Which is the most effective rebuttal to the counterclaim claim sugary drinks?

The Toulmin Model is a tool for analyzing and constructing arguments.  It was created by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin and consists of the following six parts:

Claim

The argument being made, a statement that you want the audience to believe, accept, or act upon.

Grounds

The evidence that supports your claim.

Warrant:

The logic or assumptions that connect your evidence to the claim.  A statement of 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.   

Warrant Based on Analogy:  What is true of one situation is likely true of another, so long as they share key characteristics.

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.

Warrant Based on Causality:  One thing causes another.  For example, eating too much sugar is the cause of numerous health conditions.

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.

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.

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.

Backing

Support for the warrant.  It might take the form of a well-reasoned argument (or sub-argument) that directly strengthens the warrant.  So for example, let’s say your argument depends on a warrant of causality.  To strengthen your warrant, you might give additional evidence that shows that the causal relationship is not really just a simple correlation.

Rebuttal 

Counterarguments to your claim.  Situations where your claim does not hold true.  This may also include your response to the counterargument.

Qualifier 

The degree of certainty in your argument.  Your argument may state that something is true 100 percent of the time, most of the time, or just some of the time.  Words used to moderate the strength of your argument include always, sometimes, usually, likely, loosely, etc.

Your claim may also be qualified based on your analysis of the opposing arguments.

Example of the Toulmin Model Applied to an Argument

Let’s break down the following argument:

Schools should ban soda from their campuses to protect student health.

Claim:  Schools should ban soda from their campuses.

Grounds:  Banning soda would protect student health.

Warrant 1:  Poor diet leads to health problems in adolescents.

Warrant 2:  Schools have a responsibility to protect student health.

Backing for Warrant 1:  Studies show a high correlation between sugary drinks and obesity rates.

Backing for Warrant 2:  Schools try to provide for the well-being of students in many other ways, such as campus security and counseling for behavioral and mental health.

Rebuttal:  Banning soda from school campuses won’t prevent students from drinking it at home.

Qualifier:  Even though students would still have access to soda before and after school, banning soda from school campuses would reduce their overall consumption, which is an important contribution toward protecting their health and well-being.

Link:  Argumentative Essay Using Toulmin Strategies

Check out the video for a quick review.

Though argumentative analysis can never be reduced entirely to a formula, the Toulmin model, along with other models of persuasion, can increase your understanding of how arguments work (and don’t work).