Response to Toulmin

After reading Toulmin’s essay, I found that agreed with what he had said about rhetoric and the different types of arguments. He begins by differentiating between substantial (practical) and analytic (theoretical). He explains why theoretical argumentative styles have more greatly valued throughout history.
Toulmin also explains the “revival of casuistry.” This is the art of comparing a present argument to a previous one and realizing the differences and similarities between the two. I feel that this is a very important thing to do. I have always attempted to do this when making any major decision; I simply did not know that name for the skill. I think that casuistry provides a good basis on which you can make future decisions. In addition to showing that you should compare an argument to a previous one, Toulmin also explained the importance of realizing the individuality of each situation. He used many good examples to show these differences in circumstances, such as the abortion or right to choose death arguments.
In addition to recognizing the differences between different arguments, Toulmin also presented the basic structure of any argument, which can be used no matter the circumstances. This structure was made of the grounds (the facts on which the argument is based), the warrant (the assumption made between the grounds and the conclusion), and the claim (the final decision or conclusion). He then went on to expand on this to include the backing (explanation of the warrant), the modality (the strength of the warrant), and the rebuttal (the special circumstances that could have been involved). I completely agreed with the former as the being the basic parts of any good argument. I enjoyed this reading much more than previous ones because I was able to fully understand what was being said and see how to apply it to my life in some way.