Toulmin Analysis and
Rogerian Argument
The Toulmin Model
of Argumentation
Who is Stephen Toulmin?
Toulmin was a contemporary
philosopher concerned with how
argumentation related to everyday life.
 Toulmin’s model became a popular
method to analyzing public discourse,
criticizing public argument, and also
serving as an effective teaching tool
for public speaking and debate.

Components of the model:

Claim:

Grounds:

Warrant:
the conclusion of the
argument.
facts and data used to
prove the claim’s
validity.
The reasoning that
authorizes the
inferential leap from the
grounds to the claim.
Three essential parts:
CLAIM
Tuition will be increased
WARRANT
Tuition has been in the past and is likely to
continue being the principle means by which
the college pays its expenses.
DATA
The college has
recently incurred vast
additional expenses.
Additional components:

Backing: Support for the warrant.

Modality (Qualifiers): temper the
claim. Degree of certainty with which
the advocate makes the claim.

Rebuttal (Reservation): Exceptions or
limitations to the claim.
Additional components:
DATA
The college has
recently incurred vast
additional expenses.
CLAIM
Tuition will be
increased.
WARRANT
Tuition has been in the past and is likely
to continue being the principle means by
which the college pays its expenses.
**MODALITY
Probably
**REBUTTAL
**BACKING
Over the last 40 years, each time the
college incurred large expenses tuition
was raised.
Unless the college
manages to secure
private donations from
friends and alumni.
Another example:

CLAIM: “Our basketball team will win
tomorrow night.”

DATA: “Coach Henderson said we
would.”

WARRANT: “Coach Henderson’s
opinion is worthy of belief”
More:

BACKING: “He has accurately
predicted the outcome of the last ten
games.”

MODALITY: “definitely”

REBUTTAL: “Unless our star forward
is injured”
Questions to ask?



Are the data sufficient to justify the
claim? What additional data are
needed?
Is the claim properly (logically) qualified?
Is the claim presented with too much
certainty?
Is the warrant adequate to justify the
claim on the basis of the data? Does the
audience accept the warrant or will it
need backing? What other warrants
might be utilized?
More:
Is the backing sufficient for accepting
the warrant? What further support for
the warrant might be used?
 Are the essential reservations stated?
What other reservations might the
audience think of that should be
included here?

Rogerian Argument


Based on Carl
Roger’s work in
psychology.
Takes a different
approach to
arguments in that
“common ground”
is established.
The Rogerian process:
The writer presents the problem.
 The writer describes as fairly as
possible the reader’s perceived point
of view on the problem.
 The writer makes use of neutral
language.
 The writer then presents their
perspective on the problem.

More:
The writer will generally includes a
careful description of the contexts or
circumstances in which the writer’s
position is valid.
 The Rogerian approach closes by not
asking readers to give up their
positions but by showing how the
reader would benefit by moving to the
writer’s position.

Characterisitics:
Developing “good will” is extremely
important.
 The use of “compromising” is
encouraged.
 The Rogerian approach typically
downplays the emotional in favor of
the rational.
 Move towards common ground.

Caution:

Careful audience analysis by the
writer is very important. The writer
must understand the reader.

The writer must present the reader’s
perspective clearly, accurately and
fairly.