Week 7 · Chapter

Chapter 7 — Argument: Claims, Evidence & Warrants

English Composition Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~35–45 minutes · Objective 4 (compose in multiple rhetorical modes — narration and exposition, rhetorical analysis, and argument — using the appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, kairos) to explain how a real text persuades and the structure of argument (claim, grounds, warrant, counterargument, rebuttal) to build your own, arguing from evidence and representing opposing views fairly), Objective 3 (develop an arguable, specific thesis and organize an essay around it — unified, coherent, well-developed paragraphs built from a point through evidence to explanation, with an introduction that lands the thesis, transitions that name real relationships, and a conclusion that synthesizes) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Writing Studio all build on it.

In plain language

An argument (a claim backed by reasons and evidence, made to a reader who could disagree) is more than an opinion said loudly. This week you learn to build one on purpose. You map your point, your evidence, and the hidden link between them, which is called the warrant (the assumption that explains why your evidence counts), and you learn to state the other side at its strongest and answer it fairly. Finally, you learn to spot a logical fallacy (a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is). You practice on the running draft about phones in lecture classes and on small campus questions.

Why you already care about this

Your study group has 5 members. You have met in the campus café for 3 weeks. By 6 in the evening, the room is so loud that it is hard to hear anyone. You post in the group chat: "We should move to the library's group room." Two people reply with a thumbs-up. The third writes back one word: "Why?"

So you give a reason. "The café gets loud in the evening, and we keep missing what people say." The third friend is still not sold. "Okay, but the library room has to be booked 2 days ahead. Why does the noise matter more than the hassle?" Now you are doing real work. You have to explain why your reason should count, and you have to answer the booking problem instead of ignoring it.

That small exchange is an argument, with every part in it: a point, a reason, a link between them, an objection, and an answer. This chapter gives each part a name, so you can build them on purpose instead of by luck.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell an arguable claim from a fact, a topic, and a matter of taste;
map an argument with the Toulmin model and name its claim, grounds, warrant, and rebuttal;
write the warrant that links your evidence to your claim;
scope a claim with an honest qualifier;
state a counterargument at its strongest and answer it with a rebuttal;
name and define the common fallacies, and check a chatbot's argument for invented grounds.

Carry this sentence with you: evidence is what you show; the warrant is why it matters.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1, The Writing Process & the Rhetorical Situation, gave you the five questions: writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context. Week 2, Critical Reading: Summary & Response, taught you to tell a claim from its support. Week 3, The Paragraph, gave you the PIE move. Week 4, Thesis & Essay Structure, gave you the arguable, specific thesis and the essay map. Week 5, Narrative & Expository Writing, began the modes. Week 6, Rhetorical Analysis, gave you the four appeals.
This week: argument, the third mode: the Toulmin model, the warrant, the qualifier, the counterargument and the rebuttal, Rogerian argument, the appeals in service of a thesis, and the common fallacies.
How they connect: last week you explained how someone else's text persuades. This week you build your own case, and the appeals you learned to spot become tools you choose on purpose.
Where we're going next: Week 8, Midterm Review & Exam, pulls Weeks 1 to 7 together by the one distinction each topic asks for.

Four earlier ideas carry this chapter. From Week 2, a claim is the main point a writer asserts, and support is the reasons and evidence that make it believable. From Week 3, a body paragraph moves from a point through evidence to an explanation; the explanation is often where a warrant lives. From Week 4, a thesis must be arguable and specific, and the running draft's essay map saved its third point for the counterargument. This week you finally build that third point. From Week 6, logos is the appeal to reasoning and evidence, and ethos is the appeal to the speaker's credibility and character. Both come back here as tools.

1. Make the claim arguable: not a fact, a topic, or a taste

Think about four things a student might say about the dining hall. One states a closing time. One names a subject. One praises a menu item. Only one gives the student something to argue.

A claim is the main point you assert. In an argument, it has to be arguable: a reasonable person could disagree with it in good faith. Three kinds of sentences fail that test.

