« THE LAYOUT OF ARGUMENT »

In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin presents a general description of the structure of argumentative passages, “the layout of argument” (1958, Chap. III, pp. 94-145). This highly influential representation is also known as the Toulmin Scheme, the Toulmin Model of Argument or the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP)

1. The Structure of the Prototypical Argumentative and Monologue and Dialogue

1.1 Argumentation as a Polyphonic Monologue

The following passage is an elementary argumentative cell, that brings together the basic components of argumentative discourse according to Toulmin.

— Harry was born in Bermuda, so, presumably, Harry is a British subject
— Since a man born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject,
on account of the following statutes and other legal provisions…
— Unless both his parents were aliens or he has become a naturalized American citizen
(id., p. 103).

This layout of argument combines two main components.

— A central, affirmative component.
— A negative component, staging a challenging voice, that details the “circumstances in which the general authority of the warrant would have to be set aside.” (Id., p. 101)

1.2 Argumentation as Dialogue

This discourse can be reenacted as a prototypical argumentative dialogue, beginning with a question, posed by an investigating third party, and evolving under pressure from a challenger.

(i) A Question

Question:  — What is Harry’s nationality?

(ii) A Claim — The arguer responds:

Arguer: — “Harry is a British subject” (ibid., p. 99).

By making this assertion, the arguer “[is thereby committed] to the claim which any assertion necessarily involves.” As a Claim (C), it can be “challenged”:

Challenger: — “What have you got to go on?” (ibid. p. 98)

(iii) Data — In the defense, the arguer “must be able to establish [the Claim] — that is, make it good and show that it was justifiable. How is this to be done?” (Id., p. 97). “we shall normally have some facts to which we can point in its support” (ibid.). Here, the arguer presents a fact, or Data (D) to support his answer.

Arguer: — Harry was born in Bermuda.

Toulmin’s layout is clearly built on a dissensus background. A Claim is “a demand for something rightfully or allegedly due” (WCD, Claim). A claim is made in the context of a dispute “to lay claim to, to assert one’s right or title to” (ibid.).
Data are “things known or assumed; facts or figures from which conclusions can be inferred” (WCD, Data). The search for data is undertaken with a claim in mind, see justification.
Data and Claim are correlative words: Claims require Data, and Data is sought and selected based on Claims. They are explicitly linked by a Warrant.

(iv) Warrant — The challenger may still consider the answer unsatisfactory, and “[require]” the speaker to explain “the bearing of the data already produced on his conclusion” (id., p. 98):

Challenger: — “How do you get there?” (Ibid.)

The arguer must now provide a Warrant (W), i.e., “some rule, principle or inference license” (Ibid.):

Arguer: — “A man born in Bermuda will be a British subject.” (id., p. 99)

The inquisitive challenger may now be “dubious” of “whether the warrant is acceptable at all” (ibid., p. 103):

Challenger: — “You presume that a man born in Bermuda can be taken to be a British subject; […] why do you think that?” (Ibid.).

A warrant is an “authorization or sanction, as by a superior or the law” (WCD, Warrant). The gap between the argument and conclusion is fillen by some authority. It can also be “a justification or reasonable grounds for some act, course, statement or belief” (ibid.). In this case, the warrant itself would correspond to a good reason added to the data. It is generally a law that orients the fact as a data for this claim.
Another warrant would provide a different orientation to the same data. For instance, the warrant “In Bermuda the climate can be uncomfortably hot from late May to October, with especially high humidity” would orient the same fact toward the claim “Harry certainly knows how to behave in a humid subtropical climate.”

(v) Backing — The arguer must now provide a Backing (B) to make the Warrant acceptable

Arguer: — I say that “on account of the following statutes and other legal provisions: …” (id., p. 105).

 (vi) Qualifier – Rebuttal — In previous moves, the challenger requested formal clarifications. Now, he turns to substantive objections, such as:

Challenger: — But “special facts may make this case an exception to the rule, or one in which the law can be applied only subject to certain qualifications” (id., p. 101).

Finally, the claimant acknowledges these caveats. Her claim is a “presumption”, which is only “presumably” true, not “necessarily” so. This must be made clear by a Qualifier (Q), “indicating the exceptional conditions which might be capable of defeating or refuting the warranted conclusion (R).”

