{Claim as title — an assertion, not a topic label}

Type: structured-claim · Status: seedling

{Opening paragraph — claim stated as a full sentence with context. Why does this matter?}

Evidence

{Observations, facts, references. Checkable.} {Toulmin: grounds}

Reasoning

{The principle connecting evidence to claim. Why does this evidence imply this claim?} {Toulmin: warrant + backing}

Caveats

  • {Scope limits — when does this not apply?}
  • {Assumptions that must hold}
  • {Counterarguments and responses}

When not to use structured-claim

The Toulmin structure works for contested empirical claims where evidence needs to be separated from the reasoning that connects it to the claim. It doesn't fit every argument:

  • Definitional/classification claims ("X is a case of Y") — the argument is just: here's the definition, here's the thing, it fits. Forcing that into Evidence/Reasoning creates artificial separation. Use a plain note instead.
  • Claims where evidence and reasoning are inseparable — when each observation carries its own warrant, splitting them apart makes the argument harder to follow, not easier.

Relevant Notes:

Topics: