Toulmin model of reasoning
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 8

Toulmin Model of Reasoning PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Backing (Clarification). Qualifier (Probability). Rebuttal (Reservation). Toulmin Model of Reasoning. Data (Evidence). Warrant (Reasoning). Claim (Conclusion). Backing : Immune systems protect from disease. Qualifier : Possibly.

Download Presentation

Toulmin Model of Reasoning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Toulmin model of reasoning







Toulmin Model of Reasoning







Fip argument

Backing: Immune systems protect from disease.

Qualifier: Possibly.

Data: Remo stayed at the vet’s with kidney failure & soon returned to die of FIP.

Warrant: A cat with a low immune system can contract FIP.

Rebuttal: Unless the virus was latent.

FIP Argument

Claim: Remo contracted FIP at the vet’s.

What s happening here

What’s happening here?

Line drawing argument

Backing: Our experience with coffee is common.

Qualifier: Probably.

Data: We see two cups on the table between the two people.

Warrant: We drink coffee out of cups in the U.S.

Rebuttal: Unless this is in England.

Line Drawing Argument

Claim: The couple is drinking coffee.

Burglary argument

Backing: The law specifically defines responsibility.

Qualifier: Beyond doubt.

Data: Police officers saw John leave a house carrying a VCR which was not his.

Warrant: Burglary means taking another’s property w/intent.

Rebuttal: Unless he can- not understand his actions.

Burglary Argument

Claim: John is guilt of burglary.

Highway argument

Backing: We spend a lot on safety.

Qualifier: Definitely.

Data: A three-lane highway between Hemet and Temecula would be safer.

Warrant: We want to be safe.

Rebuttal: Unless we can achieve safety in other ways.

Highway Argument

Claim: We should build such a 3-lane highway .

Exercise c1

Data: Many Americans cannot afford adequate health care.

Warrant: When citizens cannot afford a vital service, the government must assist them.

Exercise C1

Claim: A national health care plan is vital.

Exercise c3

Data: More people would have access to [that canyon area].

Warrant: What benefits more people is what should be done [implied].

Exercise C3

Claim: The canyon area ought to be developed.

  • Login