of
A Visual Explanation
By Frank Clarke
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 1: The Claim
AKA Argument, Assertion
This is just what it sounds like. It is the assertion being made by the speaker.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 2: The Grounds
AKA Evidence, Data
Without some kind of grounds, the claim is unfounded.
It is just an unsubstantiated opinion without the support of evidence.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today.
several of his students were sleeping today.
CLAIM
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 2: The Grounds
AKA Evidence, Data
Without some kind of grounds, the claim is unfounded.
It is just an unsubstantiated opinion without the support of evidence.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today.
This always has a because in it. Sometimes it is explicitly stated. Sometimes it’s implied.
CLAIM
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 2: The Grounds
AKA Evidence, Data
Without some kind of grounds, the claim is unfounded.
It is just an unsubstantiated opinion without the support of evidence.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; I say this because several of his students were
sleeping today when I passed his classroom.
This always has a because in it. Sometimes it is explicitly stated. Sometimes it’s implied.
CLAIM
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 2: The Grounds
AKA Evidence, Data
Without some kind of grounds, the claim is unfounded.
It is just an unsubstantiated opinion without the support of evidence.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today.
This always has a because in it. Sometimes it is explicitly stated. Sometimes it’s implied.
When analyzing an argument’s effectiveness, the first step is looking at the
evidence presented. Is it viable? Does it provide enough verifiable data to
support the claim?
CLAIM
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 3: The Warrant
AKA Assumption
This is what the speaker assumes the audience will agree with him on.
In this case, the speaker assumes that his audience will agree with that a teacher who puts
students to sleep is a bad teacher. A second warrant in this argument may be that only a
bad teacher would allow his students to sleep in class.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 3: The Warrant
AKA Assumption
This is what the speaker assumes the audience will agree with him on.
In this case, the speaker assumes that his audience will agree with that a teacher who puts
students to sleep is a bad teacher. A second warrant in this argument may be that only a
bad teacher would allow his students to sleep in class.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work.
But is that a safe assumption on the part of the speaker?
Are there potentially mitigating circumstances that would render his assumption false?
The warrant is usually where an argument succeeds or fails, because the audience either
agrees with the speaker’s reasoning or doesn’t.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
By now, you should see that the Toulmin Method is
a set of supports, a set of metaphorical building blocks.
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 4: The Backing
The backing is a widely-held truth or belief. That means it doesn’t have to be true. It just
has to be agreed-upon by most of the speaker’s audience. Christopher Columbus had
difficulty obtaining financial backing because his argument’s backing was laughable.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work. Anyone who won’t do
their job deserves to lose it.
Taken out of context, any reasonable person would agree with that last sentence. And that
is what a backing is: a statement that everyone agrees on.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 4: The Backing
The backing is a widely-held truth or belief. That doesn’t mean it has to be true. It just has
to be agreed-upon by most of the speaker’s audience. Christopher Columbus had difficulty
obtaining financial backing because his argument’s backing was laughable.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work. Anyone who won’t do
their job deserves to lose it.
Taken out of context, any reasonable person would agree with that last sentence. And that
is what a backing is: a statement that everyone agrees on.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Inductive Reasoning
The Toulmin Method employs inductive reasoning. From the grounds to the warrant to the
backing, it moves from the specific to the general. Did you notice?
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
Backing
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Inductive Reasoning
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher;
several of his students were sleeping today.
Any teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work.
Anyone who won’t do their job deserves to lose it.
In an effective application of the Toulmin Method, the Warrant cannot refer back
specifically to the subject of the Claim & Grounds.
The Backing must become still more general, usually employing a universal or national
sense of focus.
(Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the specific.)
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 5: The Rebuttal
The rebuttal is simple. This is where the speaker anticipates possible criticism of his
argument and refutes it. In fact, Aristotle called this the Refutatio.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work. Anyone who won’t do
their job deserves to lose it. You can say he’s senile, but that’s no excuse.