A fact can be looked up. Once you check it, the discussion is over.
A topic names a subject but takes no side.
A matter of taste is a preference, such as a favorite ice-cream flavor, that reasons and evidence cannot settle; it cannot serve as an argument's claim because no one can be shown to be wrong about it.

Worked example — four sentences about the dining hall. Each sentence is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

"The dining hall closes at eight." This is a fact. You could check the posted hours, and then there is nothing left to argue.
"Dining hall hours." This is a topic. It names a subject and says nothing a reader could dispute.
"Taco night is the best night at the dining hall." This is a matter of taste. One student loves tacos; another does not. No evidence could prove either one wrong.
"The dining hall should stay open until ten on class nights, because students with evening labs miss dinner." This is an arguable claim. A reasonable person could disagree, perhaps because of staffing costs, and the sentence gives a reason someone could test.

In words: only the fourth sentence gives a reader something to weigh, so only the fourth can start an argument.

Argument topics in this course come from a short roster of campus and community questions. The roster includes a four-day class schedule, a campus phone policy, a campus transit or parking change, the dining hall's hours, a community library's hours, and a workplace's meeting policy. They are real questions that reasonable people answer differently. You will often argue a side you do not hold. That is practice, not a confession, and it makes you a fairer reader of every argument you meet.

Misconception check — a fact or a topic treated as a claim. Students often think that a true sentence about the subject is a claim. It is tempting because the sentence is accurate, and accuracy feels like strength. But a fact gives a reader nothing to weigh, and a topic gives nothing to decide. The cure is the question from Week 4: could a reasonable person disagree? If not, keep going until your sentence takes a side.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) write one fact and one arguable claim about a place you go every week, such as a workplace, a gym, or a bus stop.
(b) write one matter of taste about food or music, then turn it into an arguable claim about a decision someone could make, such as what a café should put on its menu.

2. Map the argument: the Toulmin model

You already know the parts of an argument from the café story. Stephen Toulmin gave those parts names. Toulmin (1958), The Uses of Argument, describes a model with six parts.

The Toulmin model is a classroom model of argument from Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958) with six parts: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.

Here is each part in plain words.

The claim is your point.
The grounds are the evidence and reasons an argument points to in support of its claim; Toulmin's own word for them was data.
The warrant is the usually unstated assumption that links an argument's grounds to its claim; it explains why that evidence counts as support for that particular point.
The backing is the support a writer gives for a warrant when a reader might not accept the assumption on its own.
The qualifier scopes the claim, so it promises only what the grounds can carry.
The rebuttal answers an objection.

This course keys four of the six parts: claim, grounds, warrant, and rebuttal. Backing and qualifier are named and used, but you will not be graded on labeling them. One related move is keyed too: anticipating a counterargument. It is not one of Toulmin's parts, but it is the move that makes a rebuttal possible.

Worked example — the running draft's argument map. The running draft is illustrative and written for this course; it has no named author. Its writer is a student, and its audience is the faculty senate's curriculum committee. Here is its working thesis from Week 4:

"Our college should make lecture sections phone-free by default, with a stated exception for documented accommodations and emergencies, because the benefit falls hardest on the students who struggle most and the cost to everyone else is small."

The table maps it part by part. Read down the middle column to see the whole argument in order.

The running draft's working thesis broken into its Toulmin parts, with the counterargument and its answer
Part	The running draft	Keyed?
Claim	lecture sections should be phone-free by default	yes
Grounds	the benefit falls hardest on the students who struggle most; the cost to everyone else is small	yes
Warrant	a college should adopt a low-cost practice whose benefit lands on the students who most need it	yes
Backing (illustrative)	a college exists to teach all of its students, so a cheap rule that helps the students with the least slack serves that purpose	no
Qualifier	"by default", "lecture sections"	no
Counterargument	accessibility needs, emergencies, and adult students who manage work by phone	related move
Rebuttal	an opt-in accommodation and a stated exception, not a blanket ban	yes

In words: the claim says what to do, the grounds say what the writer can point to, the warrant says why that pointing counts, and the rebuttal shows the writer has met the strongest objection.

