This paper discusses, compares, and contrasts 4 different models for bringing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) into practice and into practical reasoning. I look at what questions the models can and cannot answer, what role they accord to RCT evidence, and what their possible attraction for practitioners might be. The models are those of Philip Davies, Nancy Cartwright, Stephen Toulmin, and Harald Grimen. The first 2 are constructed for the purpose of using evidence in practice, the 3rd is an adapted argumentation model, and the 4th is based on "phronesis" and represents an alternative to evidence-based education. It is argued that of these, Toulmin's model has the narrative qualities that make it the most usable and practitioner-friendly model.