Second, additional Claims within a group’s episodes can be accounted for by defining the
Alternate Claim and Modified Claim.
An Alternate Claim follows a Claim or a Modified Claim and presents a contradictory
or alternate idea to the initial claim. Either an explicit Challenge precedes an
Alternate Claim, or a challenge is implicit within the Alternate Claim. Alternate
Claims are sometimes stated as a question. Other verbal cues include “Perhaps we
should consider..,” “On the other hand..,” “I think it’s...”
A Modified Claim follows a Claim or an Alternate Claim. A Modified Claim offers
an additional, non-contradictory idea(s) to the initial claim, and serves to clarify,
extend or elaborate upon the initial claim. A Modified Claim is usually stated in a
non-confrontational manner compared to an Alternate Claim.
All groups contain at least one Alternate Claim and one Modified Claim somewhere in their
analyzed episodes. The claim-making role shifts among the students. This also supports the
claim of co-construction of an argument.
Chapter Four explored the similarities in the argument co-construction between these 14
problem-solving groups. The emphasis was on the use of the Modified Claims and Alternate
Claims, the role of requests, as well as creative controversy and conflict avoidance. Since the
Toulmin structure includes Grounds, Warrants, and Backings, I also examined how groups use
these types of statements. The general claim in this chapter is: Claim 3. There are similarities in
the argument co-construction patterns between the fourteen groups. Three subsequent modified
claims support and clarify this initial claim.
Claim 3a. The groups’ argument co-constructions usually begin with a Claim. Most of
the patterns (14 of 16 patterns, 12 of the 14 groups) begin with a claim. This is different from a
strict Toulmin argument pattern where the claim is the end result of the argument construction.