Crafting an Argument
When constructing an argument, it’s helpful to keep in mind something called the Toulmin Model of argumentation, named after the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, and expounded in his book The Uses of Argument (1958).
The model breaks an argument down into six parts:
- Claim
The main point you’re trying to get across; the thing you want people to walk away believing.
- Grounds
Whatever evidence you have in support of the claim: data, expert testimony, prior experience, etc. See Conducting Research.
- Warrant
Whatever ties your grounds to your claim. The grounds alone are just a statement of fact, not necessarily related to the claim. The warrant connects the two, and is often the component of an argument that gets accidentally omitted.
- Backing
Additional evidence in support of your warrant, if needed. That is, the grounds support the claim, and if the warrant needs data to back it up other than common sense, that’s the backing.
- Qualifiers
Any cases in which the claim will not apply. It’s likely the case that your claim is not applicable in every situation one might possibly conceive, so acknowledging the boundaries of the argument is important in fostering effective dialogue.
- Conditions for Rebuttal
An acknowledgement of any weak parts in the argument that could change the conclusion if they prove to be false. For instance, “If I’m wrong about [this piece], then that means [something other than what I said previously].”
The first three components of claim, grounds, and warrant are considered
essential; if one is missing, the argument is incomplete. The final three
components of backing, qualifiers, and conditions for rebuttal, while not
considered essential, help to strengthen your argument considerably. When
working up your arguments, you may find it beneficial to use a
template to help you organize your thoughts
and ensure you don’t omit any of the components.
Note
The components of the argument don’t necessarily need to be presented in this order.
Example
This is probably best illustrated through this canonical example. I claim that there are dogs nearby. Why would I say such a thing? Because I hear barking and howling in the distance. What does that have to do with my claim? Because I know dogs are animals that bark and howl. Okay, but should I really assume what I’m hearing is dogs barking? Yes, because my neighbor has two German shepherds. However, dogs aren’t the only animals that bark and howl, so I may be wrong if, for instance, there are wolves or coyotes nearby.
It may be hard to see all the pieces for what they are, so let’s break the argument up into its components.
- Claim
There are dogs nearby.
- Grounds
I hear barking and howling in the distance. (In this case I am the source of evidence, though your listener would be as well.)
- Warrant
Dogs are animals that bark and howl.
- Backing
My neighbor has two dogs. (Again, I’m the source of evidence.)
- Qualifiers
Dog’s aren’t the only animals that bark and howl.
- Conditions for Rebuttal
There might be wolves or coyotes nearby.