The document outlines the Toulmin model of argumentation, detailing its components: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualification. It emphasizes the role of logical syllogism in constructing arguments, where every paragraph serves as a micro-argument supporting a main thesis through evidence and reasoning. Additionally, it discusses the importance of avoiding overgeneralizations and incorporating qualifiers and rebuttals to strengthen claims and enhance clarity in arguments.

1. Toulmin Model of Argumentation

2. Toulmin’s Elements of Argument
Claim: the author’s stance—the claim being argued; the
logical conclusion derived from supporting claims.
Grounds: supporting evidence that illustrates specific,
representative instances which prove a claim true.
Warrant: a general, broad assumption upon which the
claim is based; the conceptual lens through which the
evidence is read; implicit value statement.
Backing: the justification or reasoning that reinforces, i.e.
backs up, the warrant.
Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim;
oppositional statements; counter-examples and counter-
arguments.
Qualification: limitations to the claim, warrant, and
backing; the degree of conditionality asserted for a claim.

3. Toulmin & Syllogisms
• The three primary components of Toulmin’s model correspond directly to the
three parts of a syllogism:
Major Premise (since) → Warrant (general)
– Explanation of how the evidence should be read
Minor Premise (because) → Grounds (specific)
– Evidence/example that representatively illustrates point
Conclusion (thus/ergo) → Claim (main/supporting)
– Logical deduction equal to (major + minor)—the point made
If the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must also be true.

4. • Every paragraph is a micro-argument constructed out of a logical syllogism.
The structure of which breaks down as follows:
• Thus, every paragraph presents and substantiates its own claim. These
supporting claims then can be added together, having been proven, to give rise
to the conclusion, or the thesis statement—the argument’s main claim. If
constructed upon sound premises (warrants that can be backed up & sound,
relevant, and representative evidence), the thesis should be logically evident to
the reader by the time he or she arrives at the conclusion.
(TS¶¹ + TS¶² + TS¶³ + TS¶4 + TS¶5 + TS¶6 + TS¶7) = Thesis Statement
Topic Sentence (TS) – The Supporting Claim
Evidence/Example Grounds (Minor Premise)
Explanation Warrant (Major Premise)
Ergo Statement Conclusion (if/then deduction)
Evaluation So What?: Connection to Thesis
Paragraphs as Arguments

5. Toulmin vs. Syllogism
Warrant  Major Premise (A)
Grounds  Minor Premise (B)
Claim  Conclusion (C)
Definitionally, this means:
Arguments are built out of deductive reasoning. This is the kind of reasoning
wherein the truth of input propositions (premises) logically guarantees the truth
of the output proposition (the conclusion), provided that no mistake has been
made in the reasoning. Thus, if A is true and B is true, then C must also be true:
A + B = C where A is the Major, B is the Minor, and C is the conclusion drawn.
In other words, deduction is the logical process of drawing specific conclusions
from general premises. It is using what is known to be generally true to draw
more specific conclusions.
=
+
Each paragraph represents a logical
deduction that supports its claim
with evidence and tells the reader
how to read that evidence. As such,
each paragraph should be built
upon the foundational structure of
both the Toulmin model and the
logical syllogism—deduction.

6. Identifying Claims, Grounds, Warrants
• To identify a claim versus grounds and warrants, look for key indicator
words, i.e. transitions/qualifiers:
– Thus, …
– …; therefore, …
– Ergo, …
– …, so…
– …, then …
• Consider, when reading other arguments, rephrasing the ideas in an
“If ____ and _____, then necessarily ___” statement, where “If x ” is
the general assumption (warrant), the “and y ” is the specific
example (ground/s) that helps to make your point evident to the
reader, and the “then z ” is your conclusion (claim) drawn from the
combination of the first two statements.
• In other words, the formula is often easiest to see as:
• Since (warrant) and because (ground/s), therefore (claim).

7. Qualifications
• To have a well balanced and self-evident case for each paragraph requires
making sure that you have not only put up the grounds and warrant, but that
you also provide the reader with any necessary qualifiers (limitations).
– Consider the difference between the following statements:
• Everybody texts while they drive, which is why there are so many accidents
on the roadways.
• According to studies conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation
over the last 20 years, most drivers under the age of 30 will end up in an
auto accident related to texting and driving. Thus, these incident rates
suggest a growing problem in how personal communication devices are
used on roadways, one with potentially dangerous consequences as mobile
technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous.
The equal sign that should separate everything in the body of the paragraph
from the supporting claim must reflect an accurate portrayal of the facts. Thus,
if the necessary qualifiers are not present in the paragraph, the claim becomes
weak or even logically falls apart, being fallacious.

8. Qualifications
The first statement, for example, makes an all-or-none fallacy and presumptively
leaps to a causal conclusion without something more concrete to illustrate its point
(it lacks evidence and over generalizes):
• [ALL PEOPLE] perform some problematic action |which| causes (is the
reason for) some bigger problem (as if that is the sole reason).
All Xs |verb-Y| (universally) causing Z-effect (to happen).
• The problem starts with the qualifier: ALL
– Such an over estimation of the applicability of the statement can be easily refuted
by calling out for the false dichotomy it creates. Any single instance that
demonstrates the opposite will effectively disprove the legitimacy (truth value) of
the claim: one deviation is enough to prove not ALL do this supposed action.
The fix, then, is to be more specific and really focus in on one group that represents a larger
population trend. One representative group will act like a parable—examining their behavior will
reflect a larger trend that readers will likely infer on their own, as long as the moral of the story is
apparent. If one population does something other people can relate to, they will draw analogous
conclusions for those around them behaving in like manner. That is the point of an example.
Your goal, then, is to only state the facts of group behavior you can speak to—find a
manageable sample, e.g. drivers between the ages of 16 and 30, drivers 16 to 26 versus 27 to 37,
drivers under 40. Find sources that have the numbers (evidence). Pick a population that is
specific, one you can find actual, current data on, and then use the evidence to draw a conclusion.

9. Qualifications & Rebuttals
• Watch out for over generalizations. Rather, provide the necessary
limiters and qualifiers with the claim or on the warrant. Qualifications
help ensure that your points are clear and only make claims on what
the evidence allows.
• If necessary, you may also need to include a refutation (however)
statement to either set up the supporting claim or to counter possible
rebuttals from your opponents. These can be a single statement in a
paragraph or a whole paragraph on their own.
• Often, refutation claims start with a transitional phrase or clause that
sets up a juxtaposition: “While expert so-and-so claims that xyz is
the case, (new evidence) suggests the contrary is more valid.”
• Above all, what matters in argumentation is that you do not say
anything you cannot back up.