Draft + Paper

Unit 3: Cause + Effect Argument—Your Story of Identity

The cause + effect argument that you write will argue for a particular understanding of the causes and effects of people/events/places/things of your life as they relate to your identity today. You will explore how these factors have shaped your personal identity. In this paper, you will inform your audience what your understanding of identity is (a definition), analyze how identity (as you defined it) is caused or what the effects of that identity are, and exemplify (that is, provide an example that illustrates) that cause/effect understanding in action—an extended analysis of the events and conditions that have (or presently do) influence the formation of identity and the impact that this current identity has (or likely will have in the future). Think of identity as a process, and your identity ‘today’ captures just one moment in a long series of moments that is/will be your life.

To write a causal argument of your life, you will collect information about the influences and effects of social class, education, literacy, language, etc. Essentially, you will apply what we have learned in class to make sense of the formation and impact of identity in your life. This argumentative (yet creative) paper will describe a causal relationship between your life experiences and your current identity.

To write the paper, you will consider the information about identity that we have discussed and ponder the compositions you have written in class. Thinking about the goals that you have for your life, you should be able to make connections between the events and consequences in your life and those goals. In short, you are investigating how social factors and life experiences have impacted the person that you have “become.”

For the content of your report, you must refer to at least three examples from your experiences that illustrate what your notion of identity looks like. Convincing arguments will contain an analysis of experiences, not just a summary or overview of experiences. Draw on your life in a creative, accurate, and truthful way. The goal is to use your warrant—your general understanding of how identity is formed—to interpret what you have experienced thus far in your life. If your warrant doesn’t seem to match well with what you have experienced, you may need to (a) gather more evidence, or, more likely, (b) adjust your warrant.

The content of your argument must also articulate a counterpoint or obstacle (either in the past or present) that interfered with, or may prevent, you from reaching your goal or may have been a considerable roadblock in your development of identity. How did you overcome the obstacle of how will you overcome the obstacle? Presenting this conflict allows you to establish a viable counterargument that shows how you resolved, or will resolve, this conflict of becoming who you are.

Logos outline for cause + effect argument

Claim: I (A) am a Mechanic (B).

Grounds (characteristics of A): I stated that I fix and rebuild cars, I repair typewriters, and I help writers write better.

Enthymeme (claim + grounds): I am a mechanic because I work on cars for fun, repaired typewriters professionally, and help writers improve their rhetorical vision.

Warrant (characteristics of B): A mechanic fixes, repairs, or improves things, be them machines or people. [there is a metaphoric element here, with people]

Evidence 1: I grew up fixing and rebuilding cars, anything from engines to transmissions to axles.

Evidence 2: I was factory trained by IBM to repair typewriters, which I did for over a decade (until they were replaced by computers).

Evidence 3: I help people learn how to write better, either emails or compositions. Not that I ‘fix’ writers, but I do try to improve their state of rhetorical vision.

[Evidence 4:]

[Evidence 5:]

Qualifier: A mechanic is someone that fixes things, and only things. Your metaphor does not work.

Conditions of rebuttal: Mechanics are artisans, and that goes well beyond dealing strictly with material things!

Logos outline for cause + effect argument

Claim: I (A) will be a Rock Star (B). [Notice use of future tense, not conditional or subjunctive tense.]

Grounds (characteristics of A): I stated that I practice my guitar all the time, I have bodacious hair that looks great under the lights, and I am so used to exercising in a hot and bright environment that I can do it easily for hours.

Enthymeme (claim + grounds): I will be a rock star because I practice my guitar all the time, have a totally rad coif (albeit on my face), and can move like a gazelle under the lights, night after night.

Warrant (characteristics of B): A rock star is amazing with a guitar, has awesome hair, and has the stage stamina of a ballerina.

Evidence 1: For years, I have been practicing my guitar daily for at least three hours, and now I have a couple of licks mastered.

Evidence 2: I am cultivating hair in the only place where I have it in any appreciable volume: my face.

Evidence 3: I endure bikram yoga eight times a week.

[Evidence 4:]

[Evidence 5:]

Qualifier: You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. That boat has sailed Pal, time to move on.

Conditions of rebuttal: I don’t think so, I’m still way younger than Keith Richards!