PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
The Uses of Argument, Brockriede and Ehninger (1960) introduced Toulmin to the field
of speech and rhetoric. “Toulmin’s analysis and terminology are important to the
rhetorician for two different but related reasons. First, they provide an appropriate
structural model by means of which rhetorical arguments may be laid out for analysis and
criticism; and, second, they suggest a system for classifying artistic proofs which
employs argument as a central and unifying construct.” Within ten years of publication,
Toulmin had been discussed or used as an analysis tool in at least eight speech textbooks,
five doctoral dissertations (including one at the University of Minnesota), and several
scholarly articles (Trent, 1968; Mills, 1968). Not everyone in the academic fields of
speech and debate enthusiastically welcomed the Toulmin argument structure. Willard
(1976), for example, eschewed the use of Toulmin-like argument diagrams because they
were “mired in considerable (and unavoidable) conceptual confusion.... [and] persuasive
arguments are too complex and dynamic to be adequately depicted diagrammatically.”
Despite criticism Toulmin has nonetheless become pervasive in speech, communication
theory and debate. Why is this?
While Aristotle might be useful in devising a legal argument, for example, the
syllogism would be less helpful in normal, everyday speech. In the modern world,
human speech is very unlike the speeches of the orators at the acropolis. Toulmin offers
a more contemporary and useful model. Most high school and college debate courses
include an introduction to Toulmin’s argument structure (Smith and Hunsaker, 1972). In
such contexts, the emphasis is on the spoken word and supporting one’s ideas with
evidence. Hence the language of Claims, Grounds, Warrants, and Backings is very
beneficial. Thus, part of Toulmin’s appeal, and hence usefulness, is that his structure is