Arguer: — My claim (C) is probably true, insofar as we don’t know if “both his parents were aliens [or] he has become a naturalized American” (id. p. 102-103).

The Rebuttal articulates the conditions that would defeat the inference if met. By incorporating the challenger’s contributions into his argument, the speaker introduces co-operation into the inquiry process.
The Qualifier should not be seen as the expression of some vague mental limitation, just in case things do not turn out as expected. Rather, it is the trace of substantial Rebuttals, not just any face-saving softener or mitigator. These terms would not express the link with the substantial rebutting counter-discourse.

2. Representation

Toulmin articulates these six basic elements in the following diagram

 

— The chain “Data — Warrant — Backing — Claim” represents the positive component of the model.
— The combination “Qualifier + Rebuttal” represents the negative, or default component of the model.

3. Corollaries

3.1. A legal syllogism

Toulmin refers to his approach to argumentation as “generalized jurisprudence” ([1958], p. 7). An instance of reasoning that illustrates the structure of an argument corresponds to a legal syllogism, in which a law is applied to a fact.

Positive component
Law: Any driver who crosses the yellow line is breaking the law, and will be fined.
Recorded fact: X crossed the yellow line.
Conclusion: This is a violation of the law and the driver will be fined.

Default Component
Unless X was driving a fire engine, or ambulance on a call,  participating in a formal parade, orroadworks were in progress.

This positive component articulates a premise with a general subject (a law) and a premise with a concrete subject (or singular proposition, the argument) in order to deduce a proposition with a concrete subject (the conclusion). This process corresponds to a categorization, which includes an individual in a class, and thus allows the attribution of the properties and stereotypes that characterize the class to the individual. Toulmin’s basic example highlight the importance of categorization and intracategorical deduction in everyday reasoning. However, warrants are not restricted to categorizing. In fact, a Warrant is an instance of an argument scheme.

3.2 The “Rediscovery of the Topoi”

The warrant corresponds to the traditional argumentative notion of topos (Bird 1961), or argument scheme. A topos is a general statement that “warrants” the acceptability of the argument and can generate an infinite number of particular arguments or enthymemes of the same form.
Ehninger and Brockriede have shown how the concept of a warrant could cover the main forms of argument schemes. For example “authoritative arguments” ([1960], p. 293):

— (D) Klaus Knorr states “Soviet leaders calculate that a minor build-up of nuclear power in the NATO countries of Western Europe will add only marginally to the danger of American striking power.”

— Therefore (C) Soviet leaders calculate that a minor build-up of nuclear power in the NATO countries of Western Europe will add only marginally (to the danger of American striking power).

— Since (W) what Knorr says about the power of nuclear weapons is reliable.

— Because (B) Knorr is a professor at Princeton’s Center of International Studies, he is unbiased and has made reliable statements on similar matters in the past.

— Unless (R) Other authorities more qualified than Knorr say otherwise or special circumstances negate or reduce Knorr’s usual reliability as a witness.

Accordingly, the specific objections and rebuttals associated with a given argument scheme fall under the qualifier – rebuttal subsystem.

3.3 Open Foundations

Let us assume that Harris was not born not Bermuda but in the Falkland Islands (English name) also called Islas Malvinas (Argentine name) and not in Bermuda. In that case, the backing mentioning the British nationality statutes, would possibly be supplemented by an appeal  to the right of occupation, conquest and survival of the fittest, considering the islands’complex history.

Basing the Warrant on a Backing opens a potential regression to infinity, since the guarantee needs itself to be guaranteed. The same regression could be observed in the argument, which coud also be challenged.

3.4 Scientific Calculation and the Deletion of the Rebuttal Component

Toulmin’s layout is popular among scientists interested in argumentation. The following example, less frequently cited than the previous one, expresses the expression of a scientific prediction based on a calculation involving laws derived from experience and observation (1958, p. 184):

The general premise is replaced by a calculation based on physical laws. The disappearance of the counter-discourse (modal + rebuttal) characterizes the transition to a mathematical calculus based on stable scientific content.