The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Uses of Argument
Abstract
A central theme throughout the impressive series of philosophical books and articles Stephen Toulmin has published since 1948 is the way in which assertions and opinions concerning all sorts of topics, brought up in everyday life or in academic research, can be rationally justified. Is there one universal system of norms, by which all sorts of arguments in all sorts of fields must be judged, or must each sort of argument be judged according to its own norms? In The Uses of Argument (1958) Toulmin sets out his views on these questions for the first time. In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Toulmin's model distinguishes claims, data, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, making it useful for analyzing whether criticism is merely asserted or developed through evidence and reasoning (Toulmin, 2003).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Toulmin, 2003
In the citing paper
“The most widely used methodological tool to analyze argumentation in classroom talk is Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) (Toulmin 2003), which consists of a claim, evidence, warrants, backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Toulmin 2003
Citations
Cites
Prior, A. N. (1957) · Cited by 670
Holmes, G. M. (1936) · Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) · doi:10.1007/bf02973405 · Cited by 34
Brown, D. G. (1955) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/15.6.135 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,017
Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts
Hermans, L. M., & Thissen, W. (2008) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.03.040 · Cited by 173
van de Kerkhof, M. (2006) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5 · Cited by 173
Narayanan, V. K., & Fahey, L. (2005) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00494.x · Cited by 184
Wegerif, R., & Laat, D. (2010) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203847817 · Cited by 176
Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002 · Cited by 176
Evolving Patterns of Organizational Beliefs in the Formation of Strategy
Frankwick, G. L., Ward, J. C., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800208 · Cited by 168
Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases
Salem Benferhat, A., Didier Dubois, A., & Prade, H. M. (1993) · Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1451-1.50054-8 · Cited by 171
Emotive Language in Argumentation
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139565776 · Cited by 170
Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues.
Suthers, D. D., Weiner, A. W., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995) · ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) · Cited by 168
Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization
Shipman, F. M., III, & McCall, R. J. (1994) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191768 · Cited by 170
Revisiting the Concept of Practice: Toward an Argumentative Understanding of Practicing
Geiger, D. (2009) · Management Learning · doi:10.1177/1350507608101228 · Cited by 175
Beaufort, A. (2004) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte20044467 · Cited by 169
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088312469013 · Cited by 168
A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Araszkiewicz, M., Ashley, K. D., Atkinson, K. M., Bex, F., Borges, F., Bourcier, D., Bourgine, P., Conrad, J. G., Francesconi, E., et al. (2012) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x · Cited by 183
A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing
Connor, U. (1984) · Paper in Linguistics · doi:10.1080/08351818409389208 · Cited by 167
External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load
Bruggen, J. M. V., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2002) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00019-6 · Cited by 169
Using Writing Tasks to Elicit Adolescents’ Historical Reasoning
Monte‐Sano, C., & Paz, S. D. L. (2012) · Journal of Literacy Research · doi:10.1177/1086296x12450445 · Cited by 165
ScholOnto: an ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse
Shum, S. B., Motta, E., & Domingue, J. (2000) · International Journal on Digital Libraries · doi:10.1007/s007990000034 · Cited by 165
Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities
Francis, D. C., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690701411567 · Cited by 172
On the Logical Integrity of Children's Arguments
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C. A., Chang, J. Y., Waggoner, M. A., & Yi, H. (1997) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1502_1 · Cited by 164
Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics
Jonsen, A. R. (1991) · Metamedicine · doi:10.1007/bf00489890 · Cited by 164
Safety and Assurance Cases: Past, Present and Possible Future – an Adelard Perspective
Bloomfield, R., & Bishop, P. G. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-086-1_4 · Cited by 163
The Theory Crisis in Management Research: Solving the Right Problem
Cronin, M. A., Stouten, J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0294 · Cited by 164
Linguistic/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing
Connor, U. (1990) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte199015501 · Cited by 163
The Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse
García-Milà, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. K. (2013) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21057 · Cited by 181
Some Guidelines for the Critical Reviewing of Conceptual Papers
Louisiana State University, U., & Hirschheim, R. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00167 · Cited by 163
Argumentation and Primary Science
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2006) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5 · Cited by 161
Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey
Vassiliades, A., Bassiliades, N., & Patkos, T. (2021) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888921000011 · Cited by 183
Argumentation as an Object of Interest and as a Social and Cultural Resource
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_2 · Cited by 160
The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills?
