The Toulmin model of argument, developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, consists of six components: data, claim, warrants, qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing, which together help construct and analyze effective arguments. The model emphasizes the importance of presenting arguments with qualifications and counter-arguments, promoting a realistic understanding of claims. It also offers a structured approach for organizing essays around these elements to communicate arguments effectively.

1. Toulmin Model of Argument:
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.
Data: The facts or evidence used to prove the argument
Claim: The statement being argued (a thesis)
Warrants: The general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical
statements that serve as bridges between the
claim and the data.
Qualifiers: Statements that limit the strength of the argument or
statements that propose the conditions under
which the argument is true.
Rebuttals: Counter-arguments or statements indicating
circumstances when the general argument does not
hold true.
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.)
Toulmin's diagram of arguments typically looks something like
this example:
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 counter-arguments; the

2. point is to come as close to the truth or as
close to a realistic and feasible solution as we possibly can.
Note that opening structure of "Data" leads to
"Claim with qualifiers" is similar to the structure of a thesis in
the form of an enthymeme, in which [one
clause presenting a reason or evidence] leads to [another clause
presenting an argument.]
Toulmin's model reminds us that arguments are generally
expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than
asserted as absolutes. This 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. Here is an example from John
Gage's The Shape of Reason in which the
various parts of an argument are labeled:
Congress should ban animal research (Claim #1) because
animals are tortured in experiments that
have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of
cosmetics (Data). The well being of
animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics
industry (Warrant). Only congress has the
authority to make such a law (Warrant) because the corporations
can simply move from state to state
to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should
not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A
law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal).
So, the law would probably (qualifier) have to be carefully
written to define the kinds of research
intended (claim #2).

3. The Toulmin model is useful for analyzing an argument you are
reading. That was Toulmin's original
purpose--the analysis of how arguments work. On the other
hand, some students find it useful to use the
Toulmin model as a basis for structure and organization. We
might organize our essay in the following
manner:
I. Introduction of the problem or topic.
A. Material to get the reader's attention (a "hook")
B. Introduce the problem or topic
C. Introduce our claim or thesis, perhaps with accompanying
qualifiers that limit the scope of
the argument. (NB: This will help you cut the topic down to a
manageable length.)
II. Offer data (reasons or evidence) to support the argument.
A. Datum #1
B. Datum #2
C. (and so on)
III. Explore warrants that show how the data logically is
connected to the data
A. Warrant #1
B. Warrant #2
C. (and so on)
IV. Offer factual backing to show that logic used in the
warrants is good in term of realism as well
as theory.
A. Backing for Warrant #1
B. Backing for Warrant #2
C. (and so on)

4. V. Discuss counter-arguments and provide rebuttal
A. Counter-argument #1
B. Rebuttal to counter-argument #1
C. Counter-argument #2
D. Rebuttal to counter-argument #2
E. (and so on)
VI. Conclusion
A. Implications of the argument, summation of points, or final
evocative thought to ensure the
reader remembers the argument.
Total Possible Score: 4.00
General Content/Subject Knowledge
Total: 2.00
Distinguished - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in
accordance with the parameters of the discussion and
demonstrates in-depth knowledge of the discussion topic.
Proficient - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in accordance
with the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates
knowledge of the discussion topic.
Basic - Addresses all aspects of the prompt in accordance with
the parameters of the discussion and demonstrates basic
knowledge of the discussion topic.
Below Expectations - Addresses all or most aspects of the
prompt in accordance with the parameters of the discussion and
demonstrates limited knowledge of the discussion topic.
Non-Performance - There is no initial discussion post, or the
post does not address the discussion prompt at all.
Critical Thinking
Total: 0.40

5. Distinguished - Comprehensively explores the ideas, thoughts,
and elements of the topic and provides relevant evidence and
information that demonstrates all of the following as applicable
to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, use
of information resources, and logic.
Proficient - Explores the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the
topic and provides relevant evidence and information that
demonstrates most of the following as applicable to the
discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, use of
information resources, and logic.
Basic - Explores the ideas, thoughts, and elements of the topic
and provides relevant evidence and information that
demonstrates some of the following as applicable to the
discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, and use of
information, and logic.
Below Expectations - Attempts to explore the ideas, thoughts,
and elements of the topic and provide relevant evidence and
information, but demonstrates few of the following as
applicable to the discussion prompt: clarity, relevance, depth,
breadth, use of information resources, and logic.
Non-Performance - There is no attempt to explore the ideas,
thoughts, and elements of the topic and provide relevant
evidence and information in either the original post or
subsequent response posts within the discussion, or no post is
present.
Written Communication
Total: 0.20
Distinguished - Displays clear control of syntax and mechanics.
The organization of the work shows appropriate transitions and
flow between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains
no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient - Displays control of syntax and mechanics. The
organization of the work shows transitions and/or flow between
sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains only a few
errors and is mostly easy to understand.

6. Basic - Displays basic control of syntax and mechanics. The
work is not organized with appropriate transitions and flow
between sentences and paragraphs. Written work contains
several errors, making it difficult to fully understand.
Below Expectations - Displays limited control of syntax or
mechanics. The work does not include any transitions and does
not flow easily between sentences and paragraphs. Written work
contains major errors.
Non-Performance - Fails to display control of syntax or
mechanics, within the original post and/or responses.
Organization is also not present.
Engagement/ Participation
Total: 1.40
Distinguished - Contributes to classroom conversations with at
least the minimum number of replies, all of which were
thoughtful, relevant, and contributed meaningfully to the
conversation. Fully engages in the conversation with
appropriate topic-based responses.
Proficient - Contributes to classroom conversations with the
minimum number of replies that are somewhat thoughtful,
relevant, and contributed meaningfully to the conversation.
Attempts to fully engage in the conversation with appropriate
topic-based responses.
Basic - Contributes to the classroom conversations with the
minimum number of replies. Attempts to fully engage in the
conversation, but the responses are not relevant or fully aligned
with the discussion topic.
Below Expectations - Attempts to contribute to the classroom
conversations with fewer than the minimum number of replies;
however, the replies are not thoughtful and relevant, or they do
not contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Non-Performance - There is no contribution to the discussion.