|
Contemporary Strategy
Toulmin Method
The Toulmin Method of argumentation was developed by Stephen Toulmin, a contemporary philosopher whose ideas are often included as part of modern rhetorical theory. This method is designed to assist you in analyzing or constructing the logic of an argument, whether it is spoken or written. If you consider Toulmin’s Method as an organizational strategy, it does not include either introductory or concluding material. It also only considers the logical aspects of the argument. Sample construction of an argument with the Toulmin Method Project’s Claim: a controversial statement
Reason #2: the second argument (line of reasoning) supporting the claim
Reason #3: the third argument (line of reasoning) supporting the claim
…(for as many arguments/lines of reasoning that you have in the paper) Refutation Section
…(for as many objections that you have in the paper) REFERENCE Toulmin, S. (1964). The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Example of the Toulmin Method
Project’s Claim: Juicy Fruit is the Best Gum Ever! Reason #1: Juicy Fruit is the best tasting gum.
Reason #2: Juicy Fruit blows the biggest bubbles.
Reason #3: Juicy Fruit stays soft and pliable.
TEACHING STRATEGY: LESSON INTRODUCING TOULMIN TO STUDENTS This lesson is an effective pedagogical strategy for introducing Toulmin to students in a way that makes them see Toulmin’s power without intimidating them. The strategy we use is to begin with plenty of clearcut, easy examples. The For Class Discussion exercises in Chapters 4 and 5 are particularly helpful in this regard. The central feature of our pedagogy is to begin with the enthymeme rather than with Toulmin and to get students used to the enthymemic concepts of issue, claim, stated reason, and unstated assumption before introducing Toulmin language. On the day that we assign students to read Chapters 4 and 5, we put the following enthymemes on an overhead. Issue: What car should we buy? Our hope is that students will find something humorously fishy about Enthymeme 3 as soon as they see it, even if they can’t yet quite articulate what’s wrong with it. Before getting specifically to Enthymeme 3, however, we conduct a general class discussion about each of the enthymemes. We begin by getting students to articulate the unstated assumption behind each enthymeme. Assumption for Enthymeme 1: We should buy the car that is most economical. (Economy is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car.) Assumption for Enthymeme 2: We should buy the car that is most safe. (Safety is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car.) Assumption for Enthymeme 3: We should buy a car that is red. (The color red is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car.) We then enter a general discussion of Enthymemes 1 and 2 by talking about how we would support them or try to refute them. One possibility is that we might agree with the criterion in Enthymemes 1 and 2 but disagree with the stated reason by arguing that the Geo Metro isn’t as economical as another car or that the Volvo isn’t as safe as another car. But another possibility is that we might disagree with the criterion in each case and thus argue that we should base our decision not on economy or safety but on performance or driving fun or cargo space or reliability. The key here is to have students see the difference between supporting or attacking the stated reason itself versus supporting or attacking the unstated assumption behind the reason. We then switch to Enthymeme 3 and ask students why they thought something was fishy about that enthymeme. We say tongue in cheek that we see nothing wrong with it. We assure them that the reason is really true–we can verify that the car is red through both the testimony of a survey of randomly chosen people (100 percent said the car was red) and through a special chemical spectroscopy test we ran on the paint. “No,” they will say. “That’s not what’s at issue. We agree that the car’s red, but we can’t see what color has to do with buying the car.” Then we'll reply, “Oh, you
can’t see how we get from the facts to the claim” (echoing Toulmin’s phrase that the warrant is how you get from data to claim). Or, “So you think the claim is unwarranted?” (trying to work in some Toulmin language naturally). “What we need, then, is some kind of argument to ‘back up’ this unstated assumption that redness is the major criterion we should choose.” At this point, we begin introducing Toulmin terminology to students. The unstated assumption behind each enthymeme we now call the warrant. Together the claim, the stated reason, and the warrant constitute the frame or skeleton of the argument. These frame sentences can be stated in a single sentence each: Claim: WeshouldbuythisusedVolvo. We explain that what fleshes out the argument–what gives it development and detail–are the grounds and/or the backing. The grounds, we say, are all the facts, data, examples, evidence, or chains of reasons we use to support the stated reason. The backing is all the facts, data, evidence, examples, or chains of reasons we use to support the warrant. Whether we concentrate on providing grounds, backing, or both depends on where we anticipate our audience’s needs and objections. We now go back to discuss each enthymeme again, this time using Toulmin terminology. We take the class through a series of questions like these: 1. Imagine a situation in which a writer might need to provide extensive grounds for Enthymeme 1, but no backing. What would that situation be? What kinds of grounds might you use? [Possible answer: Writer and audience have already agreed that economy is the chief criterion for choosing the car; they are disagreeing on which of two cars is the most economical. The writer supporting the Geo Metro might provide grounds in the form of data about fuel economy, maintenance costs, taxes and licensing fees, and resale value.] 