Stephen Toulmin

This is not the first time I've heard of the Toulmin argument. In fact, I learned about it first in my Comm Studies (public speaking) class. I find it interesting I learned about it during a public speaking course, when really, it was done in an age that wasn't dominated by public speaking (at least in comparison to ancient rhetoric).

Here is basically how the Toulmin model goes:

1) Claim - Establishing conclusion
2) Evidence - Data, facts that support claim
3) Warrant - Statement that bridges gap between data and claim
4) Backing - Evidence for warrant
5) Rebuttal - Statements that show restrictions of argument
6) Qualifier - Words that lessen speaker's degree of force

When we discussed letter writing in class (much earlier), we got talking about formulaic writing. There was a certain formula for writing letters. There's formula writing all around us, whether it is in journalism, blogs, or essays (think of 5-paragraph essays). This way of setting up a rhetorical argument is no different.

There are certain restrictions with formulaic writing, however. The most important is the restriction of arrangement and style. Obviously, you can't pick and choose how you set up an argument if you are following a formula or template. Unfortunately, this means you are sort of stuck with writing a certain way. This takes away an aspect of creativity in both the style and delivery of the argument.

Using Aristotle's canons, you can see how formulaic writing can have it's downfalls. However, before I get stuck on the negatives, there are few parts of Toulmin's model I like, and that Aristotle would like.

Starting with Aristotle, he would certainly like both the evidence and backing within the model. Evidence and backing support the notion of logos that was established by Aristotle. Any claim, argument, warrant, or whatever synonym you want to use, needs some sort of evidence. Using data is the best way of supporting any type of claim.

Another thing that I personally like is the rebuttal section. By using rebuttal, you can do a number of things. First, you establish the weak points of your argument. By doing this, you can actually establish credibility. Nothing is more credible then pointing out your own faults. Secondly, it can help you strengthen your argument by thinking of the restrictions. This way, you can try to prove the restrictions false. In theory, this will help the validity of your argument.

Toulmin's model can be used in various circumstances, despite it's formulaic nature. It has it's restrictions, but it certainly has it's positives as well.