Inquires Into Toulmin’s Argumentation Model

Formal logic takes deductive reasoning and its laws as the paradigms of argumentation and requires argumentation in other fields to conform to its standards no matter what,so the argumentation about daily life practice cannot satisfy its formal validity and will be judged as invalid argumentation.Seeing the limitations of formal logic,Toulmin adopted a new argumentation model in order to better study those daily practical arguments,namely,the analysis of the phenomenon that claims can realize self-justification through counterattacks against counter-claims.Therefore,it had a great impact on formal logic,and at the same time,the emergence of Toulmin’s argumentation model also suffered some criticism.Goodness of argumentation is the degree of good argument.Goodness theory of argumentation is not only the core issue of formal logic but also the focus of non-formal logic and argumentation theory.Firstly,from the semiotic point of view,the evaluation of goodness of argumentation in formal logic research is carried out only from semantic and morphological dimensions,excluding all pragmatic dimensions.This classical approach of evaluating the goodness of argumentation is directly related to the pursuit of universal validity of argumentation by formal logic,and deliberately erases its particularity and pragmatics,making the goodness of argumentation far away from social reality and ungrounded.The goodness theory of argumentation improves the evaluation rule of formal logic.It not only pays attention to the evaluation rules of formal logic,but also analyzes and evaluates the natural language argumentation in different situations from different research approaches.These approaches can be roughly divided into "non-formal logic scheme" "formal argumentation scheme" "historical experience research scheme" "rhetoric scheme" and "pragmatic argumentation scheme".These schemes and evaluation dimensions not only give consideration to formal logic rules and non-formal logic rules,but also extend from a single subject to multiple subjects,from the narrow level to the broad level.Toulmin’s argumentation model was put forward on the basis of criticizing formal logic,he paid more attention to the daily linguistic argumentation that was considered invalid by formal logic.By adopting new argumentation model,he realized the evaluation function of universal argumentation and made the argumentation closer to social real life.Similarly,the goodness theory of argumentation aims to develop a non-pure form of criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments in everyday language,and opposes taking validity as the sole criterion for judging all arguments,believing that this will lead to the goodness theory of argumentation being far away from social reality.Therefore,the starting point of both is the same.Therefore,we can analyze that Toulmin’s argumentation model is a good argumentation through the narrow level rules and broad level rules of the goodness theory of argumentation from the examples of daily practice,and respond to the criticism of the model,so as to better develop the application of Toulmin’s argumentation model in many fields.