The Toulmin Method

The effectiveness of a grand argument is supported and backed by effective ways of analyzing the intricate parts of an arguments allowing, some debaters, to dissect and argument and subject to provide their position on the matter. This is compiled in the Toulmin Method, a way of doing detailed analysis to argue effectively. An example of the use of The Toulmin Method is in the article, “Raise Wages, Not Wall” written by Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell. In this article, the argument is whether to inhibit immigration from Mexico by building a physical barrier or to raise the wages so actual American citizens are more influenced to do the jobs that immigrants tend to possess to decrease the amount of opportunities for illegal immigrants

In the article, “Raise Wages, Not Walls,” The Toulmin Method is effectively used, to an extent, to prove their point and position. The position that the authors, Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell are evidently in favor of “raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour” to a significant increase of eight dollars (Dukakis & Mitchell, 2006). The authors does a poor job of providing the claim, a position being argued for because they do not clearly state it initially. For example, the authors state that the Senate’s approach to immigration is “more realistic” than the House of Representatives’ approach, which is to build a wall (Dukakis & Mitchell, 2006). This statement can easily be mistake as the claim. The authors’ use of claim is not adequate because it is not easy to ascertain within the article, but can be found with the use of context clues. The claim is of six Toulmin Model-Parts which are the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal/reservation and qualifications. Typically the claim is followed by grounds, or supporting evidence, to support the position of an author or authors. This

A rebuttal is and anticipated objection to a claim. The authors effectively rebut themselves providing information that the possibility of wages being raises has not been spoken of and has not increased “since 1997 and is not enforced” at its preposterous level. By providing this rebuttal, it allows the authors to interject with the improbability of the construction of the wall that the House of Representatives planned to create. The implementation of a rebuttal, it allows the authors to include exceptions such as members of Congress “are trying to deport” illegal immigrants, but are ignorant that illegal immigrants occupy the minute jobs that are the base of the nation . This use of rebuttals and reservations provide readers to possess the feeling that those arguing are secure in their position by effective information to reinforce their