The Toulmin Model

The Toulmin Model is a way to structure arguments to best understand what the information does, and the relationship each bit of information has with everything else. It helps us to dissect or prepare an argument by demonstrating how each bit of information relates to the claim being made: the model is made up of the following parts:

• Claim: The basic argument being made.
• Grounds: The facts, data, and evidence the claim is based on.
• Warrant: The logical connection between the claim and the grounds.
• Backing: Evidence that establishes the credibility of the warrant.
• Rebuttal: Restrictions placed on the claim,
• Qualifier: Words that denote how certain the claim is, like “probably,” “rarely,” “certainly,” etc. These are made to accommodate the rebuttal.

You'll notice each term has a direct connection with another, even the claim. When forming an argument, or constructing a Toulmin Model, these components are best expressed as brief statements to simply demonstrate the corresponding information, which in turn, shows its relationship to everything else. Here's an example based on the cost of college textbooks:

• Claim: Textbooks are too expensive for college students.
• Grounds: Individual textbooks can be more than a hundred dollars and students need to buy a couple of books for each class.
• Warrant: Students rarely have a lot of money and have to deal with tuition, so several hundred dollars in textbooks strains already limited funds.
• Backing: Increasing tuition costs; delayed graduation rates as students take time off of school to work.
• Rebuttal: Some students have scholarships. Not all disciplines have very expensive textbooks.
• Qualifier: Most textbooks are too expensive for many college students.

The Toulmin Model can be used for any level of argument: fact, definition, value, and policy. The above example is a fact level argument because the grounds and warrant seek to clarify whether or not textbooks are in fact too expensive. Consider it again as a policy level argument. Please note this is all hypothetical!

• Claim: Because textbooks are too expensive for college students, the university bookstore should lower the prices of textbooks.
• Grounds: Individual textbooks can cost more than a hundred dollars and students need to buy a couple of books for each class. The University Bookstore has a considerable profit from other sales.
• Warrant: Students rarely have a lot of money and have to deal with tuition, so several hundred dollars in textbooks further strains their limited funds. With a sizable profit elsewhere, the bookstore can lower textbook prices and still be solvent.
• Backing: Increasing tuition costs. Delayed graduation rates as students take time off of school to work. Profit and income statements of the university bookstore.
• Rebuttal: Some students have scholarships. Not all disciplines have very expensive textbooks.
• Qualifier: Because most textbooks are too expensive for college students, the university bookstore should lower the prices of many textbooks.

As the type of argument changes, the claim naturally changes also, and because the claim changes, the other information has to change to accommodate it. 

Note it is possible for the rebuttal to entirely refute an argument. If the rebuttal had been the bookstore profits fund scholarships and other academic programs, which in turn help students, the claim would have to change along with it, either being dropped entirely, or the argument would need to suggest eliminating or funding those programs another way to benefit more students a little, rather than a few students a lot.

Ultimately, everything pivots around the claim: it is the focal point of the argument and is to be defended or refuted. While Toulmin is not an organizational method for writing an essay, it provides a strong basis for analyzing, understanding, and developing arguments by giving every bit of information, whether hard evidence, logical inferences, or potential rebuttals, a specific place.

Introduction...or exposition?

I think some writers feel a need to introduce their subject matter when introducing their essay, to give exposition, which is basically providing background information. This issue shows itself in two major forms: in the introduction, and as the body of an essay.

Essays with expository introductions are when an author, rather than using their Six Journalistic Question criteria to guide them, insists on giving a broad background on the topic, referencing important figures, events, and developments, few, if any, of which will be explored later in the essay. A sentence here or there is bad enough, but the entire introduction being commandeered for the sake of exposition makes it an introduction to the subject and not an introduction to the essay. I think this issue stems from a misunderstanding about what an introduction is for. Introductions don't introduce the whole subject matter to the reader, just the specific topics the essay is focusing on.

You resolve this by taking audience into consideration. First, does your audience need the exposition? An expert in the field wouldn't. A teacher might ask for some exposition, though. If there has not been a request (or requirement) for exposition and if you can reasonably assume your audience will be familiar with the topic, then no exposition. If the situation does call for exposition, keep it out of the introduction. This can create a false sense of the essay being about the broad history of the subject itself.

Expository essays are worse. This is when the exposition is the body of an essay. Note that I didn't say in the body of the essay, I said is the body of the essay. I have read essays that have an interesting and engaging introduction and thesis, only to be met with stifling exposition that ends in time for the conclusion, usually addressing topics new to the essay. Paragraph after paragraph, page after page of it. I'm reading a different essay than I was led to believe I'd be reading. Than the introduction promised me I'd be reading.

