 Welcome back again, so in this lecture what I am going to do is that I will be presenting a model of argumentation which is due to famous British philosopher logician and is Stephen Tuleman. So far what we discussed is that we try to identify argument in a given passage and we identified that it is a inductive or deductive argument, then we evaluated the argument in a sense that if it is a deductive argument we showed that it is valid, if it is valid then we showed with examples that it is sound, when it is sound, unsound etcetera all these things. Then we in the case of inductive arguments we spoke about strength and weakness of a given inductive argument. But all the examples that we encountered has a specific kind of structure in all, an argument has a specific kind of structure in which you have premises and you have a conclusion in all. Basically in all the examples that we mentioned so far this is which are concerned the category of arguments, the layout of the argument is that it has some premises and we identified with premise indicators etcetera and all which provides reasons to support the conclusion and all, something which supports another kind of statement which is called as conclusion and all. So premises usually give some kind of support to the conclusion, so this is the one which we commonly use in logic and all, in formal logic you have some premises and you have a conclusion and it validity tells us how the premises are leading to the conclusion. But Stephen Toulmin does not seem to be happy with the formal logic especially in analyzing the arguments in day-to-day discourse. So instead of analyzing an argument in terms of just premises and conclusion, lots of things which are missing in the, missing in between these things and all Stephen Toulmin has come up with a layout of an argument. What should an effective or good argument should consist of? So these are some of the questions that he asked himself and then he has come up with a very interesting model which is widely used in philosophy community and it is also one of the important models of argumentation which is used in any theory any course on theory of argumentation. So the model has this thing the layout of an argument instead of having a simple structure like premises and a conclusion the layout of an argument according to Toulmin has the following things. So in the diagram that is there you can see that the layout of any good or effective argument should have these five features. So first it should have some kind of data and then obviously somebody will all be claiming something or other. So that claim we call it as conclusion and all the conclusion can be like you know suppose if you are arguing for a fact that you know it is spherical in nature that is a claim that you are trying to make. So that has to be supported by earlier we said that premises and all but we are analyzing the layout of an argument in greater details and all. So we need to have some kind of data and what connects data and qualifier is some kind of warrant and then warrant needs to be backed up by some kind of backup prepositions and then once you make a claim that does not mean that is the end of everything and all it has to have some kind of rebuttals and all. So there should be some qualifiers for the claim and then each and everything which you claim can also be rebuttals you can have a rebuttal and all. So we will explain what we mean by data what we mean by a qualifier warrant backing etc. in greater detail with some examples. So all these constitutes what Tullmin calls it as a layout of an argument and all. So from the diagram we can say that what connects data and qualifier is what we call it as a warrant and then the warrant needs to be backed up by some backup prepositions etc. So we will look into the details of each and every part of this argument and all. So a good or effective argument depends upon suppose if you have a good warrant or good backup etc. and all then obviously there is a good connection between data and qualifier or a claim and then if it can also be rebutted etc. and all then it is considered to be a kind of good or effective kind of argument. Instead of just analyzing the argument in terms of premises and conclusion here is a complete layout of which is possible for a given argument. So for a good and realistic argument these are the things which are required. The first thing is data, the data is a simple straight forward thing and all these are nothing but some facts or evidence used to prove some kind of argument and all. Suppose if you say it is spherical in nature or you observed that there is smoke there is a fire on some place and all, situated in some place and all then you will say that you know the evidence that there is a fire is smoke one, smoke is the one which you saw and then from that you can infer that there is a fire. So the first thing which is needed is data and then obviously you know in any argument you will be claiming something or other that is what is considered as a claim. Assume is a statement which is being argued it can also be called as a thesis statement or the central topic or central issue or the main point of your argument and all that is usually called as a conclusion. So instead of calling it in the language of premises and conclusion so what we are doing at this moment is that we are piece by piece analyzing this premises what goes on between premises and conclusion and then we are talking about data claim etc. So what connects what serves as a bridge between data and claim is the warrant. So what is a warrant? Warrant is a kind of general or hypothetical or logical statements that serve as a bridge between the claim and the data. So warrants are in general some kind of general principles and all for example if you say in terms of if you are arguing in ethical perspective and all suppose if you argue like this keeping promises is the first requirement of ethical