Having one or more rebuttals can make an argument more effective by effectively ‘cutting
off the legs’ of the opposing argument before it is implemented.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 5: The Rebuttal
The rebuttal is simple. This is where the speaker anticipates possible criticism of his
argument and refutes it. In fact, Aristotle called this the Refutatio.
Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today. Any
teacher who puts students to sleep should find another line of work. Anyone who won’t do
their job deserves to lose it. You can say he’s senile, but that’s no excuse.
Having one or more rebuttals can make an argument more effective by effectively ‘cutting
off the legs’ of the opposing argument before it is implemented.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 6: The Qualifier
The rebuttal makes an argument less absolute. Words like “probably”, and “most” are
qualifiers. On first glance, one might think this would reduce the effectiveness of an
argument. In fact, the opposite is often true.
I think Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today.
Any teacher who puts students to sleep should probably find another line of work. Anyone
who won’t do their job deserves to lose it. You can say he’s senile, but that’s no excuse.
Politicians use qualifiers to great effect. It allows them to deny having even made the
argument, if the tide of opinion shifts.
Note: Not all arguments – not even all effective arguments – have a qualifier.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Step 6: The Qualifier
The rebuttal makes an argument less absolute. Words like “probably”, and “most” are
qualifiers. On first glance, one might think this would reduce the effectiveness of an
argument. In fact, the opposite is often true.
I think Professor Peppenfeffer is a bad teacher; several of his students were sleeping today.
Any teacher who puts students to sleep should probably find another line of work. Anyone
who won’t do their job deserves to lose it. You can say he’s senile, but that’s no excuse.
Politicians use qualifiers to great effect. It allows them to deny having even made the
argument, if the tide of opinion shifts.
Note: Not all arguments – not even all effective arguments – have a qualifier.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
The Baltimore Parakeets are the best team in football. They scored the most points in the
league last year by far.
The Dallas Cowgirls are the best team in football. They won the Super Bowl.
Tiger Woods is the greatest athlete of all time. He has earned more money then anyone.
Breyers ice cream is the best, because they use all natural ingredients.
The Expendables is a pretty good film. It has so many action stars in it!
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: The Baltimore Parakeets are the best team in football.
Grounds: They scored the most points in the league last year by far.
Warrant: The football team that scores the most points is the best team.
Backing: Whoever scores the most is the best.
Rebuttal: They didn’t win the championship.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: The Dallas Cowgirls are the best team in football.
Grounds: They won the Super Bowl.
Warrant: The NFL team that wins the Super Bowl is the best team.
Backing: The winner of a championship is the best participant.
Rebuttal: They had an easy schedule.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: Tiger Woods is the greatest athlete of all time.
Grounds: He has earned more money then anyone.
Warrant: The athlete that earns the most money is the best.
Backing: Money represents success.
Rebuttal: Players from earlier eras didn’t have the opportunities that Woods Has had.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: Breyers ice cream is the best, because
Grounds: they use all natural ingredients.
Warrant: Natural ingredients make ice cream taste better
Backing: Foods with preservatives and artificial flavorings don’t taste as good (inversion)
Rebuttal: Other ice creams last longer in the freezer.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: The Expendables is a pretty good film.
Grounds: It has so many action stars in it!
Warrant: Lots of stars make a film better.
Backing: People who are successful in their field are more likely to create a viable product.
Rebuttal: The script stinks.
Qualifier: “pretty good”
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Take out the trash. Why? Because I said to, that’s why!
Take a few minutes and apply the Toulmin Method to it.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
CLARKE’S EXPLANATION OF
6
STEPS TO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Claim: You should take out the trash.
Grounds: Because I told you to.
Warrant: I provide you with a clean home, food, schooling and meet all your needs. I have
done so for your entire life. Small chores are hardly a dent in the debt you owe me.
Backing: People should repay their debts.
Rebuttal: But I’m an angry teenager. I have angst!
It’s valid.
CLAIM
GROUNDS
WARRANT
BACKING
REBUTTAL
QUALIFIER
The End
of
A Visual Explanation
By Frank Clarke