Look at the grounds row. The draft's body paragraph reports that research on schools that banned phones found the gain in exam results concentrated among the lowest-achieving students, while higher-achieving students were largely unaffected. In the research weeks you will find, judge, and cite that research. This week the draft argues from that reported finding and from its own reasoning about cost.

Misconception check — "a good argument states all six parts." Students often think a strong argument has to march through all six parts in order, with each one labeled. It is tempting because the model lists them that way. But the Toulmin model is a model, a simplification you can hold in one hand. Real arguments leave the warrant unstated when the reader already shares it, and they skip the backing when no one doubts the warrant. The cure is to use the map as an X-ray: it shows you the parts so you can decide which ones your reader needs to see.

3. Find the warrant: evidence alone is not an argument

Imagine a coworker at a warehouse who tells the shift lead, "Twelve people were late this month." The shift lead waits. Twelve people late, and so what? Should the start time move? Should the parking lot get more lights? Should someone be written up? The number is evidence, but it is not yet evidence for anything.

That is the job of the warrant. It is the link that says what the evidence proves.

The warrant is the usually unstated assumption that links an argument's grounds to its claim; it explains why that evidence counts as support for that particular point.

You can find a warrant with one question. Put your grounds and your claim side by side, then ask: what would a reader have to believe for these grounds to support this claim? Whatever that belief is, it is your warrant.

Worked example — the running draft's missing link. Start with the grounds alone.

The grounds, set down by themselves: the research found the gain in exam results concentrated among the lowest-achieving students. A committee member reads that and asks, "So what should we do?" The finding proves nothing in particular yet.
The claim, set beside them: lecture sections should be phone-free by default.
The question: what must the committee believe for an uneven benefit and a small cost to add up to "adopt the policy"?
The warrant, stated: "a college should adopt a low-cost practice whose benefit lands on the students who most need it."
The backing, if a member doubts the warrant (illustrative): a college exists to teach all of its students, so a cheap rule that helps the students with the least slack serves that purpose.

In words: the grounds point at an uneven benefit, the warrant says that an uneven benefit at a small cost is a reason to act, and only then does the claim follow.

Notice that a different warrant would carry the same evidence somewhere else. A committee member who believes "a college should never limit how adults use their own devices" would read the same finding and reach a different claim. That is why the warrant is where many disagreements really live. When two people share the evidence and still disagree, look for the warrant.

The warrant also shows where the explanation in your PIE paragraph comes from. In Week 3, the explanation sentence said what the evidence proves. Very often, that sentence is the warrant made visible.

Misconception check — the warrant confused with the evidence. Students often point to a fact and call it the warrant. It is tempting because both feel like "the reason." But the evidence is what you point to, and the warrant is why that pointing counts. The cure is a two-column check: write the grounds in one column and the warrant in the other. If both columns hold facts about the world, you have not written a warrant yet. A warrant usually sounds like a principle or a rule of thumb.

Misconception check — "evidence alone is an argument." Students also think that a long list of facts makes a strong case. It is tempting because research feels like proof. But a pile of facts proves nothing in particular until a warrant says what they are evidence for. The cure is to finish every evidence sentence with the question "so what does this show?" and to answer it in your own words.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) write the warrant for this illustrative argument: "The neighborhood library should open earlier on weekends, because parents with young children visit before nap time."
(b) think of a time someone gave you evidence you agreed with but a conclusion you did not, and name the warrant you rejected.

4. Scope the claim: the honest qualifier

Suppose a teammate says, "Practice before work always makes people tired." One person who feels fine is enough to break the sentence. Now suppose the teammate says, "Early practice probably leaves most of us tired by the afternoon shift." That claim is harder to break, because it promises only what the speaker can back up.

