REASONING:

Toulmin
Model

kenneth g. opina, ma
DoLL / Summer 2015
TOULMIN MODEL
system of argumentation developed
by philosopher Stephen Toulmin
not just based on a theory of how
logic and argument should lead to
truth, but on how practical
argumentation takes place, with all
its varying degrees of certainty and
probability
Argument moves from what you
know and what you claim to be true;
you start with data and try to
persuade the judge that you are
warranted in moving from the data
ELEMENTS OF
ARGUMENT
CLAIM
DATA
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
MODAL QUALIFICATIONS
CLAIM
Proposition that the arguer
desires to be accepted; end
or object of making an
argument
Factual claim
Value claim
Policy claim
DATA
Also known as proof or
evidence
The information offered in
support of a claim
Testimony
Example
Statistics
WARRANT
General principle that
licenses a debater to draw
inferences from his evidence
Certifies the relevance and
importance of the
relationship between data
and claim
BACKING
General area from which the
data/evidence or warrant is
drawn;
Needed to substantiate
warrant
REBUTTAL
Involves introducing
evidence and reasoning to
weaken or destroy anothers
claim
DATA CLAIM
- Studies WARRANT - Study hard
- Studying
hard leads to
- A grades hard based
having
on this
in music, good
representati
history, grades
ve sample of
and
cases lead to
language
a sound
arts
generalizatio
n

BACKING REBUTTAL
- Principles of - (examples/
learning and instances
developmental were one
psychology studied
(why is it that hard and
study did not get
produces good
performance) grades
DATA CLAIM
- Studies WARRANT - Therefore,
- Studying
hard Atty. C is a
- A grades hard based
good trial
on this
in music, lawyer.
representati
history,
ve sample of
and
cases lead to
language
a sound
arts
generalizatio
n

BACKING REBUTTAL
- Principles of - (examples/
learning and instances
developmental were one
psychology studied
(why is it that hard and
study did not get
produces good
performance) grades
TYPES OF INDUCTIVE
REASONING

Reasoning by Generalization
Reasoning by Cause-to-Effect
Reasoning by Effect-to-Cause
(Sign)
Reasoning by Effect-to-Effect
(Sign)
Reasoning by Analogy
(Comparison)
DATA GENERALIZATIO
WARRANT
- What is N
- Mr.
true CLAIM
Felipe
of the 3 - All Lakas
Luna, a
Lakas party
Lakas
members is members
party
true of all follow the
member,
Lakas party
follows
members policy in
the
because they their
Lakas
are typical political
party
members of assertions
policy in
the party
his own
political
BACKING REBUTTAL
assertion - Are
- Principles of
s, Lakas
learning and samples
member
developmental well-
Mario
psychology selected?
Montene - Are
gro does (why is it that
study examples
too, and
produces consistent
so does
performance) w/ other
Andres
info?
DATA CAUSE-
WARRANT
- A large
- When EFFECT CLAIM
number of
citizens leave - Vietnames
Vietnames
the country e are
e are
and ask for displeased
crossing
asylum, with and
the
there is fearful of
border
usually their govt
and
dissatisfactio
entering
n with and
the
fear of the
Philippine
govt
s
BACKING REBUTTAL
- This has been - Those
the case when leaving
the same may be a
situation minority
occurred in the - Is the
past cause
adequate
to produce
the effect?
 EFFECT-
WARRANT
- When EFFECT
two CLAIM
DATA events are - Therefore,
- Event 1 linked by one event 2
is cause, the exists
present presence of
one is a sign
of the
existence of
the other

BACKING REBUTTAL
- This has been - Those
the case when leaving
the same may be a
situation minority
occurred in the - Is the
past cause
adequate
to produce
the effect?
 ANALOGY
WARRANT
DATA - If two CLAIM
- The situations or - Legalizatio
addiction events are n of
problem similar in narcotics
here and their will control
in characteristi addiction
England is cs and here
the same. relationships
- Legalizati , a
on of conclusion or
narcotics description
controls of one event
addiction can be REBUTTAL
in applied to - Are the two
England. another
BACKING similar in
- This has been characteristic
the case when s?
the same
situation
occurred in the
past
References
Freeley, A. & Steinberg, D. (2000).
Argumentation and debate: Critical
thinking for reasoned decision making.
USA: Thompson Learning.
Wood, R. & Goodnight, L. (2006).
Strategic debate. USA: McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Files: Abangan, FH; Villaruel, AK; &
Ramirez, E