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 801–900 of 1,017
Using Argument Mining to Assess the Argumentation Quality of Essays
Wachsmuth, H., Al‐Khatib, K., & Stein, B. (2016) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 70
The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
Jonassen, D. H., Lee, C. B., Yang, C.-C., & Laffey, J. M. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819.017 · Cited by 72
Penney, K., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Clark, G. (2003) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1080/14926150309556580 · Cited by 70
Mielby, H., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2013) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9430-1 · Cited by 70
Design Research: An Analysis and Critique
WATSON, J. M., & Fitzallen, N. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203448946-29 · Cited by 71
Mathematicians’ perspectives on the teaching and learning of proof
Alcock, L. (2010) · Issues in mathematics education · doi:10.1090/cbmath/016/03 · Cited by 70
The structure of hypertext activity
Rosenberg, J. (1996) · ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT) · doi:10.1145/234828.234831 · Cited by 70
Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing
Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Infante, D. A. (1985) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634528509378581 · Cited by 70
WebMap: Concept Mapping on the Web
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1995) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3592626.3592639 · Cited by 69
Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal
Hitchcock, D. L. (2017) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30 · Cited by 69
Social Aspects of Argumentation
Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007) · Science & technology education library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_6 · Cited by 69
Proverbs and practical reasoning: A study in socio‐logic
Goodwin, P. D., & Wenzel, J. W. (1979) · Quarterly Journal of Speech · doi:10.1080/00335637909383480 · Cited by 69
Fostering Argumentation While Solving Engineering Ethics Problems
Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00032.x · Cited by 76
A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007) · Research in Science & Technological Education · doi:10.1080/02635140701535000 · Cited by 69
Reasoning during joint decision-making by preschool peers
Köymen, B., Rosenbaum, L., & Tomasello, M. (2014) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.09.001 · Cited by 70
The Importance of Embedding Argument Within Science Classrooms
Cavagnetto, A. R., & Hand, B. M. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_3 · Cited by 69
Argumentation Mapping in Collaborative Spatial Decision Making
Rinner, C. (2006) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-845-1.ch005 · Cited by 69
A Survey of Paraconsistent Semantics for Logic Programs
Damásio, C. V., & Pereira, L. M. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1739-7_8 · Cited by 69
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3774 · Cited by 69
Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science
Brožek, J., Koerner, E. F. K., & Brožek, J. (1979) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421810 · Cited by 68
Epistemic Emotions and Epistemic Cognition Predict Critical Thinking About Socio-Scientific Issues
Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., Denton, C. A., & Losenno, K. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.669908 · Cited by 94
Meat in context. On the relation between perceptions and contexts
Korzen-Bohr, S., & Lassen, J. (2009) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.011 · Cited by 68
Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. J. (2007) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9019-z · Cited by 68
DETERMINING THE QUALITY OF COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A SELF-EVALUATION PROCEDURE
Baartman, L. K. J., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2007) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.07.004 · Cited by 75
Burden of proof in legal argumentation
Farley, A. M., & Freeman, K. (1995) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/222092.222227 · Cited by 68
A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2013) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888913000325 · Cited by 68
Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2012) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.697209 · Cited by 68
A Framework for Analyzing Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse
Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530553 · Cited by 70
The evolution of policy arguments in teachers' negotiations
Putnam, L. L., Wilson, S. R., & Turner, D. B. (1990) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/bf00175419 · Cited by 67
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2014) · Argumentation: an international journal on reasoning · doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2
The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-007-9022-6 · Cited by 67
High School English Language Arts Teachers’ Argumentative Epistemologies for Teaching Writing
Newell, G. E., VanDerHeide, J., & Olsen, A. W. (2014) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte201426159 · Cited by 67
Unit Segmentation of Argumentative Texts
Ajjour, Y., Chen, W.-F., Kiesel, J., Wachsmuth, H., & Stein, B. (2017) · Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining) · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5115 · Cited by 67
The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education
el Majidi, A., Janssen, D., & de Graaff, R. (2021) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102576 · Cited by 102
Truth and Post-Truth in Public Policy
Fischer, F. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108854344 · Cited by 71
Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress
Rasmussen, C. L., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2014) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9583-x · Cited by 67
Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times
Pellegrino, J. W. (2012) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21032 · Cited by 67
Test architecture, test retrofit
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2008) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532208097339 · Cited by 67
HOBAN, G. F., & Nielsen, W. (2014) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.04.007 · Cited by 67
Francisco, J. M. (2012) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9437-3 · Cited by 78
Do Adults Change their Minds after Reading Persuasive Text?
Chambliss, M. J., & Garner, R. (1996) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088396013003001 · Cited by 67
Organizational decision-making, discourse, and power: integrating across contexts and scales
Kwon, W., Clarke, I., & Wodak, R. (2009) · Discourse & Communication · doi:10.1177/1750481309337208 · Cited by 73
Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion
van Zee, E. M. H. (2000) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/095006900289912 · Cited by 67
Editor's Comments: Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing
Ragins, B. R. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0165 · Cited by 67
Social Media and Political Campaigning
Jensen, M. J. (2016) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161216673196 · Cited by 67
Hage, J. C. (2005) · DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3552-7 · Cited by 67
Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation
McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2001) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45548-5_57 · Cited by 67
A speech-act-based negotiation protocol
Chang, M. K., & WOO, C. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/185462.185477 · Cited by 67
Facing human suffering: psychology and psychotherapy as moral engagement
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1884 · Cited by 67
The function of negation in argumentation
Apothéloz, D., Brandt, P.-Y., & Quiroz, G. (1993) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90068-z · Cited by 66
Narrative rationality and the logic of scientific discourse
Fisher, W. R. (1994) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/bf00710701 · Cited by 66
Fostering scientific reasoning in education – meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies
Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089 · Cited by 87
Analytics, bias, and evidence: the quest for rational decision making
Power, D., Cyphert, D., & Roth, R. M. (2019) · Journal of Decision System · doi:10.1080/12460125.2019.1623534 · Cited by 66
Argumentation in Legal Reasoning
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Prakken, H., & Giovanni Sartor, B. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_18 · Cited by 66
Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (2000) · Informal Logic · doi:10.22329/il.v20i2.2262 · Cited by 66
AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes
Prakken, H. (2005) · Argumentation · doi:10.1007/s10503-005-4418-7 · Cited by 66
Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations
Eryilmaz, E., van der Pol, J., Ryan, T., Clark, P. M., & Mary, J. (2013) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y · Cited by 69
Msimanga, A., & Lelliott, A. (2013) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.851427 · Cited by 81
Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation
Cartwright, D., & Atkinson, K. M. (2009) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2009.104 · Cited by 66
Nissan, E. (2015) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-015-0596-5 · Cited by 66
Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street?