*, T. M. (2004) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/0729436032000168469 · Cited by 159
The Uses and Complexity of Argument Structures in Expert and Student Persuasive Writing
CRAMMOND, J. G. (1998) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088398015002004 · Cited by 159
Toward an interdisciplinary theory of coordinationPreprint
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1991) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 159
Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms
Erduran, S. (2007) · Science & technology education library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3 · Cited by 156
Analytic Frameworks for Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Learning Environments
Clark, D. B., Sampson, V. D., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7 · Cited by 158
Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Tüzün, Ö. Y. (2010) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690903524779 · Cited by 176
Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese University Students
Stapleton, P. (2001) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088301018004004 · Cited by 163
Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009) · Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.5.020108 · Cited by 256
Student Argumentative Writing Knowledge and Ability at Three Grade Levels
McCann, T. M. (1989) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte198915528 · Cited by 156
Schwarz, B. B. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_4 · Cited by 170
Self-Explanation Training Improves Proof Comprehension
Hodds, M., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2013) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.45.1.0062 · Cited by 155
Grace, M. M. (2008) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690701744595 · Cited by 155
Kane, M. T. (2010) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532209349467 · Cited by 155
Collaborative Geographic Information Systems
(2006) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-845-1 · Cited by 155
Bates, B. R., Lynch, J., Bevan, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (2004) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.012 · Cited by 154
Teachers' Perceptions of Moral Dilemmas at School
Tirri, K. A. (1999) · Journal of Moral Education · doi:10.1080/030572499103296 · Cited by 154
Identifying Appropriate Support for Propositions in Online User Comments
Park, J., & Cardie, C. (2014) · Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining) · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-2105 · Cited by 165
Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations
Stephan, M. L., & Rasmussen, C. L. (2002) · The Journal of Mathematical Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0732-3123(02)00145-1 · Cited by 153
Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & de Royston, M. M. (2014) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.883979 · Cited by 153
The Origins and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation
Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651594 · Cited by 153
Introducing Argumentation About Climate Change Socioscientific Issues in a Disadvantaged School
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2018) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x · Cited by 153
‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making
Evagorou, M., Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. F. (2011) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.619211 · Cited by 167
The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance
Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2023) · TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) · doi:10.26083/tuprints-00012651 · Cited by 153
COGNITIVE MODELS OF WRITING: WRITING PROFICIENCY AS A COMPLEX INTEGRATED SKILL
Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M. E., Welsh, C., & Bivens‐Tatum, J. (2008) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02141.x · Cited by 183
Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk
Brown, M. J. (2013) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/673720 · Cited by 152
Khishfe, R. (2013) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.832004 · Cited by 164
Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science
Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6494-4 · Cited by 154
Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web
Wachsmuth, H., Potthast, M., Al‐Khatib, K., Ajjour, Y., Puschmann, J., Qu, J., Dorsch, J., Morari, V., Bevendorff, J., & Stein, B. (2017) · Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining) · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5106 · Cited by 150
Constructivism and the study of human communication
Delia, J. G. (1977) · Quarterly Journal of Speech · doi:10.1080/00335637709383368 · Cited by 150
From ideas and arguments to hyperdocuments: travelling through activity spaces
Streitz, N., Hannemann, J., & Thüring, M. (1989) · ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT) · doi:10.1145/74224.74251 · Cited by 150
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5 · Cited by 149
Report on a development project use of an issue-based information system
Yakemovic, K. C. B., & Conklin, E. J. (1990) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/99332.99347 · Cited by 149
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. (2015) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006 · Cited by 176
Effect of Promoter Architecture on the Cell-to-Cell Variability in Gene Expression
Sánchez, Á., García, H. G., Jones, D., Phillips, R., & Kondev, J. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001100 · Cited by 144
Reasoning by Analogy and the Progress of Theory
Ketokivi, M. A., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0322 · Cited by 148
Concepts and Categories: Memory, Meaning, and Metaphysics
Rips, L. J., Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0011 · Cited by 148
The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception
Tindale, C. W. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316181645 · Cited by 150
Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: on the social construction of alternative facts
Fischer, F. (2019) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2019.1602067 · Cited by 146
Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions?
