The Toulmin model of essay & argument

This lecture explains Stephen Toulmin's model of argument structure. It's a great tool to use when writing your own essays or analyzing the rhetoric of other writers.
The articles used as examples can be found in the links below:
Jonah Lehrer. Under Pressure: The Search for a Stress Vaccine. www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07...
Stanley Coren. The data says 'Don't hug the dog.' www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
Rachel Feltman. No 'science' didn't 'prove' that dogs hate hugs. www.washingtonpost.com/news/s...

The best class about Toulmin on RUclips. Clear and original examples and detailed explanation on each point of the theory.

[@ericluttrell]

Thanks, Moisés!

[@zaidiutm]

Thanks Eric. I enjoyed your explanation.

[@gr8rubs]

Bravo! This is a really thorough explanation of the Toulmin model of argument.

[@imboko2008]

Thanks you. Very detailed examples.

[@Liliquan]

It’s weird being a first year undergrad learning how not to argue like someone who holds a Ph.d.

[@janus7998]

Dr. Luttrell,
From my experience , many composition textbooks use the term Rebuttal to mean an answer to the counterargument, not questioning the general authority of the warrant in a particular argument. To me, what the textbooks call rebuttal is really a qualifier in your analysis.
JS

[@ericluttrell]

You're right about the general use of the term. In this video, I'm defining it as Stephen Toulmin uses the term in his book The Uses of Argument. By the time he incorporates the term, he has already discussed ways to be sure that the data are accurate and that the warrant has been backed up to the extent that the reader will accept its general validity. So, at that point, rebuttals that challenge those two premises will be unlikely. What the writer can't be sure of is whether the reader will agree that the warrant applies to that specific situation (data). It's that specific type of rebuttal that the writer needs to identify in order to figure out what qualifications need to be added to the conclusion. In other words, the writer is identifying the potential weaknesses in his own argument and saying, in the qualification, "Unless [rebuttal] is the case, then [conclusion]." Does that make sense? You will definitely hear the term "rebuttal" defined differently in other contexts, such as a televised political debate. It definitely confuses students when we switch from using the term broadly to using it in the specific sense that Toulmin uses it in his formula. For that reason, I tend to use terms like "counterargument" for arguments that refute the accuracy of the specific data or the general validity of the warrant.

[@janus7998]

@@ericluttrell Thank you,
Yes it makes sense. I was wrong in writing that in Toulmin's model Rebuttal is denying the general validity of the warrant.
This could be as you termed a counterargument, while questioning the efficacy of the warrant in relation to specific data would be the rebuttal.

[@OllieBakker]

I was a debater in high school and college. We used the term "Rebuttal" all the time. It usually refered to the 10 minutes given for rebuttal, for a counterargument in the middle of a round. What taught me a lot about how to use rhetoric is that we had to argue the Affirmative one round and then the Negative the next.

[@annaschaoui8580]

Great! Thanks from Denmark

[@janus7998]

In addition, can we say that the warrant is a reasoning from evidence to conclusion? if so, is that any other reasoning involved in making an argument?

[@ericluttrell]

The warrant, at least in the context of rhetoric, will usually refer to what Aristotle called the "major premise." That is a general rule that we use to make sense of specific facts. The specific facts (evidence, data) constitute the "minor premise." Every argument contains at least two premises, even if we usually only focus on one (the specific fact / minor premise). You could say that the warrant is reasoning from evidence to conclusion as long as you don't presume that reasoning is conscious. Most of the time, we don't stop to think about or articulate the warrant. That's why it's sometimes called the "unstated assumption." The warrant is the premise that often contains logical fallacies that we would catch if we did stop to examine it. So, it is "reasoning" but it is very often sloppy and unexamined reasoning. Critical reasoning requires identifying and testing our warrants, then questioning whether these warrants are relevant to this situation. It's usually the first step in what turns out to be a very long process. That's why Toulmin identifies the need to back our warrants and question their relevance to the specific situation.

[@janus7998]

@@ericluttrell Thank you very much!

[@janus7998]

Prof. Lutrell,
In addition to the Toulmin's text, could you recommend other argumentation texts that I could read to be more versed in the topic?
I recently started teaching freshman writing courses in a community college.
Thank you very much.
JS

[@ericluttrell]

For more on the Toulmin argument, I recommend Brockriede & Ehninger's 1960 article, "Toulmin on argument" available on Google Scholar. After students write Toulmin argument, I have them write Rogerian argument. The best description of that is in Young, Becker, & Pike's 1970 book, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. That includes a speech by Carl Rogers laying out the reasons that approach works. I cover it and the psychological reasons it is effective in other lectures posted here on RUclips. Even though the strategy is old, its effectiveness is highly relevant to present efforts to debunk conspiracy theories, psuedo-science, etc. Similar strategies are the subject of current psychological research on myth debunking that I describe in other videos.

[@janus7998]

@@ericluttrell Thank you very much!
I have watched the video on Rogerian Argument as well and have seen you mention the book there.
Sincerely
JS