New for 1998: The Toulmin Art of Persuasion | Toulmin Argument- Four Applications | Applying Toulmin to Human Cloning
Toulmin's Logic: Overview | Definition of Terms | Applying Toulmin | In the News | No Fault Divorce |
By Lesley Smith and Tami Bolduc
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1922- ),a revolutionary in the field of argument, disregarded classical argument which had been followed since the time of Aristotle. As a result of Toulmin's thorough understanding of the natural, rational thought process of the human mind, he was able to formally give a title to the natural progression of argument. He broke the barriers of inductive and deductive reasoning. Instead of using complicated syllogism, Toulmin divided his form of argument into three simple terms; claim, grounds/ data, and warrant.
Considering Toulmin's logic in argument, his basic format is followed by countless attorneys in today's courtrooms. Most of America witnessed on television, or read in newspapers and tabloids, Toulmin's logic at it's best during the O.J. Simpson trial. This trial incorporated the three basic elements Toulmin defined: claim, grounds/ data, warrant.
Claim precisely states and defines what the arguer aims to prove or establish. For instance the prosecutions' claim was that Simpson was guilty of stabbing his former wife and her companion to death on the 11:47pm, on the night of June 9, 1995. The prosecution stated they would prove this claim by establishing a motive and offering substantial physical and circumstantial evidence. As is important to following Toulmin's logic, this claim was not only precisely formulated, but unambiguously stated.
The grounds/ data are statements drawn from the case itself. To illustrate this, consider what evidence the prosecution used to support their side of the argument. The prosecution presented the evidence of previous abuse, a blatant sign of wrongdoing. One type of physical evidence prosecutors used was blood which was found on clothing and the interior of Simpson's Bronco. Important to the application of Toulmin logic is that this data (fact) is only relevant to this specific case.
The third crucial element in the logic of Toulmin defines warrant as the premises, or laws that apply to the case under discussion. For example, the prosecution brought in experts who dealt with battered women and their abusers regularly. These experts compared Simpson's personality profile with other abusers who unfortunately also ended the lives of their victims. By using the premise of this parallel argument, the prosecution utilized Toulmin's element of warrant.
The trial example is just one of many situations in which Toulmin logic is clearly seen. When one reads anything from medical journals, to editorials, to student essays, he or she will find the logic of Toulmin. The simple format is easy to identify; a strong claim or thesis supported by grounds/ data, followed warrant.
When an argument is presented using Toulmin’s technique, data is first introduced providing a foundation of support as a basis for the argument. The data, or evidence should provide sufficient facts for which the claim is based. This data is central to the argument and should set a perimeter for the grounds. A claim is stated presenting opinion, theory, or contention focusing on a total thesis-and-support structure that is supported by information from a specific case that supports the claim. Once a claim is asserted, qualifiers are inserted as a means to mark limitations of the claim. After the claim has been presented, and qualifiers stated, warrants that support the argument are introduced. Warrants are the part of an argument that allows the data supplied to be carried over, certifying that the claim is true. The backing follows to provide additional reasons, or supporting arguments, that give basis for the warrants. Lastly, to limit the claim, rebuttals are given to allow for exceptions, or special circumstances for which this reasoning would not be true.
Assertion: to declare positively, to defend-maintain
The claim: a proposition, opinion, theory, or contention, to state to be true; assert, a statement that something is true
Data: information drawn from the specific case that supports the claim, information organized for analysis, facts or figures to be processed from which conclusions can be inferred.
Warrants: laws principles, or premises that apply to the case; authorization or justification, something that assures, proves or guarantees. To give proof: bear witness to; to vouch for.
Backing: precedents or historical cases that led to the establishment of the warrant in the first place: aid, support.
Model qualifiers: the degree of confidence with which the claim is asserted to be true. To modify, limit, or restrict.
Rebuttals: anomalies and contradictions that must be either explained away or excluded from consideration for the claim to be true.
Toulmin’s Theory of Logic centers around a significant number of mechanisms which are based on the process of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is utilized in such a manner that conclusions are based upon sufficient, relevant, and representative evidence. Deductive reasoning draws conclusions from several assertions beginning with a generalization(major premise), following with a specific case(minor premise), and ending with a conclusion based upon infrences drawn from plausible data.
By using Toulmin’s Theory of Logic in an argument, the author is able to state a claim that is backed by evidence, question the reader on their theories, concepts, attitudes, and world views, and at the same time allow a person’s own reasoning to determine if the argument is indeed valid. Toulmin’s Theory of Logic would be very effective where arguments concerning human values are addressed. This type of argument could be presented without alienating anyone by providing enough unbiased information so that the reader can form or rethink their own position.
An article using effective argument was recently published in the January, 1997, issue of The Cascadia Times. The author, Kathie Durbin, used Toulmin’s theory of logic (without sounding like an extreme environmentalist) in a way that permits the reader to question the issues surrounding a concern of devastating landslides. Key elements of her report are paraphrased below (in italics) and then analyzed in light of Toulmin's theory of logic.
The landslide that took four lives along Hubbard Creek on November 18 of last year began amidst a clear-cut that was first logged in 1987. Another landslide that took the life of a Coos Bay woman on the same night, also started in a clear cut. In both cases, warnings before logging started went unheeded.
Both the Oregon Legislature and the Oregon Department of Forestry have authorized, and private timberland owners have carried out, logging practices known to increase the risk to public and private property to the extent of endangering human life. An Oregon Department of Forestry survey ordered by the 1991 Legislature and finally completed in 1995, concluded that clear-cut methods of harvesting "may increase failure rates by 2 to 40 times over rates on undisturbed sites." Ground surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Forestry in the Coast Range during the 1970s were recently acknowledged to show that landslides were up to four times more prevalent where clear cutting had taken place.
Landslides do occur in unlogged areas, but as stream ecologists have explained, landslides that begin in clearcuts typically carry larger amounts of soil and sediment than landslides where slopes still had soil in place.
The Department of Forestry justifies its failure to prevent the November tragedies by insisting that it has no authority to protect houses or to stop logging even on the steepest and most unstable slopes--though in fact it has worked behind the scenes to relax even the weak regulatory authority it does possess.
Oregon, in most cases, does not require timber companies to obtain permits before they log. The timber companies must only provide notification or intent of a particular harvest. According to ODF spokesman Brian Ballou, the goal is to reduce the load on overworked forest practice staffers by relaxing the rules for large industrial landowners who have a good record of compliance with forest practices rules. An example of enforcement overload is the pace at which logging is occurring along the Coast Range, where owners of timberland are practicing short-rotation forestry to liquidate existing inventory. Much of the timber that is coming from private lands are in the 40-to45-year old range which is far below the diameter at breast height that trees of top market value bring. As a result, in 1995 alone, 100 workers processed 24,679 notifications for logging operations in Oregon.
Reform of Oregon’s Forest Practices Act won’t come without a fight. Even when the Oregon Legislature has ordered changes, Oregon Department of Forestry and the policy-setting Board of Forestry have dragged their feet and compromised solid science in the face of timber industry opposition to meaningful regulation.