Marbach‐Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8 · Cited by 164
Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2009) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20368 · Cited by 145
Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective
Prakken, H., & Giovanni Sartor, B. (2015) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.005 · Cited by 145
(1943) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.98.2556.564 · Cited by 146
Educating World Citizens: Toward Multinational Curriculum Development
Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. J. (1999) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312036002117 · Cited by 155
Delicath, J. W., & DeLuca, K. M. (2003) · Argumentation · doi:10.1023/a:1025179019397 · Cited by 144
The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4 · Cited by 116
Residents as Travel Destination Information Providers: An Online Community Perspective
Önder, İ., Woosnam, K. M., Baldwin, E. D., & Backman, S. J. (2009) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287509346856 · Cited by 157
Concept maps as hypermedia components
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1995) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1049 · Cited by 144
The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02627.x · Cited by 146
Jeong, S., & Hwang, Y. (2012) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01659.x · Cited by 143
Debating the Issues: A Tool for Augmenting Critical Thinking Skills of Marketing Students
Roy, A., & Macchiette, B. (2005) · Journal of Marketing Education · doi:10.1177/0273475305280533 · Cited by 143
Hierarchical representation of motives in goal setting.
Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., & Leone, L. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.915 · Cited by 149
Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2011) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9 · Cited by 142
Nobel Turing Challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery
Kitano, H. (2021) · npj Systems Biology and Applications · doi:10.1038/s41540-021-00189-3 · Cited by 149
The Challenges of Scientific Literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science
Klein, P. D. (2005) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690500336627 · Cited by 148
The linguistic and the contextual in applied genre analysis: The case of the company audit report
Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2009) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.001 · Cited by 142
Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation
Han, J., Kim, K. H., Rhee, W., & Cho, Y. H. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104041 · Cited by 141
Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving
Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x · Cited by 141
Dannels, D. P. (2001) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634520109379240 · Cited by 149
DECAS: a modern data-driven decision theory for big data and analytics
Elgendy, N., Elragal, A. A., & Päivärinta, T. (2021) · Journal of Decision System · doi:10.1080/12460125.2021.1894674 · Cited by 187
Teaching Knowledge: the lights that teachers live by
Buchmann, M. (1987) · Oxford Review of Education · doi:10.1080/0305498870130203 · Cited by 139
Science on the Web: Student Evaluations of Scientific Arguments
Brem, S. K., Russell, J. S., & Weems, L. (2001) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651598 · Cited by 142
Does an Argument‐Based Approach to Validity Make a Difference?
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010) · Educational Measurement Issues and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x · Cited by 140
‘Getting people on board’: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings
Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. (2011) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926511405410 · Cited by 138
How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?
Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2019) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005 · Cited by 148
A systematic review on the impacts of game-based learning on argumentation skills
Noroozi, O., Dehghanzadeh, H., & Talaee, E. (2020) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100369 · Cited by 171
College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction
Beaufort, A., & publisher Utah State University Press (2007) · University of Washington Tacoma Digital Commons (University of Washington Tacoma) · Cited by 139
Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition
Shum, S. B., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1203_2 · Cited by 139
Scripting Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Computer-Supported Learning Environments
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_12 · Cited by 140
Learning opportunities from group discussions: warrants become the objects of debate
Weber, K., Maher, C. A., Powell, A. B., & Lee, H. S. (2008) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9114-8 · Cited by 137
Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery
Lawson, A. E. (2009) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20357 · Cited by 137
Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis
Žagar, I. Ž. (2010) · Lodz Papers in Pragmatics · doi:10.2478/v10016-010-0002-1 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Toulmin, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Toulmin, Stephen E.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2003-07-07
- OpenAlex
- W1997210479
- Cited by
- 7,101
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 202 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 170 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 306 · 2019: 294 · 2018: 260 · 2017: 298 · 2016: 283 · 2015: 304 · 2014: 356 · 2013: 333 · 2012: 304
- FWCI
- 324.88
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Keywords
- Stephen Toulmin, argumentation theory, rational justification, opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