A qualifier is a word or phrase, such as "probably", "in most cases", or "by default", that sets how far a claim reaches so that it promises only what the grounds can carry.

Worked example — the running draft's two qualifiers. The working thesis carries two.

"By default" says the policy sets the normal rule, not a rule with no exceptions. It leaves room for the stated exception.
"Lecture sections" says the policy covers one kind of class. A lab, a studio, or a discussion section is outside the claim.

Remove both, and the claim becomes "Our college should make classes phone-free." That version reaches every class and every moment, and the draft's grounds cannot carry it that far. In words: the qualifiers shrink the claim to the size the evidence can hold, which makes the whole argument harder to knock down.

An honest caveat: a qualifier is not a license to hedge every sentence. "It might possibly be somewhat helpful in some cases" promises nothing at all. Qualify the claim once, where it matters, and then argue it with confidence.

Misconception check — "a qualifier makes my argument weak." Students often think a strong argument has to sound absolute. It is tempting because "always" and "never" sound bold. But an absolute claim falls to a single exception, and a reader who finds one stops trusting the rest. The cure is to ask how far your grounds really reach, and to say exactly that much.

5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it

Picture two coworkers arguing about moving a team meeting to the end of the day. One says, "The people who want a morning meeting only like to hear themselves talk." The other says, "People who want a morning meeting have a point: it sets the day's plan before anyone starts work, and an end-of-day meeting comes too late to change anything." Which speaker do you trust more? Most people trust the second one, even if they end up disagreeing with both.

That is the move this section teaches. A careful writer anticipates the objection, states it fairly, and then answers it.

A counterargument is the strongest objection a fair reader would raise against a writer's claim, stated so that the people who hold it would recognize it.
Steel-manning is stating the other side's position at its strongest, in words its own holders would accept, before answering it.
A straw man is a weakened or distorted version of an opposing view, built to be knocked down easily; arguing against it is a fallacy because the real position goes unanswered.
A concession is a sentence that grants the part of an opposing view that is right before the writer answers the rest of it.
A rebuttal is the writer's answer to a counterargument, showing why the claim still holds or how it changes to meet the objection.

Worked example — the running draft's third point. In Week 4, the essay map saved point 3 for the counterargument. Here it is, built in four steps. The straw man and the concession are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

The straw man, the move to avoid: "People who oppose the policy only want to scroll through social media during lectures." It is easy to knock down, and a fair reader on the other side would not recognize it.
The counterargument, steel-manned: some students need their phones in class. Students with accessibility needs may use a phone as an assistive tool, students may need to be reachable in an emergency, and adult students may manage work by phone. A blanket ban would shut those students out.
The concession: "The objection is right that a blanket ban would harm these students."
The rebuttal: an opt-in accommodation and a stated exception, not a blanket ban. The default changes; the students who need a phone keep one.

In words: the writer named the best objection, granted what it gets right, and showed that the claim was already built to meet it. The qualifier "by default" from Section 4 is what made that rebuttal possible.

Notice the difference between the concession and the rebuttal. The concession agrees with part of the objection. The rebuttal answers the rest. You can have a rebuttal without a concession, but a concession with no rebuttal leaves your reader wondering whether you still believe your own claim.

Answering the strongest objection does one more thing. It builds your ethos. The committee can see that the writer thought first about the students the policy might hurt, so they have a reason to trust the rest of the case.

Misconception check — "mentioning the other side weakens my argument." Students often think that raising an objection hands the reader a reason to disagree. It is tempting because it feels like arguing against yourself. But your reader already knows the objection. If you skip it, they assume you have no answer. The cure is to state the strongest objection yourself and answer it; that builds your credibility instead of spending it.

Misconception check — the straw man built instead of the steel man. Students also state the other side in its silliest form, because a weak objection is easy to beat. The cure is a recognition test: would a person who holds that view read your sentence and say, "Yes, that is what I think"? If not, rewrite it until they would.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) pick a position you do not hold on a campus question, such as a four-day class schedule, and write its strongest version in two sentences.
(b) write a straw-man version and a steel-man version of one objection to a rule at a place you work or volunteer, and say in one sentence what changed.

