Kim and Roth (this issue) purport to draw on the social-psychological theory of L. S. Vygotsky in order to investigate social relations in children's argumentation in science topics. The authors argue that the argumentation framework offered by Stephen Toulmin is limited in addressing social relations. The authors thus criticize Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) as an analytical tool and propose to investigate the genesis of evidence-related practices (especially burden of proof) in second- and third-grade children by studying dialogical interactions. In this paper, I illustrate how Toulmin's framework can contribute to (a) the study of "social relations", and (b) provide an example utilizing a theoretical framework on social relations, namely Engeström's Activity Theory framework, and (c) describe how we have used the Activity Theory along with TAP in order to understand the development of argumentation in the practices of science educators. Overall, I will argue that TAP is not inherently incapable of addressing social relational aspects of argumentation in science education but rather that science education researchers can transform theoretical tools such as Toulmin's framework intended for other purposes for use in science education research.[This review essay addresses issues raised in Mijung Kim and Wolff-Michael Roth's paper entitled "Dialogical Argumentation in Elementary Science Classrooms" (EJ1197621).]