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 or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event.  Has links to ‘case-based’ and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between two contexts.  Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?

Warrant Based on Sign:  One thing indicates the presence or outcome of something else.  For example, we can diagnose an illness or disease by its symptoms.  People who own expensive things likely have a lot of money. The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome.  For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire.  Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.

Warrant Based on Causality:  One thing causes another. For example, eating too much sugar is the cause of numerous health conditions. Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are: 

1. Mixing up correlation with causation
2. Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring ‘after the fact, therefore because of the fact’.
   

Warrant Based on Authority:  An indication that something is true because an authority or group of authorities affirms it.  For example, nearly all of the planet’s esteemed scientists say that climate change is real. Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question?  What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have?  Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on?

Warrant Based on Principle: An agreed-upon value or rule applied to a specific scenario.  For example, parents should love their children is a widely-shared value.  Backing (or refuting) that this value should apply to a specific parent in question might be the goal of an attorney in a criminal trial. Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies.  Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions?  Are there ‘rival’ principles that lead to a different claim?  Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?

Warrants are important because if your audience does not accept your warrant, they are not likely to accept your argument.  Warrants can be questioned, which is why they often require backing.

• View the Video: Understanding Warrants

• View the Video: Assumptions & Warrants

• View the Video: Warrants in an Argument

• View the Handout: Toulmin Worksheet (use it to help diagram the various elements of any argument you wish to analyze).