behavior. Once you break the promises and all you will no longer be ethical and all suppose if you are asked to speak only truths and all once you stop speaking truths and all you are violating some of the things and all. So this is the first requirement of ethical behavior if you say that thing that is a warrant and general kind of principle or it gives some kind of presupposition and all which does not require any proof and all. So warrant is the one which connects data and claim. So each and every claim has some kind of qualifier and all so when what do we mean by saying that a claim has a qualifier for example if you say it is spherical in nature so then qualifier is one in which these are the statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true. So suppose if you claim something that all IITK students are bright intelligent bright etc. They crack JEE etc. So that does not mean that you know in all the people will be intelligent right and all they might take up our own exams and then they might fail and then they may be terminated also. So every claim that you are trying to make will have some kind of limitations in all if they work hard they are not distracted all these things are needs place then you can say that they might get good results in all. But this is also subjected to it has some kind of exceptions in all. So these are the qualifiers are the ones which sets limits to whatever you are claiming in all. So suppose if you say that if you claim something which is 100% true and which you want other person to accept it as it is in all then there will be obviously no growth of knowledge in all. So suppose if it is like God given kind of things in all obviously you have to take it for granted or some kind of authority tells you to accept something to be true I mean if church comes up with some kind of statement and you take it for granted to be true etc. and all then there are no qualifiers in that particular kind of thing you take it for granted you believe it or do not believe it in all. So qualifiers any good argument should have qualifiers in all, a arguer should also know the limits of his argument in all. So a good arguer also presents the limitations of his claims in all. So qualifiers are very important in the sense that these are the statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true or you will state the conditions under which it might be false also that means he is coming up with some kind of exceptions. So once you have some limitations to your claims in all you know when it works and when it does not work in all, when it does not work is a rebuttal and all. So rebuttal is a kind of some kind of counter argument or statements indicating circumstances when the argument does not hold true usually when the argument is false and argument is invalid we are not talking about that particular kind of language in all. So we are talking in a different sense here. So argument does not hold to be true enough. So in that case we are coming up with some kind of rebuttal. So apart from you have data and you have claim and you will be moving from data to claim ultimately with the help of warrants and backup statements etc and then whatever claim that you make will have some kind of limitations qualifiers will help us to know the limitations of that one and then you know when your claim is going to be true and claim is going to be false etc and then you will be stating the conditions very clearly if you are a good arguer you have to come up with the conditions under which your argument holds and condition under which argument does not hold. So apart from these things your warrants needs to be backed up by further statements in all so that is what we call it as backup statements it is not enough that you know something is true just because there is a warrant in all. So but the warrants also needs to be backed up by some other backup statements the more and more backup statements see how for your warrant I mean the effectiveness argument lies in more and more having more and more packing up statements. The statements that serve to support the warrants are usually called as backup statements so that is the argument that do not necessarily prove the main point being argued but which to prove that warrants are true. So in the diagram that we have seen here so what connects data and a claim is a warrant in all. So the arrow suggests us that warrant is the one which is serving as a bridge between data and claim. So this warrant is like most general kind of principle etc. So for example we all abide by the rules of the constitution etc or you might say that a warrant can be like a general principle that all of us should drive on the left hand side of the road and all to keep left and all the time we will be informed that we should keep left on the all the time. So these are the most general principles in all and that needs to be supported by some kind of backup statements in all. So then your warrant will have some kind of strength in all. So it is like you know in day to day discourse also for example somebody comes to you with an arrest warrant in all just for sake of simple example and for the fun we are using this thing somebody comes up with some kind of arrest warrant and then say that you are under arrest in all. Then you will immediately ask that person that police personal that show me the evidence or something like that what backs up your warrant in all where is what leads lead to this arrest warrant in all. So then he has to come up with some kind of backup kind of thing which supports the warrant then whatever is claiming is maybe since it a good warrant or good backup which is important for a warrant. If you have that particular kind of thing then it connects data can be connected to the claim in all. So anybody comes with the arrest warrant in all you will ask the backup kind of statements that means under what conditions you know you are just saying that I am