ENGL 17889GD: Composition and

Rhetoric
FALL 2017

WEEK 4
 Today
Toulmin Argumentation
• Structure and features
• In-Class Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis #1
 Toulmin Argumentation
Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009)
• British philosopher of ethics and science
• Focused on the history of scientific ideas
• PhD in Philosophy from Cambridge in 1948
• Taught at universities in both Britain and the United States
• The Uses of Argument (1958)
 Toulmin Argumentation
• Critical of formal logic
• Sought a more substantial method of argumentation aside from relying
heavily on inferences (such as deduction)
• Asserted that there was a need for knowledge of circumstances and
background of data
• Refusal to accept data as proof of absolutes
 Toulmin Argumentation
• Opposed formal logic’s three-part syllogism
• Syllogism: a form of logical argument consisting of:
• 2 premises which share a middle term not present in the conclusion
• A conclusion which shares a term with each premise
• Deductive reasoning
• Finds general truths in specific circumstances
 Toulmin Argumentation
• Major premise
• In cities with populations > 1 million, traffic is a major source of
pollution
• Minor premise
• Toronto is a city with a population > 1 million
• Conclusion
• Toronto is a city in which traffic is a major source of pollution
 Toulmin Argumentation
Syllogism:

All A are B
All C are A
All C are B
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
Dora Bugatti Bob
 “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
Example of syllogism in deductive logic:
Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
Premise 1: If you can help another person in need without significant
harm to oneself (on moral grounds), you have a moral responsibility to do
so (Dora).
Premise 2: A child experiencing famine or preventable illness can be
helped by you without compromising morality (by donating money to
charitable organizations) (Bob).
Conclusion: A child experiencing famine or preventable illness demands
that you fulfill your moral responsibility to help him/her.
 Toulmin Argumentation
• Need to examine and interrogate the evidence (data/grounds) used to
support each premise (claim) of Singer’s argument and evaluate the
underlying values of the argument (warrant and backing)
• Toulmin argumentation well suited to critically evaluating and
analyzing the arguments of others
• Useful in legal contexts
• Reminds us that knowledge is generated through rigorous discussion
and debate. It does not come into being spontaneously or in a vacuum
 Toulmin Argumentation
Structure
• Claim
• Data/grounds for the claim (evidence)
• Warrant (link between claim and data)
• Backing (body of knowledge in which the argument takes place)
• Qualifier
 Toulmin Argumentation
Claim
• An arguable statement about a debatable topic
• Similar to the thesis of classical argumentation, but the connotation of
the term “claim” emphasizes the need for substantial proof and is less
assertive
• What the audience is intended to accept
 Toulmin Argument
Data or Grounds (Evidence)
• Data - “hard facts”
• May include statistics or results from surveys (empirical evidence)
• May also include scientific data, forensic data, or legal data
 Toulmin Argument
Data or Grounds
• Grounds – experience or authority of source
• Anecdotal evidence, testimonial evidence, quotations from scholarly
sources

• Remember: Evidence must be relevant, accurate, thorough, and

timely.
 Toulmin Argumentation
Warrant
• Relevance, accuracy, thoroughness, and timeliness of evidence are explicit
components of Toulmin argumentation
• Warrant is often (though not always) implicit in classical argumentation
• Recall that Aristotle acknowledges the potential for rhetoric to be used for
harmful or deceitful ends (may be the case of the warrant is not examined)
• Classical argumentation, based on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, does not explicitly
consider the underlying values or logic of the rhetorician’s evidence
 Toulmin Argumentation
Warrant
• Warrant addresses the values or principles on which the data/grounds
relies and validates its support of the claim
• Just as the claim needs to be supported by data, the data needs to be
supported by a warrant
• Warrant functions as a bridge between the claim and the data by
explicitly explaining the logic, ethics, or emotional aspects that link the
claim and the data (typically only implied in classical argumentation)
 Toulmin Argumentation
3 Types of Warrants
• Broadly correspond to three types of appeals
1. Logical or scientific
2. Ethical or forensic
3. Emotional or artistic based
 Toulmin Argumentation
Logical or scientific warrants
• Reinforce the logic of scientific reasoning
• Example:
• Claim: traffic is a major source of pollution in Toronto.
• Data: Car exhaust produces high levels of hydrocarbons, which react
with nitrogen oxide, contributing to higher levels of smog and air
pollution.
• Warrant: The logical connection between the creation of hydrocarbons
from vehicle exhaust and high pollution levels is valid.
 Toulmin Argumentation
Ethical or forensic warrants
• Validates data or grounds based on an ethical or legal standard assumed to be
shared by the audience.
• Example:
• Claim: Students of low socio-economic status should be encouraged to pursue
post-secondary education.
• Data: shows that students of a low socio-economic status have completion
rates on par with students of a higher socio-economic status in many instances.
• Warrant: Economic factors should not be a barrier to education in an ethical
society.
 Toulmin Argumentation
Emotional or artistic based warrants
• Validates grounds for a claim that is based on emotional reaction
• Example
• Claim: Simulated violence in movies, TV, and other media should not
be condemned because it deters actual violence in viewers.
• Grounds: Anecdote about viewing habits
• Warrant: Gaging reactions to violent media is a reliable way to evaluate
its effects on viewers
 Toulmin Argumentation
Backing
• Addresses the validity and soundness of the warrant
• Reason to support the warrant in the context of the argument
• May be logical, ethical, or emotional
• May be similar to types of data used as grounds for a claim including
facts, theories, legal statues, systems of categorization
• Largely dependent on field or body of knowledge in which the
argument takes place.
 Toulmin Argumentation
Qualifier
• Arguments are rarely absolute and therefore must be qualified
• Acknowledge the parameters and scope of the argument
Rebuttal
• A type of qualifier
• Addresses how the claim may not be valid in certain situations
• Unlike refutation in classical argumentation, the rebuttal does not seek
to invalidate counter-arguments (but shows where they may be valid).