
a. Gives grounds (evidence/reasons)
i. Warrant
ii. Backing
The writer may bring in situational circumstances
wherein the oppositions perspective is even more
necessary.
The writer then begins to illustrate his/her perspective
The writer begins to defend his/her position
a. Gives grounds (evidence/reasons)
i. Warrant
ii. Backing
The writer then begins to show how his/her perspective
could compliment the oppositions together, these two
perspectives can work toward solving the problem.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Scientific Method An Exploratory Mode
III.
1. Ask a question
The writer speculates what the various answers could be
to her question. For each of these, she will provide
grounds/warrant/backing.
2. Do Background Research
a. Possible Answer 1
i. Grounds (Reason/Evidence)
3. Construct a Hypothesis/Answer
4. Test the Hypothesis/Experiment
1. Warrant
5. Analyze the Data
2. Backing
b. Possible Answer 2
6. Draw a Conclusion
i. Grounds (Reason/Evidence)
Suggested/Potential Outline for Exploratory Model
I.
1. Warrant
2. Backing
Introduction:
a. Hook
c. The writer could bring in even more possible answers
to investigate repeating the pattern above.
b. The writer states a question
c. Establishes why this issue/question is important
d. The writer shows how there are no clear/definitive
answers to his/her question.
IV.
e. The writer gives a thesis of sorts stating what he/she is
exploring and how he/she may go about finding the
answer to his/her question.
The writer begins to more clearly state which
answer/theory she believes will be correct.
a. She provides solid grounds (reason/evidence)
i. Warrant
ii. Backing
II.
The writer offers what IS known about the question.
a. Gives definitions to clarify
V.
b. Sets parameters (i.e. if he is defining what love is, he
may clarify here that he is specifically discussing
romantic love, not brotherly or familial love).
Next, she examines her theory/answer and why it is more
plausible/effective/just than the others she has explored.
a. She may go through a series of concession/rebuttal for
Possible Answer 1 and Possible Answer 2
c. May offer history/background information on topic.
VI.
She reconfirms the question may still be open/needs to be
asked, but now claims which theory does best to respond
to it.