Toulmin’s argument structure
Toulmin’s Argument Structure
Description of the strategy
Toulmin’s argument structure
The strategy
The argument structure proposed by Toulmin allows students to construct a complete argument
step by step. For the first step students will make a claim which is based on the interpretation of
data.
For example: Peter is a good student.
Peter will have a brilliant career.
For the second step students will have to underpin their argument with a warrant (why?) and a
backing (what is the evidence?) as well as a rebuttal (in which case might the claim not come true?).
At the beginning of the first phase students are given data to construct their claim and argument.
At the beginning of the second phase students are given more information to underline their
argument and formulate a rebuttal. The information provided should be as diverse as possible, so
that both warrants and rebuttals can be articulated. In some cases the claim from the first phase
may have to be revised by the students. At the end of the activity the students discuss how they
constructed their argument and which data they used for it. (N.B.: In the original Toulmin model the
claim may be specified by a qualifier based on the rebuttal.)
Example (of the strategy in action)
The thematic question is: Is Europe a place where people see nature, the environment and
environmental problems in a similar way?
Toulmin’s argument structure
The lesson focus is: Do people in Europe have different ideas about the relationship between nature
and humans?
Inform the students that they will have to develop an argument and will first have to construct a
claim. To do so, they can use the following data:
Start of industrialization (+/-)
England
1750
Belgium
1820
Germany
1830
Czech Republic
1830
France
1850
Russia
1870
Turkey
1950
Ireland
1970
Different sources
Students are then offered the following sources to develop their warrants, backings and rebuttals.
“(This map question) explores the belief that humans are meant to rule over nature and (another
map question) explores the belief that nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of modern
industrialized nations. Answers to these questions appear to be related to the history of
industrialization of different nations. People living in nations with long industrial traditions do not
believe that nature is strong enough to cope with industrialization or that humans have the right to
control nature. The maps reflect, to some extent, the core periphery differences in Europe based on
industrial production at the time of the Second World War.” University Utrecht.
“In general, it has been argued that individuals living in wealthier nations have more proenvironmentalist attitudes. As societies become more affluent, individuals will be less occupied with
the economic struggle for survival and are free to pursue what Inglehart labelled as post-materialist
goals, such as … environmental protection. On the other hand, citizens of less wealthier nations are
faced with pressing local environmental problems, like polluted cities, lack of access to clean water,
and soil degradation. They would be interested in a solution to these problems and therefore show
higher environmental concern. Research however shows that environmental awareness is positively
related to wealth. ... In general, environmental concern depends, to a large extend, on individual
characteristics, such as relative income position (thus, individual wealth compared to fellowcountrymen) and post-materialistic attitudes. These outcomes contrast a view put forward by Catton
and Dunlap, who developed a ‘new ecological paradigm’. … In this view, environmental awareness is
not influenced by a country’s or individual wealth, but instead has become a global phenomenon.”
Tilburg University.
Toulmin’s argument structure
Results from a survey of first year students at the universities of Tilburg and Izmir 2012
Percentage of students that agree or strongly agree that humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature
Dutch average 2008
Dutch students 2012
Turkish average 2008
Turkish students 2012
24.64
21.3
70.27
28.4
Statements of students who have been interviewed about the question on whether humans were
meant to rule over the rest of nature.
“I think so because we're probably the
most evolved species on the planet. So
we're … you know we have conscious
thoughts. We have the ability to make
decisions. We have the ability to, you
know, change the environment we live in,
whereas lower species probably don't have
that choice. They live by instinct, whereas
we live by choice. I think so yeah, we are
the higher species on the planet.”
Sanjay/United Kingdom
“No, I do not think that we can play ‘boss’
over nature. The country is actually not
ours, we borrow it, we use it. It is not ours,
we use it and therefore we should simply
act sustainably so that those who come
after us can use it like we did. If you play
boss with something, it's not your own. Yes
you can buy land, but it is actually not
really yours (really). What you should do, I
do think that you really should take care of
nature. And I do not think we are the only
ones who have control over it.”
Naomi/Netherlands
“It's been said that the human race is the
crown of creation and so forth. But I think
that the human being is no more than a
living creature just like the sunflower in the
garden or the giraffes in the Savannah. And
he has no right to place himself above the
others. Of course he thinks ahead and that
makes him superior, but that doesn't mean
that he can rule others. At least not
without limitations.” Marit/Germany
“I think that a human is one of the most
developed life beings here on Earth
because of how we think. When someone
thinks, he might be able to control
something else, so I think that people were
made to manage the Earth.”
Jakub/Slovakia
“I don't think that humans were created to
rule over the rest of nature. I think it is very
clear that humans are not ruling it.
Actually, nature rules over everything
around us.” Katka/Slovakia
“I do not think that the reason for human
beings coming into the world is just related
to ruling over nature. I think nature should
rule over itself.”
Gizem/Turkey
Debriefing questions:
How did you use the data to construct your claim?
Which sources did you use?
What are the differences between the sources?
Did you change your claim during this exercise?
Which arguments from the sources did you use and why?
Which arguments from the sources didn’t you use and why not?
Would you formulate your argument in a different way outside the classroom?
What other information would you need to make your argument more complete?
Why is this a good strategy to use?
Arguing is generally not easy at all. This is certainly true for students. Very often their argument is not backed
up nor does it have a rebuttal. With the Toulmin argument model students learn how to develop a more
complete argument. This is very important because in a tolerant and democratic society, the use of arguments
and discussions is vital.
Why does this work with the maps?
The maps of the EVS show the data collected on peoples’ views on various issues. The resulting patchwork is
not always easy to interpret. Toulmin’s argument structure allows people to do so using different sources
(available on the website, e.g. background information, video-interviews or own information). Students have
to use the information in a logical way and the formulation of a rebuttal makes sure that they consider
different views.
Literature: Zierer, K. (2010) Alles prüfen! Das Beste behalten! Baltmannsweiler: Schneider pp. 275-281
This
project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This
publication reflects only the views of the author and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.