2. Imagine a situation in which a writer might need to provide backing for Enthymeme 2, but no grounds. What would that situation be? What kind of argument could be devised for backing? [Possible answer: Writer and audience agree that Volvos are very safe, but they disagree on whether safety should be the primary criterion. The writer might argue that this car is for a very safety-minded middle class couple with young children. The husband of the couple lost a sister in an auto accident several years ago and is obsessed with safety. He could never enjoy driving or riding in a car that wasn’t, in his mind, the safest car he could buy. The wife of the couple has similar concerns for safety.] 3. Now reverse the situation and imagine a scenario that requires no backing for Enthymeme 2, but plenty of grounds. [Here writer and audience have agreed that they will buy the safest car on the market, but there is disagreement over whether a used Volvo is the safest car. To argue for the Volvo’s safety, the writer might provide grounds in the form of insurance claim data, crash test data, data about the actual construction of the car, and so forth.]
Finally, we move to a discussion of Enthymeme 3. We ask why something seemed fishy about that enthymeme from the start. The answer, which can now be cast in Toulmin terms, is that the Warrant seems silly. We can readily see how economy or safety could be a criterion for buying a car, but not redness. In Toulmin's term, this enthymeme cries out for backing: Claim: WeshouldbuythisFordEscort. red; statement “red” under “color” on sales form; scientific analysis of light spectrum as it is reflected from car’s surface. Warrant: Ifwefindacarthat’sred,weshouldbuyit. Backing: ? ? ? We then ask students either individually or in small groups to think of some kind of scenario in which one really might buy a car because it is red. In short, we ask them to think of a way to provide backing for the warrant. After students share some of their ideas, we put the following argument on the overhead [which is based on a true case–John Bean’s neighbor bought a little red Escort for his mother for exactly the reasons stated]: You must think it ludicrous that I think we should buy the Escort because it is red. But think for a minute about Grandma’s situation. Grandpa died four months ago. Grandma has hardly left the house since then and needs to snap out of her depression. She likes to drive, even though Grandpa usually did all the driving in that clunky old Buick they owned. She never liked that car, and she won’t drive it now–maybe because it reminds her of Grandpa. What Grandma needs is a sporty, new, little, easy-to-drive-and-park car. So, of course, redness isn’t the only criteria we should think about. But there are dozens of sporty little cars on the market that fit our other criteria. What is most important, I think, is that the car be red. That has always been her favorite color. It is youthful and energetic. I think a little red car will help her snap out of her mourning and get her out of the house. And let’s get it for her by next Monday, her birthday. Let’s have her wake up and see her own little red car in the driveway. So I say, let’s go get the Escort. It’s available today, and it is just exactly the kind of red that will perk Grandma up. These what-car-should-we-buy examples have proven effective for us in teaching students the difference between grounds and backing. Clearly, to provide grounds for Enthymeme 3 would be comically pointless. Nobody disputes the car’s color in the way they might dispute the car’s economy or safety. Just as clearly, it is essential to provide backing for Enthymeme 3 because no one will accept redness as a plausible criterion for buying a car the way they might accept economy or safety. The obvious difference between grounds and backing in Enthymeme 3 helps students see the distinction between grounds and backing in the other arguments also. Likewise, they see how Toulmin’s system helps them make rhetorical decisions: Will my audience accept my stated reason? If not, I need substantial grounds. Will they accept my warrant? If not, I will need to make it explicit and provide backing. We have put this introductory lesson on Toulmin on the following seven transparency masters
for convenient use in the classroom. Instructors will most likely want to use this introduction to Toulmin in conjunction with teaching Chapters 4 and 5.
