Toulmin and THE LAYOUT (ominous music)

So Toulmin is long and hard to get through, but he has some good points. I'm going to hit them for you guys, no wait, I'm going to knock them out of the park. Go Yankees! -- for you Red Sox people, get a grip on life. Just cause ya'll won once, don't mean nothing. (If ya'll got issues, I promote response, just use rhetoric to bring me to your side).

BECAUSE...

Toulmin's most important point is the layout of an argument. You wanna argue with the K-man, you gots to bring ya stats. He says that practical arguments JUSTIFY claims rather than infer them from evidence. So, I say, the Yankees rock my face off. That is my claim, that they're the best. I can justify it by their winning record. So get down.

What is justification? Toulmin specifices that justification is a retrospective activity as opposed to inference, a prospective one. What does that mean? Justification means we have made a claim, and in order to justify it, it involves producing reasons for it AFTER we have arrived at it. See, I jumped in and said the YANKEES RULE ALL. And when everyone from Boston grabbed a pitchfork and a torch, I called Shrek. No, I said, the Yankees rule because they have won so many seasons. On the other hand, if I would have started out with reasons, and worked my way up to the claim, to the understanding, that the YANKEES RULE ALL, then it would be an inference, a prospective activity, becasue we worked to it, the claim was a product, an assertion made at the end of the argument.

Thus, HOW you justify a claim is Toulmins BIGGIE and he says your argument has to survive criticism. It involves modal terms (possible, impossible, etc) and what aspect you characterize them: force and criteria. Which is only slightly confusing to me, so moving on.

Here is the real deal: Toulmin says an argument should layout like this: 1. claim 2. grounds 3. warrant FOLLOWED BY components which modify these first three, 4. backing 5. modal qualifier 6. rebuttal. This posting is already long enough, and its essential not to get bogged down here. Examine the 6 parts of an integral argument, their terms speak for themselves, and know that an argument is a collaborative thing. But this is key: Toulmin believes this to be the frame of an argument. And if the frame is weak, it will all tumble down (take note architect majors).

Aight guys, thats Toulmin in a handbasket, so take him with you wherever you go, don't start an argument without him, and the YANKEES RULE ALL.