under arrest etc all these questions you will be asking. So backing up is like statements that serve to support warrants that is arguments that necessarily prove the main point being argued in all it is not proving the main point of the argument but it supports the warrants in all warrants are supported by some backing up statements it has some strength in all and from that you know you can connect the data and claim. So you will be travelling from data to some kind of claim which will be making. So now a piece by piece we will analyze what is this data what is this claim etc. So far we talked about data it can be a statistical data or it can be any other data which you collected day to day discourse. Now what is the claim so claim is the most general statement of in an argument or it can be also called as an umbrella that all the other parts of the arguments fit under. So that is a central point or central issue or the main point of your argument in all is usually we called it as conclusion earlier but we are calling it in a different sense here we call it as a claim main claim of your argument it is spherical in nature or you say that all the IT students are intelligent all these things are your claims based on some kind of evidence. So it is a main point that the other is trying to come across central issue or the main thesis statement all these things comes under claims. So once you come up with the claim the central issue or the main point of the passage or the thesis statement etc. and all then those statements will have some kind of qualifiers and all some kind of thing which will set limitations to that particular kind of thing all IT students are intelligent. So or if you say that some IT students are very bright a very serious and they will attend all the classes etc. Then some most many in general usually typically birds flies etc are all examples of qualifiers suppose if you say typically birds flies in all that means you know mostly you know all birds flies in all but there are some kinds of birds which come under the category of penguins penguins are also birds but penguins does not fly in all so that is an exception. So that is the reason why we used typically all birds flies typically birds fly but penguin is also a bird but it does not fly in all. So typically is a one which is used as a qualifier for all birds flies birds flies or in the same way if you say some people are intelligent that does not mean that means that some people are not intelligent some people are honest in the sense that some people are automatically not honest it sets limits to that particular kind of statement or if you say most of the ITK faculty are well known in the world you know again most does not imply that all you know some limitation for the particular kind of thing. So many birds that I have come across are black in color many crows that I came across are black in color and I mean that you might come across a bird which might be white in color also might be a crow which is white in color. So these are considered to be the qualifiers whenever you find the phrase some most many general usually typically this list is not exhaustive and all you can come up with some kind of limitations for your claim you know a good arguer should also know when his argument works and when his argument does not hold it all. So these are those things which sets limits to whatever he is claiming if he claims like God or devil or something like that or if he claims that he is God and everything you need to accept it to be true in all and is not God given kind of truths to be completely accepted in all not 100% truths and all. So there are some exceptions for each and every thing which you claim in all and you need to state those conditions under which your claim is true and holds and claim does not hold often you will need to exclude certain cases or situations from your argument so then only it will serve as a good argument good arguer always comes up with these exceptions he will state it very clearly suppose if these exceptions are implicit in your argument then the arguer seems to be hiding something then it leads to begging of question and all. Then the immediately the whosoever is taking those arguments seriously or you are trying to persuade others etc. and all using these kinds of arguments then the listener or reader or listener will obviously ask some kind of questions and all we will talk about these conditions your argument may not work and all you might clearly say that but before that if the arguer comes up with these exceptions and all he is considered to be a good kind of arguer and the argument in general is considered to be an effective kind of argument. So such exceptions serve to restrict a claim that means whatever you are claiming is not going to be hold all the time in all and all circumstances etc that means exceptions serve to restrict a claim allowing you to avoid unfair and inaccurate kind of statements. Suppose if you say all suppose if you claim that all birds flies in all so instead of saying that particular kind of thing suppose if you ask me to believe that there are no exceptions for that particular kind of universal generalization. So instead of saying that if you can the arguer can come up and say that typically birds fly and all typically is the one which sets limit to all birds flies and all there are some categories of birds which does not fly and all like penguin is one example if you can clearly state it then it will serve as some kind of effective or good argument and all. So why are we doing all these things we are trying to understand what is considered to be an effective kind of argument and all when the arguer is said to have presented some kind of effective arguments. So now the other things which are very important is the reasons so the layout of an argument should also consist of reasons and all. So suppose if you claim something earth is spherical in nature or