Transparency #1 Issue: What car should we buy? Enthymeme#1: WeshouldbuythisGeoMetrobecauseitisextremely economical. Enthymeme #2: We should buy this used Volvo because it is very safe. Enthymeme #3: We should buy this Ford Escort because it is red. Does one of these arguments seem a little odd or off-base? Why? Toulmin analysis will provide concepts and language to talk effectively about these enthymemes.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #2 Each of these enthymemes depends on an unstated assumption. If the audience is going to be swayed by the argument, the audience has to grant this unstated assumption. What is the unstated assumption behind each enthymeme? Enthymeme#1: WeshouldbuythisGeoMetrobecauseitisextremely economical. Enthymeme#2: WeshouldbuythisusedVolvobecauseitisverysafe. Enthymeme#3: WeshouldbuythisFordEscortbecauseitisred. Assumption for enthymeme #1: We should buy the car that is most economical. [Economy is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car. ] Assumption for enthymeme #2: We should buy the car that is most safe. [Safety is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car. ] Assumption for enthymeme #3: We should buy a car that is red. [The color red is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car. ]
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #3 Here is how each of these enthymemes would be displayed using the Toulmin term “warrant” for the unstated assumption. Enthvmeme #1: Claim: Enthymeme #2: Claim: Enthymeme #3: Claim: We should buy this Geo Metro. We should buy this used Volvo. We should buy this Ford Escort. It is red. • We call these three statements (claim, stated reason, warrant) the “frame” or “skeleton” of a line of reasoning. This frame or skeleton needs to be fleshed out with “grounds” and/or “backing,” depending on the rhetorical context. For each of the above enthymemes, imagine a scenario in which you would most have to defend the stated reason. Then imagine another scenario in which you would most have to support the warrant.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #4 TOULMIN SCHEME FOR ENTHYMEME #1 Claim: We should buy this Geo Metro. Grounds: Evidence that the Geo Metro is extremely economical. [Government statistics on gas mileage; projected repair costs; testimony from other Metro owners, etc.] Warrant: We should buy the car that is most economical. Backing: Arguments showing why economy is the most important criterion. [Argument would be aimed at specific audience: We need to save money; we have a long commute and need to cut fuel costs; we can put the money saved into our dream vacation, etc.] Conditions of Rebuttal: Qualifier: Perhaps the Geo Metro is the best choice for us.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #5 TOULMIN SCHEME FOR ENTHYMEME #2 Claim: We should buy this used Volvo. Grounds: Evidence that the used Volvo is very safe. Warrant: We should buy the car that is most safe. Backing: Argument for why safety is the most important criteria. [Writer generates arguments aimed at particular audience: We have a young family; my sister died in an auto accident so I am uncomfortable in any car that isn't safe; lower insurance rates; we commute on a dangerous highway; etc.] Conditions of Rebuttal: Qualifier: Let's put the Volvo high on our list of cars to consider.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #6 TOULMIN SCHEME FOR ENTHYMEME #3 Claim: We should buy this Ford Escort. Grounds: Evidence that it is red. Warrant: We should buy a car that is red. Backing: Argument that the color red should be the primary criterion for deciding what car to buy. [Can you think of any situations in which a specific car color should be a primary criterion?] [see next overhead]
AN INTRODUCTION TO TOULMIN: Transparency #7 Possible Backing for Enthymeme #3 Warrant: We should buy a car that is red. Backing: You must think it ludicrous that I think we should buy the Escort because it is red. But think for a minute about Grandma's situation. Grandpa died four months ago. Grandma has hardly left the house since then and needs to snap out of her depression. She likes to drive, even though Grandpa usually did all the driving in that clunky old Buick they owned. She never liked that car, and she won't drive it now–maybe because it reminds her of Grandpa. What Grandma needs is a sporty, new, little, easy-to-drive-and-park car. So, of course, redness isn't the only criterion we should think about. But there are dozens of sporty little cars on the market that fit our other criteria. What is most important, I think, is that the car be red. That has always been her favorite color. It is youthful and energetic. I think a little red car will help her snap out of her mourning and get her out of the house. And let's get it for her by next Monday, her birthday. Let's have her wake up and see her own little red car in the driveway. So I say, let's go get the Escort. It's available today, and it is just exactly the kind of red that will perk Grandma up. Conditions of Rebuttal: Qualifier: Maybe we should buy the Escort.
|