Toulmin argues that arguing be done in a very formal sense when it comes to practice. He thinks that the person arguing on behalf of an idea should explain what it is they are arguing about in full. Meaning no part of the argument should be unexplained. For example, if I said “there are many hurricanes in Florida during the fall months”, the Toulmin model would call that I explain why Hurricanes come about at this time. Further, I would have to explain why they might not pose as much of a danger as previously believed. I think that this relates to “content and form” for a very specific reason. I think this because of how Aristotle explained the difference between the two. I think that since Toulmins model draws a difference between the content of speech and the form of it. Content is the meaning of the words spoken and form is the tense in which these words are expressed. The method made this easier to understand because the method extracts the meaning from the fact or assumption being analyzed and breaks down the different ways that can be expressed or interpreted. My favorite method is this one because I like how it breaks down the simplicity of going from an assumption to the reasons what is assumed is assumed.