the cats of four legs is the one which you claim that is not the one which you usually do in all but for the sake of fun we are taking this example. So now reasons are like this that why do you believe that your claim why do you believe the claim you are making in all. So if you ask this question and all the arguer has to present some kind of reasons for that one you claim something that earth is spherical in nature then somebody might ask him why do you believe that earth is spherical in nature then he has to give some explanations or some kind of supporting statements for his claims apart from the limitations of his claim. So the reasons that you list is usually help us to outline this particular kind of argument. So for coming up with reasons two questions are could two questions will be asking that is the reason relevant to the claim that it supports or is the reason that you are trying to come up is it effective or not. So relevance is like this suppose if a reason is relevant it has direct bearing on our relationship to the topic that you are trying to discuss. Suppose if you are trying to talk about a particular things such as relationship between the we were talking about all IITK students are intelligent or bright as something else. So you give some reason some reason by saying that their astrological charts are very good effective etc that is why they are bright and intelligent that has no bearing on this particular kind of thing the reason that you have come up with astrological predictions etc of the students are so that they are very good intelligent etc Jupiter's position is too good etc if you give that particular kind of reason that that will have no bearing a relationship to the topic that you are trying to discuss that is IITK students are bright or intelligent. So now the next thing which is important here is the reasons that you try to provide in support of your claim let us say this spherical nature or all IITK students are intelligent bright etc the reasons that you provide should be effective enough that is if a reason is effective it invokes value your readers may be expected to believe in or agree with otherwise you will have value less or base less and all. So because such values are subjective they need to be stated clearly in an argument some kind of thing which you try to come up with everything has to be stated properly and all. So your reasoning has to be effective enough it has to be relevant and it has to be effective and all. So the other one which is important here is evidence and all usually you know what we said earlier was this that premises provide sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true and all we have premises and we have a conclusion and premises are the ones we set forth reasons to believe the conclusion to be true but here instead of the thing piece by piece we are analyzing it there is something which goes on lot of things goes on between premises in a conclusion that is why we are trying to come up with the layout of an argument. So evidence is like this that backs up reasons with some kind of facts your provided reasons in support of your claim and then now your reasons needs to be backed up by some kind of evidence. So what you will do you will refer to either historical facts or just matter of facts it may be do a statistical fact or it may be something which has come from some kind of evidential source such as encyclopedia or expert testimony etc. So you must do this because your readers are not likely to take your opinion as evidence and all. You have lots of things to believe and all you impose it in your argument then that will not serve our purpose and all. Lots of things I believe to be true but it may not be true for others and all. I believe that God exist is to be true and all but that does not mean that God exist actually is true. So the reader or listener want to know the other people share your opinion so evidence needs to be sufficient first it has to be credible and it has to be accurate. So what do you mean by saying that your evidence is sufficient suppose if you need to ask this particular kind of question do you have enough evidence to convince your audience or not. So this evidence has to be collected from some established statistical data or an expert testimony or at least some kind of matters of fact or encyclopedia something like that. So then only it will serve as a good kind of evidence and all. It has to have some kind of credibility that is you ask yourself this particular kind of question is your evidence believable and other attitude. Suppose if you base your evidence on some kind of religious facts or some kind of superstitions or if your evidence is based on some kind of bias all these things should not come under the category of credible kind of evidence and all. So it has to be accurate enough you need to state facts as accurate as possible does your evidence tell the truth the question that you need to ask yourself in other words or all your quotes complete and not taken out of context and all these things which you need to take into consideration then only evidence needs to be sufficient and credible and accurate. So now coming to the rebuttals and objections so the thing is that first we have some kind of data and then we are travelling towards some kind of claim we can only travel from data to claim through warrant and this warrant is backed up by some backup statements and for the backup statements you need to have provide some kind of reasons and your reason has to be effective and then reasons needs to be governed by some kind of evidence. Evidence needs to be accurate enough evidence needs to be credible sufficient all these things needs to be taken care of then there is a process of making journeys smooth journey from data to claim etc. So now it is not enough that you just claimed based on all the evidence etc and all but there are always rebuttals and objections possible to