9 Toulmin Analysis (Warrants)
Andrew Gurevich
Toulmin Model: Warrants
In this chapter, we continue to explore the method of argument analysis developed by the British logician Stephen Toulmin. The method analyzes arguments by exploring their underlying assumptions and implicit rhetorical structures. This week we will address:
Warrant (The underlying assumption that connects the claim to the data). A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question ‘Why does that data mean your claim is true?’
Warrants may be based on logos, ethos, or pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded. If no warrant can be made between the data and claim, then you are presenting unrelated ideas and cannot make an argument out of them.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/grounds. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit. They rely on shared assumptions between the one(s) making the argument and those receiving it. If these assumptions are not shared, or not properly understood, then the argument will not be as effective.
- Example: “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs [reason/data].” The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”
- Example: “We should outlaw same-sex marriage [claim] because the Bible says it is morally wrong [reason/data].” The unstated warrant is: “we should base laws on what the Bible says.”
If the audience/readers share the warrant (the underlying assumption that connects the data to the claim) they will likely find the argument valid. If they do not, they will likely not. There are THREE main types of warrants:
- Substantive Warrants (based in Logos)
- Authoritative Warrants (based in Ethos)
- Motivational Warrants (based in Pathos)
More on Warrants:
Warrants are the logic or assumptions that connect your evidence to the claim. They demonstrate how your evidence logically and justifiably supports your claim. Warrants are often left unstated and commonly take one of the following six forms:
Warrant Based Generalization: What is true of the sample is likely true of the whole. A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.
Warrant Based on Analogy: What is true of one situation is likely true of another, so long as they share key characteristics. Extrapolating from one situation