Toulmin Model Of Argument Analysis

There are several definitions of “argumentation,” two of which are explained here. First, a dictionary definition of “argumentation” is the “the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion.” It is further defined by Dr. David Zarefsky as “the study of reasons given by people to justify their acts or beliefs and to influence the thought or action of others.” The goal of argumentation is not to quarrel amongst people who have differing opinions, but instead it is to use effective reasoning to create support for one’s claim. Argumentation uses rhetoric, the study of how messages influence people, to help develop the communication between the person with a claim and the audience.

The Toulmin Model of Argument was developed by Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher, author, educator, and logician, who became frustrated with the limitations of the widely-accepted three-part argumentation model. The Toulmin model, a model of persuasive argument, is composed of six parts and initially encountered resistance. However, it has “proved to be highly useful for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments.” The six parts of the Toulmin model are grounds, claim, warrants, qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing. Toulmin explained that not all parts are inherent in every argument, but some parts are applied universally. The three main parts that are universal to all arguments are claim, the point the argument makes; grounds, the data or evidence that is used to prove the argument; and warrants, the inferential connection that links the claim with the grounds. The three remaining parts of the Toulmin model that may or may not be used in the argument involve providing additional justification for the warrant (backing), stating the degree of probability of the claim (qualifier), and acknowledging the limitations of the argument

During the intelligence analysis process, information is studied and then a judgment is formed, which is supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by evidence, as well. Effective arguments, like judgments, are not irrational; neither are they based on emotion. Both argumentation and intelligence analysis are based on careful thinking and planning to convince the audience (or consumer) of a point of view or position. During the intelligence process, argumentation can be used effectively with the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses. This can be likened to an analyst’s argument with himself. Basically, the analyst determines all possible hypotheses for a problem and then may use argument mapping to flush out the evidence and structure the argument into reasoning, inferences, debates, and cases. Using argument mapping in an intelligence product can also help provide clarity and insight into the reasoning an analyst used to form the judgment. In the end, intelligence analysis and argumentation are very similar in the implementation of