6. Know the common-ground alternative: Rogerian argument

Some arguments are tense from the start. A neighborhood board is split over a later laundry-room closing, and half the residents are tired of the noise. If one side opens by attacking, the other side stops listening. A different approach starts somewhere else: with what both sides already want.

Rogerian argument is an approach to argument that begins from the ground both sides share and only then states the writer's position; it is named for the psychologist Carl Rogers and was adapted for writing by Young, Becker, and Pike in 1970.

The full attribution is Richard Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike (1970), Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Their idea was that a reader who feels understood is more likely to keep reading.

Worked example — a Rogerian opening for the running draft. The opening is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

Common ground first: "Everyone on the committee wants every student in a lecture hall to be able to learn, including students who rely on a phone."
The other side's view, stated fairly: "Many students and teachers prefer an open policy, because adults should manage their own devices and because some students need a phone in class."
The writer's position, last: "A phone-free default with a stated exception can serve both goals."

In words: the reader meets a shared goal before a disputed claim, so the claim arrives as a way to reach that goal rather than as an attack.

Rogerian argument is an alternative, not a replacement. The Toulmin map still works inside it: the claim, grounds, and warrant are all there, only in a gentler order.

Misconception check — "Rogerian argument means giving up my position." Students often think that starting from common ground means agreeing with everyone. It is tempting because the approach sounds soft. But the writer still states a position and still argues for it. The cure is to remember the order: shared ground, the other view stated fairly, then your claim.

7. Put the appeals to work for your thesis

In Week 6 you used the four appeals to explain how someone else's text persuades. Now you choose them for your own case. Think of a pitch to a manager for a new shift schedule. The manager wants to hear that it works, so the reasoning has to carry it. Feelings and trust help, but they cannot carry it alone.

The same holds in academic argument. Logos leads: your reasoning and evidence carry the case. Ethos and pathos support it. Kairos still matters, because a proposal lands best when its moment has come.

Worked example — one appeal per job in the running draft. Each appeal gets one job in the essay.

Logos leads: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant form the spine of the essay. They give the committee a reason to vote yes that holds up no matter who wrote the essay.
Ethos supports: the steel-manned counterargument and the stated exception show a writer who thought about every student. That earns trust.
Pathos supports (illustrative): a short scene in the introduction, such as a student in the back row who keeps losing the thread of the lecture, helps the committee picture who the policy is for.
Kairos (illustrative): the essay is addressed to a committee that would vote on a new policy, so the proposal names that decision as the moment to act.

In words: the reasoning does the work, and the other appeals help the committee hear it.

Misconception check — "pathos is the strongest appeal, so I should lead with it." Students often think a moving story wins any argument. It is tempting because emotion is memorable. But a committee that is moved and not convinced will feel manipulated, and the story falls apart under one hard question. The cure is to build the logos first and then add a scene that serves it.

8. Spot the fallacies by definition

Some arguments look strong and are not. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is; guides differ on how many there are, so the course teaches a common core by definition.

Here is the common core. Every example is illustrative, invented for this course, and attributed to no one. The examples use three everyday campus questions: a later library closing, a free campus shuttle, and the dining hall's hours.

