Correlation between “Data” and “Warrant” as Logical Concepts: Issues in the Descriptive Contents of Japanese Language Textbooks in Elementary and Junior High Schools and Divergences from the Toulmin Model

<p> The distinction between “data” and “warrant,” frequently mentioned in logic education in Japan, remains unclear in many cases, such as the explanations in Japanese language textbooks in elementary and junior high schools and the classifications in the Japanese government's curriculum guidelines (Courses of Study). In fact, across the history of practice and research, scholars have rarely explained the distinction between the two concepts in a clear and understandable manner, leaving them ambiguous at present. In light of this scenario, the primary objective of this paper is to examine the warrants for the difficulty in understanding and firmly establishing the concepts of data and warrant through a description of the Courses of Study and a content review of elementary and junior high school Japanese language textbooks. The second objective is to examine the meaning of the three elements of the Toulmin Model that are not frequently addressed in Japan, and to review the validity of their adoption on the basis of their differences from the canonical Toulmin Model, which is typically used as a basis for considering the two concepts, data and warrant. </p> <p> A review of the Courses of Study reveals that while “warrant” is the concept addressed in elementary schools, only “data” is discussed in junior high schools; yet the relationship between the two concepts is left unexplained. Moreover, it is unclear how the two concepts can be differentiated to explain their properties without confusion. However, an examination of Japanese elementary and junior high school language textbooks reveals that “data,” a concept that does not appear in elementary schools, is used in junior high schools with only a vague explanation as to what differentiates it from “facts,” and a logical inconsistency regarding why subjective personal ideas would be considered “data.” After pointing out these issues, this study discusses the differences with the Toulmin Model, which is often used as a basis for logic education in Japan and presents the following conclusions:</p> <p>  1. In Japan, only the three-point set of data, warrant, and claim is used, which may be partially due to the ambiguity emerging from the lack of distinction between the concepts of “argument/claim” and the act of “explanation.” Accordingly, the importance of the three elements intentionally included by Toulmin, “backing,” “qualifier,” and “rebuttal,” is no longer taken into account in Japan.</p> <p>  2. When considering the essence of the act of “argument/claim,” in light of the meaning of why such an act is necessary, one recognizes that an underlying sense of uncertainty and ambiguity is required: a claim is over something that has not been previously determined. By contrast, a series of propositions that are certain and well-known to everyone should be categorized as an act of “explanation.” </p> <p>  3. Therefore, Japanese logic education must reexamine the essential difference between the acts of “argument/claim” and “explanation,” and use the results of this inquiry to redefine the concepts of “data” and “warrant.” At the same time, how to address ambiguities in the process of making an “argument/claim” should be fundamentally reconsidered.</p>