The Toulmin system is an argumentative style of writing using an audience based courtroom model. In the 1950’s, philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed his system to change the existing models based on formal logic. Toulmin’s system is based on the theory that assumptions and assertions are contestable by opposing council and the verdict about the persuasiveness of the argument will be rendered by a neutral third party, the judge and jury.
This system made a lot of sense to me right from the beginning. I am a former detective with over 10 years of experience in criminal investigations and courtroom testimony. When referencing the courtroom or investigations, I could relate. When investigating a crime, I would gather all the evidence of the crime and then put myself in the shoes of the defense attorney. I would try to anticipate what questions the attorney would possibly ask and then answer them during the investigation and prior to entering the courtroom. This seems to be the same as the Toulmin system, present and support the claim, anticipate and counter any rebuttal, then qualify the claim.
The Enthymeme is an argument in which the conclusion is not given. The Enthymeme combines a claim with a reason expressed as a because clause. The audience must then supply the missing assumption. This is similar to the opening argument of a trial. The defendant killed his wife because she was cheating on him. The audience must assume that the killing of the wife was illegal.
Grounds are supporting evidence that cause the audience to believe the reason. These are the facts of the case. The who, what, when, where, how, and why that would lead you to believe the husband killed his wife because she was cheating.
Warrant is the value, belief or principal that the audience has to hold if the reliability of the argument is to be assured. This would be that that the husband did kill his wife and that killing her was intentional and illegal.
Backing is the argument that supports the warrant. In this case, the evidence that shows the husband intentionally killed his wife and the killing was illegal is the backing.
Rebuttal is areas where a skeptic can attack the arguments given by the writer. These are areas where the writer did not convincingly argue his points or provide sufficient information for an audience to believe him. This is the defense attorney’s job during a trial. The defense attorney will try and raise doubt about the arguments the prosecuting attorney made. If all the information about the case is either not gathered or not presented during the trial, the defense attorney will raise doubt whether the husband did kill his wife.
Finally the qualifier is used to indicate the degree of probable truth of the claim. During a trial, the closing argument is the qualifier. The prosecuting attorney will summarize the entire case and inform the jury that if prosecutor’s argument was believable, the jury should find the husband guilty of killing his wife.
Works Cited
Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.
Um, is there something you would like to tell your readers? Bullseye Howard, your blog is right on target for me. Until this course and the readings in the book I was very poor at discerning and arguing my point. I was a lost sheep without a sheep dog. I have very strong ethos and pathos, but when it came to my logos I fell short. I like to think my ethos and pathos are due to a combination of two things: one being a career Navy man; and two, and this is very presumptuous on my part, thinking everyone thinks like me. As you typed your story, I quickly drew my own conclusion that the husband was guilty based on your 10 years of detective work. Clearly I assumed a man with 10 years of detective work would know what he is doing and has to be trusted on some level.
ReplyDelete