your claiming no argument is taken for granted and all if that is the case there would not have been any growth of knowledge science would not have grown suppose if you have presented something which is a God given kind of truth and all. So then there is no question of any expansion of knowledge and all so there is always some kind of limitations are there are some conditions under which it works some conditions which may not work suppose if somebody proposes some kind of law in physics or chemistry something like that and it has zone exceptions and all it is not the case that law will work all the time and all Newton's law of gravitation might work for some objects and maybe classical mechanics etc and all it may be suitable for objects which are governed by classical mechanics but if you are looking if you are moving into subatomic particles Newton's laws of physics may not hold and all. So it has these limitations and all so we need to set the limitations clearly we need to state the reasons explicitly and clear enough. So rebuttals and objections are obviously possible for all kinds of claims that we will be making in an argument but to show the fairness you should anticipate the objections and concerns that your readers might raise and respond to them in a thoughtful way that means we should be in a position to receive the criticism of others that means you know your argument is not taken forever to be true and all or eternally true or something like that if that is the case all God given kind of truths and all. So rebuttals and objections are obviously possible for all your claims that is a way science expands with criticism and the growth of knowledge you should show respect to the opposing arguments as well but you have to be explicit about why you reject them suppose somebody objects to your argument that means the main claim of your argument that look so and so conditions it may not work and all then you accept it and then you strengthen your argument further suppose somebody comes up with some kind of thing then shows some kind of flaw in this argument and all that means in your model of your diagram like in this case so data and you have data and your qualifier and rebuttal etc and all. So what you will do is some kind of rebuttal happens here once you claim something then you will again go back to the warrant part and the backing up of this part and all and then you will refix some of these things and all and you will further strengthen your claim and all. So when somebody objects to your particular kind of argument that is a rebuttal then again you will go back and you will try to strengthen your argument by means of fixing some of the problems related to the warrant or maybe backing up statements or you may take more data etc. and all under wide kind of circumstances to make your argument a little bit stronger and all. So we should be in a position to receive the arguments receive the criticisms of your reader or listener. So now let us consider some simple examples with which you know we can apply this tool means model tool means model has five important parts and all the first one is the one is the central issue or message of an argument that is the claim and then claim has to have some data to begin with data and claim and this should be a process to travel from data to claim. So you travel safely or smoothly when you have sufficient warrants or warrants are governed by some kind of backup statements etc. So here is an example we try to identify these five things claim data rebuttals qualifiers warrants and backup statements. There are some other things which you usually find in any argument let us say somebody is debating on some kind of issue and all you might find these all these features in that particular kind of argument. Suppose if somebody is arguing like this if a woman is seen walking down the street with a man whom her husband does not know it may be concluded that she is having some kind of affair with that man and all some used in some kind of sense. So suppose if the arguer is trying to make all kinds of rumors which are common to us and all. So we will be making these kinds of rumors part and parcel of our life and all somebody argues and says this particular kind of thing just because he is walking with that man and all that does not mean that she has an affair with him and all. So this argument does not seem to be a kind of effective kind of argument in a sense that there is some problem with connecting from data to claim. So in this argument the woman is seen walking down the street with a man whom her husband does not know etc. and all there are the grounds for claiming that what is that she is the arguer is trying to claim is clearly visible here it is concluded that means it is a claim only she is having some kind of affair with that particular kind of man understand fn means some kind of secret affair or something like that. So all these grounds good enough and all is the one which we need to ask ourselves he is supported by some backup statements or is there any warrant or something like that all these things are seems to be missing at least in this paragraph. So the problem with this argument is this is the grounds for the husband's claim here is unwarranted just because he walked with some kind of person who husband does not know that does not mean that she has an affair with him it might very well be the case that some coincidence might be there might be friends good friends etc and all or he may be his brother also something like that. So the husband's implicit warrant is transparently implausible and it can also be called as irration that makes this argument not an effective kind of argument had it been the case that it is been supported by some kind of backup statements and then you infer some kind of general general principle that whenever she is found with this particular man is involved in some kind of affair something like that then