Stephen Toulmin’s model of argument:

  1. Make a controversial or debatable claim – what you want your readers to accept. A claim is arguable when there are at least two sides to the issue. For instance, to state that teen violence is a problem is not an arguable claim. What is the argument against it, logically? Can you counter with the argument that teen violence is not a problem? It is barely arguable in common sense or logic. However, if you state that teen violence is on the rise in the United States because fewer parents stay home to raise their children, then you are arguing. Evidence can be shown that parents’ presence is not a factor, not a strong factor or not the only factor in the rise of teen violence.
  2. Objective claims: They present as objective truths. Teen violence is on the rise in the United States because fewer parents stay home to raise their children (supportable truth though not self-evident)
  3. Subjective claims: The argue that something should exist or be. Animals should be treated with dignity. It is based on personal values, but arguable with support. Red is better than blue is not arguable with support other than I prefer it.
  4. Support your claim with good evidence (data) and reasons – data consists of facts, statistics, laws, rules, policies, expert opinions, surveys. Credibility of sources will be a huge factor in determining weight of your evidence. If your source has no author, consider it lacking in credibility. Identify who is the author of the quotations you use and what his or her credentials are that make the quote credible. Joan Smith, a psychologist at the Institute of Higher Learning, claims that “those who would commit cruelty to animals are ten times as likely to commit acts of cruelty toward humans.” Make sure your quotes are incorporated in a grammatically correct and logical manner. Joan Smith, a psychologist at the Institute of Higher Learning, claims that “I have often come across many instances of cross-transference of cruelty from animals to humans.” The “I” is confusing.

Explain warrant (underlying assumptions that connect the claims to the evidence) – examine if the evidence in relation to your claim makes sense, is grounded in good ethics and common sense. Linking the data to the claim with sound principles to show reliability and credibility of the claim is warranting or guaranteeing the claim.

  1. Logical or scientific warrants: The logical progression of scientific reasoning: predicting smog alerts based on high temperatures, lack of wind, and heavy traffic.
  2. Ethical or forensic-based warrants: Values or codes of conduct such as honor, integrity, altruism, honesty, and compassion underlie warrant. If animal testing should be stopped because it promotes violence and cruelty in humans toward other humans, and statistics prove the incidences of displaced cruelty from animals to humans are high, then the warrant is that society is ethically obligated to stop animal testing for the safety of the population.
  3. Emotional or artistic-based warrants: “If someone argues that profanity in films weakens instead of strengthens his enjoyment of those films and uses personal testimony as evidence, then the arguer’s warrant is that such negative reactions to profanity in movies is a reliable criterion for evaluation the strength or weakness of a film.”

Respond to the opposition or counterclaims – qualify your claim, or show how it is necessary to make exceptions to your claim under certain circumstances (“The right of free speech must be protected in all situations except when it can endanger life or safety, such as yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”) You may be able to nearly obliterate the opposition, partially dent the opposition, or acknowledge the opposition and then show how your position is the better position.

Conclude – restate or propose or call to action.