The Uses of Argument¶
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Concession
- Modern argumentation theory — the rebuttal slot in Toulmin's layout and pragma-dialectical acknowledgment, formalising the partial-grant move.
This sourceToulmin’s The Uses of Argument sets out an argument layout in which qualifiers and conditions of exception or rebuttal are distinct from data and warrant, the rebuttal stating circumstances in which the claim does not hold.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“qualifiers (Q) and conditions of exception or rebuttal (R) are distinct both from data and from”
- Modern argumentation theory — the rebuttal slot in Toulmin's layout and pragma-dialectical acknowledgment, formalising the partial-grant move.
- Toulmin Model
- The Toulmin model, set out in Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958), is a six-part analytic scheme for decomposing and evaluating informal arguments — the practical arguments of law, policy, journalism, and everyday reasoning that formal syllogistic logic cannot handle without distortion
This sourceToulmin's layout of arguments (data, claim, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing), set out as a jurisprudence-modelled alternative to formal-deductive analysis of practical argument. The distinction between data and warrant, with data appealed to explicitly and warrants implicitly. The Harry-and-Bermuda worked example ('Harry was born in Bermuda, so, presumably, Harry is a British subject') in The Uses of Argument. The rebuttal of the Harry example: unless both his parents were aliens or he has become a naturalised American.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The Toulmin model, set out in Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958), is a six-part analytic scheme for decomposing and evaluating informal arguments — the practical arguments of law, policy, journalism, and everyday reasoning that formal syllogistic logic cannot handle without distortion
Mechanisms¶
- Belief-Warrant Matrix
- It echoes the structure of Toulmin's argument model — separating each claim from the data and the warrant that licenses moving from one to the other — turned into a maintainable grid.
This sourceSeparates a claim from its supporting data and the warrant licensing the inference between them.
- It echoes the structure of Toulmin's argument model — separating each claim from the data and the warrant that licenses moving from one to the other — turned into a maintainable grid.
- Quantified Claim Template
- It plays for quantifiers the role the Toulmin model
This sourceThe Toulmin model makes otherwise implicit parts of an argument explicit in named roles such as claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.
- It plays for quantifiers the role the Toulmin model
- Rationale Coding Matrix
- … strength is turning a vote into an argument map: it distinguishes structured judgment from mere counting by making the grounds inspectable, and it is the archetype's main defense against a well-reasoned minority warning vanishing behind consensus language — the dissent stays on the page with its evidence attached.
This sourcePresents a structured layout that makes an argument's grounds and inferential warrant explicit.
- … strength is turning a vote into an argument map: it distinguishes structured judgment from mere counting by making the grounds inspectable, and it is the archetype's main defense against a well-reasoned minority warning vanishing behind consensus language — the dissent stays on the page with its evidence attached.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 5 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb314842382 ×1
- https://search.worldcat.org/title/uses-of-argument/oclc/251384 ×1
Registry ID ref:a68efc607e27 · see in the full table