you are making your argument little bit stronger or effective but here there is no such kind of thing they are all implicit assumptions which arises out of emotional kind of thing or maybe some other reasons and all. So this will not serve as there is no good warrant here so that is why it is not an effective kind of argument. So let us consider another example where we try to identify what is the data what is the claim and what is considered to be a warrant etc. So for interesting examples one may refer to Stephen Toulmin's book introduction to reasoning by Stephen Toulmin there you will come across lots of examples. Because an arguer is arguing in this way you left your car in a parking space next to a meter while you went into the store for a carton of milk instead of parking at the exact spot and all he crossed the limit and all one meter away from the mark parking kind of mark and all he parked his car and all some red lines are there he crossed that one. So but instead of feeding coins into the meter you simply set your hazard lights flashing etc. So there was a line at the checkout and your Iran took you much longer than expected let us say that is considered to be W as a result by the time you got out of the store the traffic cop was already writing some kind of ticket and all that is the punishment that was given here. So you left your car in the parking space is used in some kind of American context and all so that is why such example seems to be little bit complex for us to understand but you know anyone who is an American can understand this example slightly better way and all. So forget about all these things but now we try to identify the grounds for the argument the first statement you left your car in a parking space next to the meter while you went into the store for a carton of milk etc. It will serve as grounds and all but before all these things first thing you need to identify is this thing what is the central issue of this passage or what is the main point of this argument etc. That is seems to be the conclusion of an argument but also serve as a claim enough. So the last statement as a result by the time you got out of the store the traffic cop has already writing some kind of ticket punishment was given to me in terms of fine. So that seems to be the claim in all that claim is supported by the warrant that there was a line at the checkout and your Iran took you much longer than you expected in all whenever you whenever it takes more than the time required obviously you will invite some kind of fines that serves as a warrant and this is further backed up by some kind of grounds that you left your car in a parking space next to a meter etc. So these are some of the grounds warrants and some kind of claim in this particular kind of example. So the grounds are here is like this you left your car in a meter parking space without putting money in the meter that led to cause the main problem. The warrant here can be put in a very nice way in this way anyone who leaves a car in a meter parking space without putting money in the meter can found to be guilty or offense in all it works for all the people who park their car in this particular kind of way. So anyone who violates this rule will invite some kind of fine in the same way you know anyone who drives the right hand side of the thing meets with accident etc. and all always be found guilty and all as far as possible we should always keep left them. So according to our Indian context and Indian rules and all. Now the claim here is in the previous argument is that you are liable to be found guilty of an offense that seems to be the claim. Of course you can say you know this claim can be reverted it has limitations etc. and all. So right now we are not going into the details of this one a person who invites fine may very well argue the limitations of the claim of the cop and okay. Let us consider one final example with this we will end this lecture there are several examples which are given in this book introduction to reasoning by Stephen Toulmin. So now let us consider one more example so you are an arguer is arguing in this way at Congress should ban animal research because animals are tortured in experiments that have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of cosmetics etc. Rats are for example if you test rats etc. and all and you inject them some kind of drugs etc. The well-being of an animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetic industry. So only Congress has other authority to make such a law because the corporations can simply move from state to state to avoid legal penalties. Of course this ban should not apply to the medical research a law to ban all research would go too far so the law would probably have to be carefully written to define the kinds of research intended forget about water and just read out this thing and all but what is suppose somebody argues in this way now let us try to find out what is a claim what is a data and what is a rebuttal and what is backing up his claims what constitutes as a qualifier etc. The ones which you have written in the brackets for example Congress should ban animal research that is the one which is the central point of this argument that is why it is considered as a claim. We have said by using tool means model of argumentation that every claim has qualifier and all so now we need to look for a qualifier and all in this argument so the one which is seems to be serving as a qualifier is the third paragraph that is of course this ban should not apply to medical research suppose if you torture the animals in for some reason and all then that might consider as some kind of offense and all but if it is used for medical research we want to test some kind of drug etc. and all maybe it might be permitted and all some cases it is allowed some cases it is not allowed and all it says limits to the argument that Congress should ban animal research