Walk through the Toulmin scheme on a descriptive example: "Harry is a British citizen."

Data "Harry was born in Bermuda" supports the claim "Harry is a British citizen" via the warrant "anyone born in Bermuda gets British citizenship," backed by "British law says so."

A descriptive argument is about what is the case (truth). Reconstructing the dialogue:

• Claim (K): "Harry is a British citizen" — an empirical-descriptive claim about a fact in the world.
• Challenge: "What do you base that on?" →
• Data (D): "Harry was born in Bermuda."
• Challenge: "How do you get from that fact to your claim?" →
• Warrant (SR): "Whoever is born in Bermuda receives British citizenship" — an if-then rule.
• Challenge: "Why should that rule hold?" →
• Backing (B): "British law establishes this."

Tip: In a descriptive argument the warrant and claim are about facts. Contrast this with a normative argument, where both the warrant and the claim must themselves be normative ("ought" statements) — you can't reach an "ought" claim through a purely factual warrant.