Nine common fallacies, each with its definition and one illustrative example on a campus question
Fallacy	What it does	Illustrative example
ad hominem	attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself	"Ignore the case for a later library closing; the person proposing it is always late to meetings."
straw man	argues against a weakened or distorted version of the opposing view	"Supporters of a free campus shuttle want the college to pay for everyone's rides everywhere."
slippery slope	claims one step will set off a chain of worse and worse results without showing each link	"If the dining hall stays open until ten, soon it will be open all night, and then no one will sleep."
false dilemma	presents only two options when others exist	"Either the library stays open until midnight or students will fail their exams."
hasty generalization	draws a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative cases	"I rode the shuttle twice and it was empty both times, so no one wants a free shuttle."
misused appeal to authority	treats someone's opinion as proof outside that person's real expertise	"A popular fitness influencer says a later library closing is a bad idea, so the college should drop it."
bandwagon	argues something is right because many people believe it or do it	"Most of my friends signed the petition for later dining hall hours, so it must be the right call."
circular reasoning	gives a reason that only restates the claim	"The free shuttle is the best option because no option is better than the free shuttle."
post hoc	assumes that because one event came after another, the first caused the second	"The dining hall changed its hours, and the next week the soccer team lost twice, so the new hours caused the losses."

Each name has a fuller definition in the key terms below. Here is one more way to remember them: most fallacies swap a real reason for something that only looks like one. An attack on a person, a crowd, or a famous name stands in for evidence. A chain of guesses stands in for a cause.

Worked example — naming a fallacy step by step. Take the false dilemma.

Read the claim: the library should stay open until midnight.
Read what is offered as support: if it does not, students will fail their exams.
Ask what the sentence assumes: that only two outcomes exist.
Test the assumption: students could study at home, in a café, or earlier in the evening, and a closing at eleven is also possible.
Name it: a false dilemma, because it offers two options when many exist.

In words: you found the hidden assumption, showed that it was false, and named the pattern.

Misconception check — a real causal chain called a slippery slope. Students often call any "if this, then that" argument a slippery slope. It is tempting because both sentences predict a result. But a slippery slope stacks guesses with no evidence for each step. A real consequence is one step that you can show. Consider this illustrative example about a free campus shuttle: "If the last shuttle leaves at nine, students whose lab ends at ten will need another way home." That is one real consequence, not a slippery slope. The cure is to check each link: can you show that this step leads to the next?

An honest limitation: naming a fallacy is the start of a reply, not the end of one. A writer may reach a sound conclusion through a weak argument. When you spot a fallacy, say what the argument needs instead, such as real evidence or a stated warrant.

9. Check the machine: invented grounds and easy straw men

Ask a chatbot to "write an argument that the library should stay open later," and you will get something that looks finished. It will be confident and organized, and it will often praise its own reasoning. Look closer, and three problems tend to show up.

Invented grounds. The chatbot may supply grounds it invented, such as a study or a statistic no one can find. A specific-looking number with a percent sign feels like evidence. If you cannot find where it came from, it is not evidence.
An easy straw man. The chatbot may state the other side in its weakest form, because a weak objection is easy to beat.
A missing warrant. The chatbot may stack reasons without ever saying why they support the claim.

Worked example — checking a chatbot's argument. Suppose a chatbot's draft includes an illustrative sentence like this one: "A recent study found that later library hours raise grades for most students." No study is named, no author, no year, and no place to look it up. Here is the check.

Search for the source. Ask where the study can be found, then look for it yourself. If you cannot find it, treat the sentence as invented.
Cut the invented grounds. Replace them with what you actually know or have observed, such as "the library's study rooms are full by eight on class nights", and only if you have seen it.
Test the objection. Apply the recognition test from Section 5. If no fair opponent would say it, rewrite it as a steel man.
Write the warrant yourself. State in your own words why your grounds count for your claim.

In words: the chatbot gave you a shape, and you supplied the evidence, the fairness, and the link.

In practice (your tools). In your word processor, paste the chatbot's argument into a new document. Then use the comment feature to give each sentence one margin tag from this week. The tags are C for the claim, G for the grounds, W for the warrant, Q for the qualifier, CA for the counterargument, and R for the rebuttal. Any G sentence you cannot trace to something you know or observed gets a second comment that says "source?" Delete or rewrite those sentences before you use anything.

Misconception check — "the chatbot's statistic is real because it is specific." Students often trust a number because it is precise and sounds official. It is tempting because real research does use numbers. But a chatbot can produce a precise figure for a study that does not exist. The cure is to treat every number and every study a chatbot supplies as unverified until you find it yourself.

