Toulmin Model Of Argument Analysis

The editorial I chose to analyze was “Should elderly drivers face different licensing rules” by Scott Martelle from the Los Angeles Times. The Toulmin Model of Argument is essential to writing a good argumentative editorial, paper, or article. I will be using the Toulmin Model formula and breaking it down into its six parts to analyze this editorial. The Toulmin model was created by Stephen Toulmin, a former British logician and now a college professor at the University of Southern California. Toulmin, himself found trouble applying basic logic to everyday arguments. Toulmin proceeded to create an improved model of practical reasoning and the understanding of arguments. The first stage of the Toulmin model consists of three parts: claim, data,

and warrant. The claim is the point the editorial is trying to make, it can also be the conclusion of the argument and the statement the audience is given to believe. An example of a claim is “You should always wear rain boots when it’s raining because it's safer”. Claims are also broken down into three basic types which are facts, values, and policy. Facts are claims that focus on whether the statement is true or untrue. Values are claims that focus on opinions, judgements, and attitudes. Finally, claims of policy address the correct course of action that should be taken. The next stage of The Toulmin model is data. Data is just the proof or the evidence needed to support the claim. Data can come in many forms such as statics, reports, physical evidence, etc. The warrant is basically the link that connects the grounds to the claim. Warrants can also be based on ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos is the credibility of what is being said, while pathos is the emotions involved in the message, and logos is the logic in the reasoning. The second part of The Toulmin model involves three additional elements which are the Backing, Qualifier and Rebuttal. The Backing is simply additional evidence to support the warrant.

While the Qualifier is the degree of certainty with which the claim is made. Words like “most, some, none and a few” are types of qualifiers used more often than words that included everyone like “all”. It’s easier to say some people like the beach than saying all people like the beach. The Rebuttal is all exceptions to the claim. It is necessary to address all the opposing viewpoints and limitation to your current argument. The author can also strengthen their argument this way by discussing how these weakness can strengthen their argument.

In the editorial “Should elderly drivers face different licensing rules”, the claim is stated at the end of the second paragraph. The conclusion of the argument is as following, elderly drivers are tested in California every five years on their driving skills and must pass their written and vision test in order to keep their license but the rules need to be stricter in order to avoid further car incidents with elderly drivers. It is also written in the editorial that the rules can become more stricter by the simple act of a legislature or a ballot measure. The claim that is being made is a claim of policy. The claim of policy is we should have stricter

driving rules for elderly drivers. In order for the author to convince the audience that this should be the claim of policy, he or she must convince the readers why the last claim of policy doesn’t work. The author must also prove why their claim of policy is better and convince its reader to act on this policy. The author uses data in the editorial to prove why the last claim was ineffective. He start out the essay discussing the unfortunate event of how elderly driver Mary Catherine O'Neil who is 92, backed up her car and killed 45 year old, Melissa Bonney Ratcliff. This case resulted in O’Neil being charged of manslaughter and being forced to give up her license. Another example he uses is a well known case when a 100 year old man backed up his car at a school and resulted in 11 people being injured. The author is basically saying the last claim of policy did not work because he can provide multiple examples of elderly drivers getting into car incidents based on the current rules and laws. The author Martelle, assert in the conclusion that his claim of policy is better. He tells his readers that he understand that driving is a “key to independence and self-reliance” but it is also a privilege. As drivers get older and older they need to be tested more frequently. This can save many lives, which is extremely important and he even proposes to older drivers to check out websites like the California DMV and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on how elderly drivers can be safe and when it’s time to hang up the keys. Following the Toulmin Model, next up is the warrant. The warrant in this editorial that connect the claim to the grounds is that if society makes the driving rules stricter for older drivers than less driving incidents will occur. Shared values are also included in the warrant. People are most likely to accept things they share similar values and have common ground with. Shared values in this editorial can include responsibility, cooperation, safety, etc. Moving on to Backing, Martelle uses additional evidence and justification to support the claim. He uses statistics to state that, “The Automobile Assn. of America estimates that by 2030, there will be more than 70 million people age 65 and older in the country, and as many as 90% will possess driver's licenses”. He follows that statement by saying that agencies are aware of current issues occurring with older drivers and suggests that they plan a driving retirement when they reach the age that they are unable to drive.
The Qualifier in the editorial is needed to prove how sure or confident the author is of his argument. This can prove how likely, unlikely, sure or unsure the claim is by using a series of words. Qualifiers are words like many, some, few, very, etc. The author uses qualifiers in the editorial when he states “ Some nonagenarians are fine driving; some folks in their 70s shouldn't have the keys. The author understands not all older drivers are incapable but some are and should not be able to drive. He also says they’re more than 2 million older drivers, which means the risks of incidents are high. He also avoided using words like “appears, seems, and indicates”, which helps confirm that the author is very certain on the data he is using for his argument. As a reader I’m more likely to accept his argument, if the writer comes off as confident and does not use too many qualifiers in his editorial.
In every argument, it is necessary to have a rebuttal or an exception to the claim that is being made.

Writers realize that counter arguments do exist and are very likely to appear. It shows that the writer understands its audience may include those for and against the argument. Dealing with counter arguments is also a great way to build and strengthen your own argument. Martelle states this in his editorial, “We don't know definitively that age was a factor in the accident that occurred when a 100-year-old driver — 101 next week — backed his car into a South Los Angeles street, hitting 11 children and adults and seriously injuring four of them”. The counter argument is that their is no way to prove, the incident occur because of his age. One must remember that car accidents can and do occur everyday from all different age groups. The editorial never specifically states the reason the man crashed his car had anything to do with the fact that he was a older driver. So this statement is a counter-argument of his original statement that older drivers do need stricter rules because their age does affect their driving. The author even continues on by writing, “In general, older drivers are more prudent and take fewer risks than younger ones, and only a low percentage of them are involved in accidents”. Carter's driving record was spotless, according to the DMV.” This proves once again that it isn’t confirmed that the reason he crash was because of his age. The driver wasn’t

being reckless nor has he ever been in a car accident before in his life. The author is basically saying that everyone under the wheel is capable of making a mistake and getting into an accident. Martelle, then follows a series of rebuttal with this statement “But it is also undeniable that as people age, they become more vulnerable to decreases in reaction time, cognition, vision and alertness”. Although he could have overturned his original conclusion, with this statement, he strengthens his argument. Yes, one cannot wholeheartedly blame the reason on car accidents on someone being younger or older, but we do know older people senses tend to weaken as they age. Loss of vision, hearing, and motor skills can and will affect a person's ability to drive.
All in all , The Toulmin Method Of Argument can successfully be used to develop and organized one’s editorial, article or essay. Relating to the editorial, “Should elderly drivers face different licensing rules” by Scott Martelle from the Los Angeles Times, each section was able to relate to the Toulmin model. The editorial included all parts of the Toulmin model including the claim, warrant, and data. I was also able to analyze and describe the other three elements of the Toulmin model: backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. The Toulmin model continues to be used as a framework to test an argument's validity and its effectiveness depends solely on the critical thinking of the winter.