Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin
Toulmin Argument
Review and Outline
Review: The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin noticed that good, realistic arguments typically will consist of six parts. He used these terms to describe the items.
Claim: The statement being argued (a thesis) with a Qualifier: Statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true.
Sub Claim (Reasons or Arguments for the Main Claim in the Introduction)
Grounds: The facts or evidence used to prove the Sub Claim (Reasons or Argument)
Warrants: The general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical statements that serve as bridges between the claim and the grounds.
Backing: Statements that serve to support the warrants (i.e., arguments that don’t necessarily prove the main point being argued, but which do prove the warrants are true.)
Rebuttals: Counter-arguments or statements indicating circumstances when the general argument does not hold true.
An argument written in this manner unfolds to reveal both the strengths and limits of the argument. This is as it should be. No argument should pretend to be stronger than it is or apply further than it is meant to. The point here isn’t to “win” or
“beat” all the counterarguments; the point is to come as close to the truth or as close to a realistic and feasible solution as we possibly can.
Remember that your audience/reader is someone who does not already agree with you. Consider how and where to add additional logical evidence to help them accept your position.
Toulmin’s model reminds us that arguments with qualifiers and rebuttals help the audience consider the proposed argument better than if the argument is present as an absolute. Doing so lets the reader know how to take the reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied, and how general it is meant to be.
Outline Assignment
The Toulmin model is useful for analyzing an argument you are reading or for revising and strengthening an argument you have written. For this essay, you will depend primarily on your Classical Argument essay, but you will also use what you learned about your oppositions position from the Rogerian essay to expand your rebuttal. The focus now is to examine your warrants, determine where you can add backing to strengthen those warrants, and to expand and strengthen your
refutation section by adding evidence.
I. Introduction of the problem or topic. (Do *not* use the same introduction paragraph from your Classical Argument essay). Rework the Information. Use the Review and Thesaurus on Word to help provide options of different Word Choice.
A. Material to get the reader’s attention (a “hook”)
B. Introduce the problem or topic
C. Introduce the claim or thesis with accompanying qualifier that limit the scope of the argument. (This will help you cut the topic down to a manageable length.) A Toulmin thesis is stated as a claim of fact, not a policy claim or claim of value.
II. Narration and/or Partition paragraphs
A. Keep this section from your Classical Argument but revise it to match your rewritten thesis statement and to focus the reader on this new approach to your issue.
III. Offer the sub claims (the 3 argument paragraphs from the Classical Argument shorter, more concise) to support the Main Claim Statement This outline offers sentence starters for you to use. Use the new language.
A. The sub claim for this issue is
Sub Claim #1 (former argument or reason for Major Claim in introduction)
The grounds for the sub claim are (Grounds -evidence from research- for #1)
The warrant is (or the connect between the sub claim and ground is)
(Warrant #1 (describe what you are assuming the reader already knows about the connection between the sub claim and the grounds)
The backing for this warrant from the research is
(Backing for Warrant #1 is needed from the research.
B. The sub claim for this issue is
Sub Claim #2 (former argument or reason for Major Claim in introduction)
The grounds for the sub claim are
(Grounds -evidence from research- for #2)
The warrant is (or the connect between the sub claim and ground is) (Warrant #2 (describe what you are assuming the reader already knows about the connection between the sub claim and the grounds)
The backing for this warrant from the research is (Backing for Warrant #2 is needed from the research.
C. Sub Claim #3 if needed Same as above
Etc.
IV. Some disagree with the Major Claim of this issue. Discuss counterarguments and provide rebuttal (evidence from research).
A. One counterargument is (Counterargument #1)
A rebuttal is
(Rebuttal to counterargument #1)
A. One counterargument is
(Counterargument #2)
A rebuttal is (Rebuttal to counterargument #2)
B. Counterargument #3 if needed
V. Conclusion (Do *not* use the same conclusion paragraph from your Classical Argument essay). Rework the information. Use the Review and Thesaurus on Word to help provide options of different Word Choice.
A. Explain the implications of the argument and provide a final evocative thought to ensure the reader remembers the argument.
The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin