, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 373–391 | Cite as

Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model

  • D. Hitchcock


Some solo verbal reasoning serves the function of arriving at a correct answer to a question from information at the reasoner’s disposal. Such reasoning is good if and only if its grounds are justified and adequate, its warrant is justified, and the reasoner is justified in assuming that no defeaters apply. I distinguish seven sources of justified grounds and state the conditions under which each source is trustworthy. Adequate grounds include all good relevant information practically obtainable by the reasoner. The claim must follow from the grounds in accordance with a justified general warrant. If this warrant is not universal, the reasoner must be justified in assuming that no exception-making circumstances hold in the particular case to which it is applied.


adequacy good reasoning justified conclusion justified premiss reasoning Stephen E. Toulmin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blair Anthony, J. 1999Presumptive Reasoning/Argument: An Overlooked ClassProtosociology134660Google Scholar
  2. Blair Anthony, J. 2001Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and DevelopmentArgumentation15365379Google Scholar
  3. Ennis, Robert H. 1962A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research in the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking AbilityHarvard Educational Review3181111Google Scholar
  4. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 1994Two Empirical Approaches to the Study of ReasoningInformal Logic16121Google Scholar
  5. Grennan, Wayne 1997Informal Logic: Issues and TechniquesMcGill-Queen’s University PressMontreal and KingstonGoogle Scholar
  6. Hastings, Arthur C. 1963A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in ArgumentationNorthwestern UniversityEvanston, IllPh.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
  7. Hitchcock, David 1985‘Enthymematic Arguments’Informal Logic78397Google Scholar
  8. Hitchcock, David 2002‘Sampling Scholarly Arguments: a Test of a Theory of Good Inference’ (plus ‘Appendix’)Hansen Hans, V.Tindale Christopher, W.Anthony, Blair J.Johnson Ralph, H.Pinto Robert, C. eds. Argumentation and Its ApplicationsOntario Society for the Study of ArgumentationWindsor, ON, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  9. Hitchcock, David 2003Toulmin’s warrantsEemeren Frans, H.Anthony, Blair J.Willard Charles, A.Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca eds. Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argument. Argumentation Library Volume 8Kluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht / Boston / London6982Google Scholar
  10. Jenicek, Milos, Hitchcock, David 2005Evidence-Based Practice: Logic and Critical Thinking in MedicineAMA PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Klayman, J. 1995Varieties of confirmation biasBusemeyer, J.Hastie, R.Medin, D.L. eds. Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective (Psychology of Learning and Motivation 32)Academic PressNew York365418Google Scholar
  12. Kosso, Peter 1992Reading the Book of Nature: An Introduction to the Philosophy of ScienceCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosso, Peter 2001Knowing the Past: Philosophical Issues of History and ArcheologyHumanity BooksAmherst, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1979Eyewitness TestimonyHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Loftus, Elizabeth F., Doyle, James M. 1992Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and CriminalMichieCharlottesville, VAGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris, Stephen P.: 1979, The Dependability of Observation Statements, Rational Thinking Reports Number 8, Bureau of Educational Research, Urbana, IL, ERIC document 183590Google Scholar
  17. Norris, Stephen P. 1984Defining Observational CompetenceScience Education68129142Google Scholar
  18. Norris, Stephen P. eds. 1992The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives on an Educational IdealTeachers College PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Norris, Stephen P., King, Ruth 1984‘Observation Ability: Determining and Extending Its Presence’Informal Logic6.339Google Scholar
  20. Pinto, Robert C. 1999Argument Schemes and the Evaluation of Presumptive Reasoning: Some Reflections on Blair’s AccountProtosociology136169Google Scholar
  21. Pollock, John L. 1970The Structure of Epistemic JustificationAmerican Philosophical Quarterly monograph series46278Google Scholar
  22. Pollock, John L. 1995Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a PersonMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Schacter, Daniel L. eds. 1995Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the PastHarvard University PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  24. Schacter, Daniel L. 2001The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and RemembersHoughton MifflinBostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Shapere, Dudley 1982The Concept of Observation in Science and PhilosophyPhilosophy of Science49485525Google Scholar
  26. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston 1958The Uses of ArgumentCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston 2003The Uses of Argument, 2nd editionCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston 1978An Introduction to ReasoningMacmillanNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Toulmin, Stephen Edelston 1984An Introduction to Reasoning2MacmillanNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Verheij, Bart: 2002, ‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme’, in Hansen Hans V, Tindale Christopher W., Blair J. Anthony, Johnson Ralph H. and Pinto Robert C., (eds.), Argumentation and Its Applications, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  31. Verheij, Bart: 2005, ‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme’, Argumentation this volumeGoogle Scholar
  32. Walton, Douglas N. 1996Argument Schemes for Presumptive ReasoningLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMadison, WiscGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hitchcock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations