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 501–600 of 1,017
A computational model of ratio decidendi
Branting, L. K. (1994) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/bf00871744 · Cited by 111
The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization
Shum, S. B. (2003) · Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1 · Cited by 114
Jeong, A. C., & Joung, S. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002 · Cited by 112
Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics
van Eemeren, F. H. (2015) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z · Cited by 109
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J. E. B., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003 · Cited by 117
Aberdein, A. (2009) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0 · Cited by 109
Tsai, C. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009 · Cited by 109
Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9 · Cited by 108
Loui, R. P., & Norman, J. (1995) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/bf00872529 · Cited by 109
How to Infer from Inconsistent Beliefs without Revising?
Salem Benferhat, A., Didier Dubois, A., & Prade, H. M. (1995) · Cited by 109
Parsimonious or Profligate: How Many and Which Discourse Structure Relations?
Hovy, E. H., & Maier, E. (1992) · doi:10.21236/ada278715 · Cited by 109
A Conceptual Analysis of Perspective Taking in Support of Socioscientific Reasoning
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2 · Cited by 122
Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction
Linder, C., Östman, L., & Wickman, P. (2007) · Cited by 108
3. Discursive Institutionalism
Schmidt, V. A. (2012) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822395362-004 · Cited by 111
Bostdorff, D. M., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/0363-8111(94)90055-8 · Cited by 108
Faily, S., & Fléchais, I. (2011) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979274 · Cited by 108
Cognitive Apprenticeship in Science through Immersion in Laboratory Practices
Charney, J., Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., Sofer, W. H., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. E. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600560985 · Cited by 116
The Place of Principles in Policy Analysis
Anderson, C. W. (1979) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1955399 · Cited by 108
Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200 · Cited by 107
Whether and How Classical Topics can be Revived Within Contemporary Argumentation Theory
Rigotti, E. (2009) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_12 · Cited by 107
Developing Historical Reading and Writing With Adolescent Readers: Effects on Student Learning
Paz, S. D. L., Felton, M. K., Monte‐Sano, C., Croninger, R. G., Jackson, C., Deogracias, J. S., & Hoffman, B. P. (2014) · Theory & Research in Social Education · doi:10.1080/00933104.2014.908754 · Cited by 107
Undemocratic Discourse: A Review of Theory and Research on Political Discourse
Gastil, J. (1992) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926592003004003 · Cited by 111
Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032 · Cited by 107
Students' understandings of logical implication
Hoyles, C., & Küchemann, D. (2002) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1023/a:1023629608614 · Cited by 107
In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports as a genre
Yeung, L. (2006) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.06.004 · Cited by 108
Blog mining-review and extensions: “From each according to his opinion”
O’Leary, D. E. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.01.016 · Cited by 106
The Learning Benefits of Being Willing and Able to Engage in Scientific Argumentation
Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C. D., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958 · Cited by 134
Fleming, D. (1996) · Argumentation and Advocacy · Cited by 105
The Nature of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation in Inquiry-oriented Laboratory Context
Yılmaz, Y. Ö., Ertepınar, H., Çakıroğlu, J., & Erduran, S. (2011) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.611835 · Cited by 105
Understanding Clicker Discussions: Student Reasoning and the Impact of Instructional Cues
Knight, J., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090 · Cited by 112
Opportunities, Language, and Time
Dimov, D. P. (2018) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0135 · Cited by 105
Using Concept Cartoons in Formative Assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation
Chin, C., & Teou, L. (2008) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690801953179 · Cited by 107
Tests Worth Teaching To: Constructing State-Mandated Tests That Emphasize Critical Thinking
Yeh, S. S. (2001) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x030009012 · Cited by 107
1, 2, 3, 4: Infusing Quantitative Literacy into Introductory Biology
Speth, E. B., Momsen, J. L., Moyerbrailean, G. A., Ebert‐May, D., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Linton, D. (2010) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033 · Cited by 105
Tool support for assurance case development
Denney, E., & Pai, G. J. (2017) · Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10515-017-0230-5 · Cited by 104
Seeing Things from a Different Angle:Discovering Diverse Perspectives about Claims
Chen, S., Khashabi, D., Yin, W., Callison-Burch, C., & Roth, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1053 · Cited by 104
Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2004) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.011 · Cited by 108
Seeking Salvation for Accountability
Dubnick, M. J. (2002) · University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) · Cited by 101
Who can you trust? Credibility assessment in online health forums
Lederman, R., Fan, H., Smith, S. P., & Chang, S. (2013) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.11.003 · Cited by 112
A Curriculum Study of Gifted-Student Learning in the Language Arts
VanTassel‐Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/001698620204600104 · Cited by 104
18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics
Hersh, R. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-29831-2 · Cited by 103
Colby‐Kelly, C., & Turner, C. E. (2007) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.1.009 · Cited by 103
Frost, K., Elder, C., & Wigglesworth, G. (2011) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532211424479 · Cited by 103
Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best out of Experts
Burgman, M. A. (2015) · Cited by 104
Retrieval of the Best Counterargument without Prior Topic Knowledge
Wachsmuth, H., Syed, S., & Stein, B. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1023 · Cited by 106
Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: An AI model
McLaren, B. (2003) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00135-8 · Cited by 102
Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands.
Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, K. D., & Dogan, N. (1982) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.557 · Cited by 103
Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions
Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20454 · Cited by 102
Framework foresight: Exploring futures the Houston way
Hines, A., & Bishop, P. C. (2013) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002 · Cited by 102
Collaborative foresight: Complementing long-horizon strategic planning
Weigand, K. A., Flanagan, T. R., Dye, K., & Jones, P. H. (2013) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.016 · Cited by 112
Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation
Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (2004) · Cited by 102
A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., & Bélanger, M. (2010) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-010-9154-1 · Cited by 102
Text retrieval in the legal world
Turtle, H. R. (1995) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/bf00877694 · Cited by 102
Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments
Voss, J. F., & Dyke, J. A. V. (2001) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651593 · Cited by 109
Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts
Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M. B., Carolan, B. V., Michaud, O., Rogers, J. G., & Sequeira, L. (2012) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.003 · Cited by 111
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16 · Cited by 101
Preferences in artificial intelligence
Pigozzi, G., Tsoukiàs, A., & Viappiani, P. (2015) · Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10472-015-9475-5 · Cited by 111
When the Fed Speaks: Arguments, Emotions, and the Microfoundations of Institutions
Harmon, D. J. (2018) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839218777475 · Cited by 101
Persuasion online or on paper: a new take on an old issue
Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E. (2003) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00041-5 · Cited by 101
Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions
McLaren, B. M. (2006) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2006.67 · Cited by 101
Barriers to online critical discourse
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3 · Cited by 107
Becker, N. M., Rasmussen, C. L., Sweeney, G., Wawro, M., Towns, M. H., & Cole, R. S. (2012) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/c2rp20085f · Cited by 100
Some Remarks on the Problem of Incommensurability in Organization Studies
Scherer, A. G., & Steinmann, H. (1999) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840699203006 · Cited by 100
What distinguishes data from models?
Leonelli, S. (2019) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-018-0246-0 · Cited by 100
Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes
Jørgensen, M. L., Anker, H. T., & Lassen, J. (2020) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111294 · Cited by 100
Kyriakidou, O., & Gore, J. (2005) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/14635770510600320 · Cited by 99
A Context‐sensitive Approach to Analysing Talk in Strategy Meetings
Clarke, I., Kwon, W., & Wodak, R. (2011) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00759.x · Cited by 99
Boukala, S. (2016) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445616634550 · Cited by 99
Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat?
Hirvela, A. (2017) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.002 · Cited by 111
The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. J. (1988) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088388005004002 · Cited by 99
Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas
Stapleton, P. (2002) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00070-x · Cited by 102
Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation
Blair, J. A. (2011) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4 · Cited by 100
Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions
Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Lawrenz, F. P. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019 · Cited by 111
Combining Campbell Standards and the Realist Evaluation Approach
van der Knaap, L. M., Leeuw, F. L., Bogaerts, S., & Nijssen, L. T. J. (2008) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214007313024 · Cited by 99
Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., Boujaoude, S. B., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1280741 · Cited by 119
The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue
Hennessy, S. (2011) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00416.x · Cited by 106
Níaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10035 · Cited by 100
Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation
García-Milà, M., & Andersen, C. (2007) · Science & technology education library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_2 · Cited by 99
Reasoning With Tools and Inscriptions
Cobb, P. (2002) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls11,2-3n_3 · Cited by 98
Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004 · Cited by 97
A systematic review of automated writing evaluation systems
Shi, H., & Aryadoust, V. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11200-7 · Cited by 111
Using Novel Tasks in Teaching Mathematics: Three Tensions Affecting the Work of the Teacher
Herbst, P. (2003) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312040001197 · Cited by 97
Discursive institutionalism: understanding policy in context
Schmidt, V. A. (2015) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781783472352.00016 · Cited by 98
Habernal, I., & Gurevych, I. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1129 · Cited by 110
Classroom mathematical practices and gesturing
Rasmussen, C. L., Stephan, M. L., & Keene, K. A. (2004) · The Journal of Mathematical Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.06.003 · Cited by 96
The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning
Shaw, V. (1996) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/135467896394564 · Cited by 99
The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.002 · Cited by 102
Ensemble interpretations of quantum mechanics. A modern perspective
Home, D., & Whitaker, M. A. B. (1992) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/0370-1573(92)90088-h · Cited by 101
Thinking about the future: A cognitive perspective
Klayman, J., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.3980120208 · Cited by 97
The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143 · Cited by 96
A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web
Schneider, J., Groza, T., & Passant, A. (2013) · Semantic Web · doi:10.3233/sw-2012-0073 · Cited by 95
Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills
Çetin, P. S. (2013) · Research in Science & Technological Education · doi:10.1080/02635143.2013.850071 · Cited by 115
Readers' knowledge and the control of inferences in reading
NOORDMAN, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1992) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969208409392 · Cited by 95
Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2016) · Research in Science & Technological Education · doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932 · Cited by 95
Rationale Management in Software Engineering: Concepts and Techniques
Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R. J., Mistrík, I., & Paech, B. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30998-7_1 · Cited by 107
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology
Lodder, A. R., & Zeleznikow, J. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511777554 · Cited by 94
Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., & van de Giesen, N. (2008) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-12-1097-2008 · Cited by 98
Proof and Argumentation in Mathematics Education Research
Stylianides, A. J., Bieda, K. N., & Morselli, F. (2016) · SensePublishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-561-6_9 · Cited by 107
Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1999) · Cited by 95
Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation
Uren, V. S., Shum, S. B., Bachler, M., & Li, G. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.09.004 · Cited by 94
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
