The Toulmin model asserts that most arguments consist of the following 6 parts:
Assumptions Counter-examples Implications
Counter-arguments
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim
and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning
that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher
level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.
Example: “Needle exchange programs should be
abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs.”
[reason]
The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more
people to engage in it.”
There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often established. They have the acronym “GASCAP.”
These strategies are used at various different levels
of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically
they are interconnected and work in combination.
Common Warrants
1. Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well
chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that
certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the
group/population.
2. Argument based on Analogy
Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of
a similar situation or event. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based
reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which
relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there
sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?
3. Argument via Sign/Clue
The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider
principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire.
Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well
in college.
4. Causal Argument
Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected
by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of
warrant. The big dangers with it are:
5. Argument from Authority
Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in
question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority
have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities
are likely to agree on?
6. Argument from Principle
Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a
situation exists in which this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle
widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are
there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to
a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the principle
sufficiently desirable?
Rebuttals and
Main/Faulty/Return Paths
Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will often include discussions
of possible objections and counterarguments to the position being advanced.
Academic arguments typically take place in disciplinary communities in which a
variety of competing or divergent positions exist. When preparing to 'speak' to
the community by writing an argument, writers are aware of the arguments against
which they must build their claims, and of the counterarguments which are likely
to emerge. Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part of
the process of building arguments, refining them, interpreting and analyzing
them. There are several main reasons for introducing counterarguments and
objections.
1. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
2. It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers, anticipating the objections that many readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the positions opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal with possible objections can thus work to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments.
3. By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is against, one clarifies the position that is being argued for.
When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take one of 3
approaches.
How well authors produce rebuttals and deal with counter-arguments is an important part of how we evaluate the success of an argument.
Courtsey: Rohan
FOR MORE INFORMATION
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm
http://students.ou.edu/S/Charles.R.Swadley-1/argumentation.htm