Introduction
The Toulmin’s model of argument is used by people who have knowledge and skills in analyzing of verbal protocols while solving ill-structured problems. This model involves descriptions of lines of argument which might be in various forms, but quite often it might base on the analysis provided for tracing a solver’s line of argument, datum and backing which is difficult to differentiate as warrants are not outlined. The Toulmin model does not give the delineation of components of the problem-solving techniques hence analysis of “higher level” problem solving structure and a “lower level” argument structure give an integrated problem solving argumentation structure, by stating the reasoning used in each particular task (Engleberg and Wynn, 2009). A more general level problem solving classical rhetorical structure is employed in Toulmin Model. The Toulmin Model consists of many branches, ranging from the claims and conclusions of the argument being argued for, supporting evidence, principles of reasoning to that claim, exceptions to the claims, and the specification of limits to claim.
Verbal reasoning helps in arriving at a correct answer to a question from a person in argument; though such reasoning is good only if its points are justified enough, its warrant is justified too thus it is ready to justify the defeaters who apply it (Engleberg and Wynn, 2009). The claim within the argument must include good relevant information practically obtainable and follows the victim points with the justified general warrant. Support of the claim is also called the proof or evidence; of which it should be in form of facts and statistics so as to reduce conflicts between the two parties in an augment.
While applying Toulmin’s model of argument by an author, the author and audience should share same beliefs and values, or the author‘s warrant may be in conflict with the audience beliefs and values (Toulmin, 2003). Warrants are important as they are “common ground” of author and audience, as shared warrants invite the audience to participate by unconsciously supplying part of the argument. Also, warrants provide reasons linking the claim and the support. One should not include superlatives like all, every, and no one- only need to qualify the claim specifically. You need to answer questions and objections raised in the minds of the audience. The reason must be justified in assuming that no exception making process hold in the case applied, if the warrant is not available universally. In an argument, a logical line of reasoning in support of a claim is more convincing than ones opinion to ones argument, as he/she have reasoned their own positions. The best way of refuting an opponent position is by showing how his opinion is faulty, and this can be done in the following ways: demonstrating the falseness of the premise by challenging his conclusions, challenging the assumptions of the writer by showing its falseness and pointing out the logical fallacy or errors of the opponent reasoning. The ability to detect errors or fallacies in the opponent argument will help one to refute them more effectively.
In conclusion, this model seeks to understand the dynamic nature of the practical arguments on the basis of an alternative searching of Toulmin’s theory. The importance of this reading is that the warrants are conceived of as unstable elements of practical logic. These arguments are transparent as they are analyzed and go through various stages of warrant implementations and also the system is implemented to capture dynamic aspect of practical reasoning.
eferences
Engleberg, I. & Wynn, D. (2009). Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies. Publisher Allyn & Bacon
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. UK: Cambridge University Press
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]