Hi guys,

Not so much a debate as a thread that can help me. I am currently following a course called: "Theory and Argumentation in Practice", which basically adds down to the Toulmin Model. We have now been told to write a paper (3-4 pgs. long) that identify the six segments (warrant, backing, grounds, rebuttal, claim and qualifier) of the model, but I have encountered problems in identifying them because it seems like I overthink it. We unfortunately cannot choose our own text to analyze, which makes the assignment hard even though one understands the segments of the model. I'll not be asking you to do my homework for me, but I would be grateful if you could look it over and tell me whats right and whats wrong because you guys seem like you know the model and use it frequently. The op-ed editorial that we have had to analyze and identify segments within is called: "Takers, Makers, Fakers" and the article can be found by clicking this link.

I've argued that I the sentence: "Their [the republicans] proposals for a makeover all involve changing the sales pitch rather than the product" is the central claim, because this is what he establishes grounds and evidence for this in the next couple of paragraphs. But at the same time, he also states: "The G.O.P. is more committed than ever to policies that take from most Americans and give to a wealthy handful", which also can be argued as a central claim because he also provides grounds and evidence for this claim and this is what confuses me. It seems like he have two central claims, but that cannot be right because it doesn't fit into Toulmin's model of analysis. Which claim do you assess is the central one? I've gone with the first one and made this model, which should provide an overview of the editorial in terms of identifying the different segments. Do you guys see any problems with it? I would really appreciate your take on it.