10. Draft the argument essay

This week's essay asks you to build a full argument on a question from the course roster. You argue from your own reasoning and observed evidence. You do not need outside sources yet; finding, judging, and citing them is the work of the research weeks.

Worked example — a plan for the argument essay, on the running draft. This plan shows how the map from Section 2 turns into paragraphs.

The introduction ends with the working thesis, which is the claim with its qualifiers.
Body point 1 carries the first grounds, the uneven benefit, and its explanation states the warrant.
Body point 2 carries the second grounds, the small cost.
Body point 3 steel-mans the counterargument, concedes what is right, and gives the rebuttal.
The conclusion says what the reasons add up to and answers "so what?" for the committee.

In words: the thesis states the claim, the body supplies grounds and the warrant, and the third point answers the strongest objection. Every part of the Toulmin map has a home.

In practice (your tools). Before you draft, open a blank document in your word processor and type six headings: Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Qualifier, Counterargument, Rebuttal. Fill each one with a sentence or two. Then draft the essay underneath, and delete the headings once each part has a home in a paragraph.

Misconception check — "an argument essay needs research to count." Students often think an argument without sources is only an opinion. It is tempting because published arguments cite research. But an argument is a claim, grounds, and a warrant, and observed evidence counts as grounds when you describe it honestly. The cure is to name what you saw, how often, and where, and to save the research for the weeks that teach it.

Key terms

argument — A claim backed by reasons and evidence and made to a reader who could disagree; it shows not only what the writer believes but why a fair reader should accept it. (first used: 1. Make the claim arguable: not a fact, a topic, or a taste)
matter of taste — A preference, such as a favorite ice-cream flavor, that reasons and evidence cannot settle; it cannot serve as an argument's claim because no one can be shown to be wrong about it. (first used: 1. Make the claim arguable: not a fact, a topic, or a taste)
Toulmin model — A classroom model of argument from Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958) with six parts: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. (first used: 2. Map the argument: the Toulmin model)
grounds — The evidence and reasons an argument points to in support of its claim; Toulmin's own word for them was data. (first used: 2. Map the argument: the Toulmin model)
warrant — The usually unstated assumption that links an argument's grounds to its claim; it explains why that evidence counts as support for that particular point. (first used: 2. Map the argument: the Toulmin model)
backing — The support a writer gives for a warrant when a reader might not accept the assumption on its own. (first used: 2. Map the argument: the Toulmin model)
qualifier — A word or phrase, such as "probably", "in most cases", or "by default", that sets how far a claim reaches so that it promises only what the grounds can carry. (first used: 4. Scope the claim: the honest qualifier)
counterargument — The strongest objection a fair reader would raise against a writer's claim, stated so that the people who hold it would recognize it. (first used: 5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it)
steel-manning — Stating the other side's position at its strongest, in words its own holders would accept, before answering it. (first used: 5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it)
straw man — A weakened or distorted version of an opposing view, built to be knocked down easily; arguing against it is a fallacy because the real position goes unanswered. (first used: 5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it)
concession — A sentence that grants the part of an opposing view that is right before the writer answers the rest of it. (first used: 5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it)
rebuttal — The writer's answer to a counterargument, showing why the claim still holds or how it changes to meet the objection. (first used: 5. Steel-man the other side, then answer it)
Rogerian argument — An approach to argument that begins from the ground both sides share and only then states the writer's position; it is named for the psychologist Carl Rogers and was adapted for writing by Young, Becker, and Pike in 1970. (first used: 6. Know the common-ground alternative: Rogerian argument)
logical fallacy — A flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is; guides differ on how many there are, so the course teaches a common core by definition. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
ad hominem — A fallacy that attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
slippery slope — A fallacy that claims one step will set off a chain of worse and worse results without showing that each link in the chain would happen. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
false dilemma — A fallacy that presents only two options, often one extreme against another, when other options exist; it is also called an either/or fallacy. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
hasty generalization — A fallacy that draws a broad conclusion from too few cases or from cases that do not represent the whole group. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
misused appeal to authority — A fallacy that treats someone's opinion as proof on a subject outside that person's real expertise, or treats any authority's word as settling a question by itself. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
bandwagon — A fallacy that argues something is right or true because many people believe it or do it. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
circular reasoning — A fallacy in which the reason given for a claim only restates the claim in other words, so nothing outside the claim supports it. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)
post hoc — A fallacy that assumes that because one event came after another, the first event caused the second. (first used: 8. Spot the fallacies by definition)