completely but in some cases it might allow that is the medical kind of research. So then the next question comes to us is if you claim something that doesn't mean that it is eternally true and all it has to be having some kind of limitations which are said by qualifiers and then there are certain conditions under which your claim holds and there are certain conditions which doesn't hold. So they are called as rebuttals rebuttals are the one which we need to look for it seems as in the third paragraph a law to ban all research would go too far that means you know it is making doesn't make any sense to ban complete animal research and all that doesn't make any sense to us for example if you want to come up with some drug for a it's or something like that you have to test it on animals so that is to some extent it is permitted and all that is the medical research allows it to for this kind of thing to happen that seems to be a rebuttal and the other things which are there like so the law would probably probably etc will come under the category of qualifiers it sets limits to the claim and the other things which you see here is what we call it as the one other important thing is the warranted warrant is the one which connects claim and data so it appears that in the second in the first paragraph the well-being of animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetic industry and only the Congress has the authority to make such a law they all come under the category of warranted it's not just enough that you have a warrant the warrant needs to be backed up by some kind of backup statement so we need to look for statement which seems to be supporting or backing up the warrants that you have identified just now it seems that in the first paragraph the last line because the corporations can simply move from state to state to avoid legal penalties etc that seems to be supporting the warrants that we have mentioned so what is that we have discussed is this that we have come up with an important model of argumentation which is due to Stephen Tullman which has five essential things in all you need to have some kind of data I need to have some claim talks about some kind of assertion or preposition and grounds that is a backing up kind of statement which provides some kind of proof or evidence or support or you need to have a warrant to connect claim and data so usually warrant can be some kind of presupposition or it links data with the claim or it provides some kind of grounds to some particular kind of claim so your warrant needs to be supported by backup statements in support of your warrant then your warrant will be strengthened and all then with the help of which you can connect claim and data and then every claim that you make should have some kind of qualifier qualifies are the ones which sets limits to whatever you are trying to claim for and every argument should have some kind of rebuttals suppose somebody argues something that is not the end of everything and all but it will somebody objects to it you have to take these criticisms properly and then I need to strengthen your warrants backup statements etc and then you you can come out of this criticism so there are we have presented tool means model of argumentation it is widely used in the philosophy circles the philosophical arguments etc but it has also some kind of limitations and so one limitation is that it is considered to be some kind of static view of model of an argumentation it will not incorporate dynamic features of argumentation and it focuses on argument maker that means it is central centered around the argument maker rather than it is not targeting a respondent it is not based on it is not targeted on the respondent it is only centric on the one which is who is making the arguments so another important thing is that the real arguments that you come across are neat and clear and all so they are not as clear as the one which we are trying to expect but more or less nevertheless Stephen tool means model of argumentation will help us in dissecting arguments once they are made in that means you can clearly dissect part by part piece by piece and then we can say that what is a claim what is the data and then if you dissect this argument and all once the argument is let us say ineffective and all then you can fix some of the things and all maybe there is some there might be some problem with the warrant or there might be some problem with the data that you collected or there may be some problem with the claims excessive claims that you will be making or you might make some claim which is not rejectable at all so or there are certain conditions which you you are trying to come up with is not explicit there implicit etc and all all these things one can fix it and all another important thing which we need to know from this tool means model which sets limitations to the model is this that the warrants that we have used here they are unstated that means they are mostly presuppositions and all and it varies from culture to culture etc and all they are purely subjective and then because of this fact that it is subjective in nature different people might interpret this warrants in a different way and all so that leads to some kind of problem because warrants are the one which we said is the important bridge between claims and data if the warrants are some kind of presuppositions and subjective something like that different people might interpret in a different way and then you can take the argument in a different way and all so that might be is one of the limitations of tool means model of argument but nevertheless this is a very important and widely used model which with which you can analyze the arguments piece by piece and all instead of just saying that premises and conclusion with which you might miss lot of information all with the help of tool means model you can analyze or the argumentation argument in a better way.