Kirschner, P. A. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.011 · Cited by 66
The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices
Yılmaz, Y. Ö., Çakıroğlu, J., Ertepınar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807 · Cited by 66
Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China
Cumming, A. H., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., Xu, C., et al. (2017) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.001 · Cited by 66
Security-Informed Safety: If It’s Not Secure, It’s Not Safe
Bloomfield, R., Netkachova, K., & Stroud, R. J. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40894-6_2 · Cited by 66
Constrained Argumentation Frameworks
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., & Marquis, P. (2006) · HAL · Cited by 66
Policy as Argument—A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems
Mitroff, I. I., Mason, R. O., & Barabba, V. P. (1982) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.28.12.1391 · Cited by 66
The truth is out there: the search for emancipatory principles in information systems design
Wilson, F. A. (1997) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593849710178207 · Cited by 66
Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues
Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., & Williams, M. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.015 · Cited by 65
Whose discourse? Dialogic Pedagogy for a post-truth world
Alexander, R. J. (2019) · Dialogic Pedagogy A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education · doi:10.5195/dpj.2019.268 · Cited by 79
Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field
Gürkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M., & Zollo, G. (2010) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.06.011 · Cited by 65
Introducing High School Biology Students to Argumentation About Socioscientific Issues
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2013) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1080/14926156.2013.845322 · Cited by 71
Gordon, T. F. (1993) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/158976.158978 · Cited by 65
Hisschemoller, M., Bode, R., & van de Kerkhof, M. (2006) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.12.005 · Cited by 65
Supporting Fifth-Grade ELLs’ Argumentative Writing Development
O’Hallaron, C. L. (2014) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088314536524 · Cited by 65
Argument Mining: A Machine Learning Perspective
Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_10 · Cited by 71
Investigating the impact of automated feedback on students’ scientific argumentation
Zhu, M., Lee, H., Wang, T., Liu, O. L., Belur, V. K., & Pallant, A. (2017) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1347303 · Cited by 69
Parsimonious and Profligate Approaches to the Question of Discourse Structure Relations.
Hovy, E. H. (1990) · Cited by 65
Hopper, R. (1981) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00569.x · Cited by 65
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00030260 · Cited by 67
Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Connectives
BARTON, E. L. (1995) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088395012002003 · Cited by 66
Science in Writing: Learning Scientific Argument in Principle and Practice
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Bagley, E. (2013) · E-Learning and Digital Media · doi:10.2304/elea.2013.10.4.420 · Cited by 74
A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing
Fan, C., & Chen, G. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685 · Cited by 75
Gough, D. (2021) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x20985072 · Cited by 70
From Dialogue to Two-Sided Argument: Scaffolding Adolescents' Persuasive Writing.
Felton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004) · Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · Cited by 64
Teaching Argument for Critical Thinking and Writing: An Introduction.
Hillocks, G. (2010) · The English Journal · Cited by 64
Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities
Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2010) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9280-3 · Cited by 64
Lowe, N. J. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511482281.003 · Cited by 66
Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1997) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1023/a:1008242417011 · Cited by 64
An Integrated View on Rules and Principles
Bart Verheij, A., Hage, J. C., & van den Herik, H. J. (1998) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1023/a:1008247812801 · Cited by 64
On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments
Willard, C. A. (1976) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637757609375942 · Cited by 64
Going to Ground: Argument in Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian Encounter Groups
Maoz, I., & Ellis, D. G. (2001) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3404_01 · Cited by 63
North—South Relations and the Ecological Debt: Asserting a Counter-Hegemonic Discourse
Rice, J. C. (2009) · Critical Sociology · doi:10.1177/0896920508099193 · Cited by 63
Necessary Conditions in a Natural Language
Sæbø, K. J. (2001) · Akademie Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783050080116.427 · Cited by 63
Analyzing Students’ Learning in Classroom Discussions about Socioscientific Issues
Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2013) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21065 · Cited by 63
Contextualizing Toulmin's Model in the Writing Classroom
Lunsford, K. J. (2002) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/074108830201900105 · Cited by 63
Hewson, M. G., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2010) · Cultural Studies of Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9303-5 · Cited by 71
Test fairness and Toulmin’s argument structure
Kunnan, A. J. (2010) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532209349468 · Cited by 70
A Journey in Mathematics Education Research
Yackel, E., Gravemeijer, K. K., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9729-3 · Cited by 69
Argumentation Quality Assessment: Theory vs. Practice
Wachsmuth, H., Naderi, N., Habernal, I., Hou, Y., Hirst, G., Gurevych, I., & Stein, B. (2017) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-2039 · Cited by 63
“You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology
Carrion, M. L. (2017) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662517728024 · Cited by 71
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