Summary

An argument is a claim, backed by reasons and evidence, made to a reader who could disagree.
A claim is arguable only if it is not a fact, a topic, or a matter of taste.
The Toulmin model names six parts; this course keys claim, grounds, warrant, and rebuttal.
The grounds are what you point to; the warrant is why that evidence counts.
A qualifier scopes the claim to what the grounds can carry.
Steel-man the counterargument, concede what is right, and answer with a rebuttal.
Rogerian argument starts from common ground and states the claim last.
In academic argument, logos leads; ethos and pathos support.
A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning; a real one-step consequence is not a slippery slope.
Check every grounds sentence a chatbot supplies, and write the warrant yourself.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A community garden is deciding how to share its water. Label each illustrative sentence as a fact, a topic, a matter of taste, or an arguable claim. (a) "Watering schedules at the garden." (b) "The garden has one hose for its twenty plots." (c) "Tomatoes are the most rewarding thing to grow." (d) "The garden should switch to an evening watering rota, because the midday heat dries out the beds before the water soaks in."
A pharmacy technician proposes this illustrative argument to a store manager: "Every prescription should be checked aloud with the customer at the counter, because the customer can catch a wrong name or a wrong dose before leaving." Name the claim and the grounds, then write the warrant.
Name the fallacy in each illustrative sentence about a student club's budget, and say what the argument would need instead. (a) "We spent more on snacks this term, and attendance went up, so the snacks brought people in." (b) "Either we cut the trip or the club goes broke."
An apartment building is debating quiet hours that start at nine. One resident writes this illustrative objection: "People against early quiet hours only want to throw parties." Rewrite it as a steel man, then write a one-sentence rebuttal for the side that wants quiet hours at nine.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) is a topic: it names a subject and takes no side. (b) is a fact: anyone could count the hoses and the plots. (c) is a matter of taste: one gardener loves tomatoes and another loves peppers, and no evidence could prove either wrong. (d) is an arguable claim: a reasonable person could disagree, perhaps because evening watering suits fewer members' schedules, and it gives a reason the garden could test. This item catches the habit of treating a true sentence as a claim.
The claim is that every prescription should be checked aloud with the customer at the counter. The grounds are that the customer can catch a wrong name or a wrong dose before leaving. One good warrant is "a pharmacy routine should give the person who knows the facts a chance to fix an error before it causes harm." That warrant is a principle, not a fact about this store, which is how you know it is the link and not more evidence. This item catches the warrant-versus-evidence swap.
(a) is post hoc: attendance rose after the snack spending, but the sentence never shows that the snacks caused it. The argument would need evidence that links the two, such as members saying the snacks brought them. (b) is a false dilemma: it offers two options when others exist, such as a cheaper trip or a fundraiser. The argument would need to show why the other options fail.
A steel man might read: "Residents who oppose quiet hours at nine point out that many of them work late shifts and can only cook, clean, or see friends in the evening, so a nine o'clock start would cut into the only free time they have." A one-sentence rebuttal might read: "Quiet hours can start at nine on class and work nights and at eleven on weekends, which protects early sleepers without taking away every evening." The straw man was easy to beat because no resident would recognize it; the steel man names a real cost, and the rebuttal answers that cost with a qualified claim.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, the Midterm Review & Exam sorts every model from Weeks 1 to 7 by the one distinction each asks for.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com