The Toulmin Model Applied to Swift S Modest Proposal

¶ … Modest Proposal and the Toulmin Model The Toulmin Model shows that arguments generally have six distinct parts: 1) reasons or evidence, 2) qualifications, 3) a claim, 4) warrants, 5) rebuttal, and 6) backing. In conjunction with these six parts there may be said to be three others: assumptions, counter-arguments, and implications. The claim in the Toulmin Model is the position that is taken. The evidence is that which supports the claim. The warrant is the idea or principle that relates the reason to the claim -- it draws a line from the one to the other.

The backing is the support or the justification of the warrant/principle. The rebuttal is the counter to the claim, the exception or counter-argument. The qualification is the limitation of the claim, the extent of its warrant/backing. A warrant can be implied (unstated) and can be made in a variety of ways: through generalizing, by way of analogy, via the use of a sign, the notion of causality, simple authority, or principle.

In Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," Swift makes the claim that by eating the children of Ireland's poor, it will solve the problem of beggary in Ireland and make England a better place (because there will be fewer Irish). Swift's proposal, of course, is pure satire, but it works according to the Toulmin Model of argumentation.

The position that Swift takes is that the best way to solve the problem of so many beggarly children in Ireland is to let them nurse for one year till they are nice and fat and then send them to the tables of lords and ladies for eating.

The evidence or data/support that is used to support this claim is multi-fold: first, Swift acknowledges that the number of children who are poor in Ireland is excessive and that they all become thieves because there is nothing else to do and that this petty thievery is not good for the public.

Thus, Swift appeals to the needs and values of his people: they need to feel less bothered by the beggars always asking for alms and they value good eating (and so this solution kills two birds with one stone). The factual evidence, as far as he is concerned, is that his solution is viewed as serving two purposes -- it is effects the public good and solves the problem of hungry children (this serves as the backing).

The warrant that connects the claim to the reason is simple: Swift shows that there is no other solution that can work and that when one considers the public good as being the best benefit, there is no other choice: the evidence shows that the children have got to go and eating them is the best way to get rid of them before they can turn into a public menace or ruin the country still further through their mere existence.

The warrant comes by a number of ways too: first it comes from authority (Swift has it on the authority of his American friend that eating babies is a great idea); second, it comes from causality (eating babies will rid Ireland of its children and therefore solve the problem of poor children -- there won't.