Akademsko_info za article

Warrant: this links the main claim with the support (if you have this warrant); or
make the support data to be unsuitable in favour of the claim (if you don't hold them).

For your analysis, sort out your support first.

Once you have that, try to determine if there is a "universal" warrant that will enable you to link all pieces of support with your main claim (this may or may not be possible, as it depends on exactly what support you consider to be important enough to write about). It may be that each piece of support requires a different warrant.


Sport hunting: More support in favour:
1. In England, for example, people who hunt are involved first-hand with the continuance of their cultural heritage, with its own customs and important traditions, handed down from generation to generation.
2. The philosophical point that Man is a special case among animals, because of our intelligence - this gives us rights which other animals don't have.
3. The Christian point of view that we have dominion over animals.


How many pieces of support are necessary?
Try to include at least four. Use open questions to find support. Once you have your support and warrants sorted out, then think about the last three parts of Toulmin's Argument Theory, and include them. Rebut, by dismissing with reason the support you provide, or attacking the warrant(s).

Remember, rebuttal is not just saying "but I disagree with that", but rather involves logical and hopefully concrete reasoning.


Order
As always, think about the order you present your argument. You can start with what seems the most important support, and work down to the least important, or vice versa. You can present all your support for one point of view, then all the arguments against those pieces of support. You can deal with both aspects of one piece of support at a time (first support positive, first support negative; second support positive, second support negative etc)