I can't be as generous with this one when guessing at a cause. These essays always seem to me like the author has something to say, but isn't even trying to give it in any detail. It's as if the construction of the thesis and its introduction ought to be enough, so the rest of the essay is just fluff: something needs to go there, so how about background information?

These essays almost exclusively outline the chronological events behind the subject itself and suggest that rather than doing analytical work, the author has simply regurgitated details about dates and events. The major culprits behind this are essays about historical events or breakthroughs, anything from pirates to computers, where, rather than offering new insights or interpretations on a historical situation, the author simply traces the events leading up to the situation they should be analyzing. The introductions and conclusions of such essays usually suggest an insight or interpretation, but the essay isn't interested in developing any. Sometimes, the conclusions address topics quite alien to what was in the introduction.

In both these situations, whether an expository introduction or essay, the result is an essay with mismatched introductions, conclusions, and bodies. A hodgepodge of related but unnecessary information where critical thinking should be.

However, there will be times when you need exposition. If so, you should keep it down to a paragraph or two. If the situation calls for exposition, wait until the introduction is done (so never the first paragraph), and then take some time to give only the absolutely essential details. If you discover your first paragraph is more exposition than introduction, then bump it from Slot 1 to Slot 2 and write a new introduction. If the body of the essay is the problem, take those pages of exposition and get them down to a paragraph or two so you free up the rest of the essay for more important information: presenting and defending your own thesis. I would say even if your audience is an expert on your subject and even if exposition wasn't required, a little can help show your expertise and familiarity with the subject. But no matter what, keep it brief and keep it relevant to the essay topic.

There is certainly merit in being able to summarize and paraphrase; it demonstrates familiarity with the research and the topic. However, the ability to develop one's own ideas and conclusions from that information and present and defend your ideas coherently, is of a much greater value.

Don't sink too deep: Inappropriate Topics

When I first started teaching composition as a graduate student, some of my colleagues openly encouraged their students to write about sensitive, controversial issues: gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc... Others forbade students from addressing these topics. It seems standard composition teachers will go one way or the other. On the surface, this can seem like the instructor's bias: they don't want to get a lot of essays that disagree with their own personal beliefs or opinions, or they have an agenda they want to push. While I'm sure there are instructors that do take such an approach, there are more practical reasons for restricting available topics.

For example, a student of mine once proposed writing about No Child Left Behind. Granted this isn't as sensitive a topic as those listed above, but it's still significant. I emailed the student saying if they were to write about No Child Left Behind, they would need to start by reading the law itself. I provided a link to the 670 page document.

And No Child Left Behind is just a simple example. Doing gun control, abortion, or gay marriage would require careful analysis of decades of legislation, court cases; and then accompanying sociological, psychological, biological, and chemical research, before diving into the world of ethics. To complicate matters, the myriad of opinion pieces on such topics found in newspapers, magazines, and blogs are highly subjective and therefore questionable, resulting in a continuation of Confirmation Bias on any side of the issue. So, properly addressing one of these topics would require hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of research; not all of it reliable, spanning decades of both primary and secondary sources, to be in a situation to authoritatively say something about it. Not many freshmen feel like putting that much effort into three pages.

When you consider the scope of research, this actually broadens inappropriate topics into less controversial areas, like childhood obesity and organic farming, and even more mundane, less controversial areas. Let me share one of my favorite examples. A colleague of mine said that a student of hers wanted to prove who Jack the Ripper was... in a freshman composition course. At the end of the semester but before the final essays were due, my colleague said she asked the student who Jack the Ripper was. The student hadn't come to a conclusion.

Personally, I’m not a criminologist, but I don't think there's a branch of anything that hasn't contributed something to the resolution of this Victorian murder mystery. Psychology, sociology, biology, chemistry, even literature has offered conjectures. There have been hundreds of books on the matter, and, I'm sure, many more articles, all of it ranging from the fanciful to the serious. To definitively prove the identity of Jack the Ripper in a matter of weeks would be to try and do what hundreds or thousands of experts have tried to do for more than a century.

Whether or not a topic is or is not appropriate should be determined by the structure of the class. Some topics, because of their scope and the research it would take to handle them, go far beyond the demands of a general education composition course. Education should be challenging and students should rise to that challenge, but it can be far too easy to get yourself in too deep.

I want my students to push and challenge themselves. I want them to branch out, learn, and grow; but my students are college undergraduates taking a course that is designed to give them writing tools for other courses. Many haven't settled on what to major in and are taking three or four courses in addition to mine, as well as their own social lives, jobs, and family obligations. I want to challenge my students; not set them up for failure.

Returning to my colleagues who encouraged students to write about controversial issues. After a year of teaching, pretty much all of them had changed their tune: they forbid their students from such topics. They hadn't undergone a moral or ethical change, but they had a better understanding of what their students could handle.