An Analysis of Stephen E. Toulmin's Layout of Arguments

The problem which this thesis considers is the adequacy of Toulmin's layout of arguments as an accurate representation of the process of argumentation. This adequacy will be determined in view of four criteria, derived from the implications of Toulmin’s own concept of argumentation, which an accurate model of argumentation should meet: (1) It should be adequate to allow for the consideration of claims of fact, value, and policy. (2) It should accurately differentiate between neutral data and inferential statements. (3) It should allow for a clear correlation between data and claim. (4) It should operate as a flexible system. The central hypothesis is that Toulmin’s layout is not wholly valid: (1) that it is in many respects merely a semantic and schematic innovation derived from more traditional forms of 4 logic, (2) that it erroneously structures the argumentation process, and (3) that there is a tendency toward inconsistency and confusion regarding Toulmin's definition of argumentation and his model of it. Within the development of this hypothesis several additional purposes will be achieved: