Write 1000-words dialectical essay for the topic of your choice for Critical Thinking (Logic) Class

The Dialectical Essay

Overview

A dialectical essay is very similar to a Persuasive essay, though a dialectical essay follows a more rigid format than a Persuasive essay. Depending on how you were taught by your English teachers, a Dialectical essay might be exactly the same as a Persuasive essay, or it could be a completely different form of essay. Carefully read the description below to make sure you understand what is meant by a "Dialectical essay" for this class.

Five Paragraphs

For our purposes in this course, a dialectical essay follows one train of thought through a sort of dialogue (hence "dialectic") of argumentation, and it will consist of the following five paragraphs:

Paragraph 1:  The Introduction of the Thesis

The introductory paragraph should simply introduce the thesis, and it should make very clear what exactly is being asserted by the thesis. This entire paragraph might be no more than one sentence, but it is usually appropriate to include other sentences that clarify the meanings of the terms in the thesis. The first paragraph might also include an explicit declaration that the thesis is controversial.  Important: The thesis is absolutely not to be supported by any argumentation in paragraph #1!  The 1st paragraph must be absolutely argument-free!  Save your argument for the second paragraph!

Paragraph 2:  The Argument

The second paragraph includes  a single main argument in support of the thesis .  It should consist of reasons or evidence given in support of the thesis. In other words, the author's thesis is made into the conclusion of an argument. Here the author is disclosing their own sincerely-held beliefs. The reasons or evidence provided should be things that one would expect a rational reader to find perfectly plausible. The most important thing is this:  If a person accepts these reasons (premises), then her logical thought processes should lead her to accept the thesis as well. As the central feature of the essay, this main argument must be absolutely clear and it must have good form and true premises (so it will be sound if deductive, cogent if inductive). One way to make the argument clear is by using a conclusion indicator (and perhaps premise indicators as well). If this argument is unclear, or if it has bad form (or content), the rest of the essay will suffer. This paragraph will also contain enough supporting information – such as definitions of key terms - to help the reader properly understand and contextualize the thesis.

Paragraph 3:  An Objection

In the third paragraph, the author plays the Devil’s Advocate (arguing for a position that is not sincerely believed by the author). This position is an anticipated criticism of the argument featured in the second paragraph. The first sentence of the third paragraph must use transitional language to indicate that the author is changing their role from arguing for their own sincere beliefs to providing an account of the thinking of those who might disagree. Examples of such transitional language would be a sentence or a phrase such as "There are those who disagree with the above line of reasoning..." or "Some might suggest that the above argument is flawed, because..."    The rest of the third paragraph proceeds to offer a supposed direct objection to the argument presented in the second paragraph (as though in an argument or debate). This is not to be an objection to the thesis itself, but rather it should be a direct response to the central argument found in paragraph 2. In other words, this paragraph gives reasons to believe that the argument in paragraph 2 is flawed in some way. The goal of the objection is not to show that the thesis is false, but rather to show that the argument in paragraph 2 fails to establish the truth of the thesis. (Important: If the main argument from paragraph 2 is not clear, it will be impossible for the objection to respond to it directly. This is why the argument in paragraph 2 must be clear!)

Paragraph 4:  The Response

Here the author returns to defending their own sincerely held views, and once again the first sentence here must use appropriate transitional language  to make it perfectly clear that the author is returning to their own voice. This paragraph is a response to the objection in the third paragraph.  It should not be a restatement of paragraph 2.  Instead, it is to be a direct counter-response (again as in a debate) to the specific objection just raised in paragraph 3.  By this point one will likely have moved away from discussing the thesis, since at this time you are arguing that there is some flaw in the objection (which itself may have little to do with the thesis).  Do not make the mistake of offering a new argument for the thesis.  Instead, focus on analyzing and critiquing the objection raised in paragraph 3.

Paragraph 5:  The Conclusion

This final paragraph briefly summarizes the chain of dialectic that has been traced through the preceding paragraphs. The conclusion will usually include the thesis restatement in a new way.

EXAMPLE #1:

The Responsibility of American News Reporters

by Jim Watkins

Most news reports are influenced by the perspective of those who have produced those reports. American news reporters have an obligation to our society to strive for impartiality in their reporting.

In the voting booth, our decisions should be made with a full understanding of the relevant issues. However, even those who do not understand the issues get to vote. Consequently, the American people could conceivably be voting against their own interests without knowing it, and our free elections could actually be undermining the common interests of the people. Thus, an informed populace is essential to the health of our society. Importantly, the average American is too busy to acquire firsthand knowledge of the important issues and events in our society, so the American people must rely on the news media to stay informed. If the American people get their news from biased sources, then they won’t have a full understanding of the issues when they step into the voting booth at election time. Thus, given that an informed populace is essential to the health of our society, and given that the American people must rely on the news media to stay informed, American news reporters have an obligation to our society to strive for impartiality in their reporting.

Some would say that American reporters have no such obligations, and that the above argument mistakenly presumes that American reporters have a special obligation to do whatever they can to prevent the American people from undermining their own interests. It is argued that this alleged moral requirement is an unreasonable burden on our news reporters. In other words, it’s not the job of the news media to babysit the American people. For those Americans who are too busy or ignorant to get their facts straight, that’s their problem. Thus, American news reporters are off the hook.

In response to the above objection, it is worth noting that the original argument does indeed make a presumption, but this presumption has been mis-characterized. The objection given above suggests that all news reporters have a special obligation to do whatever they can to prevent the American people from undermining their own interests. Were this presumption necessary to the original argument, the objection might stand. However, the original argument need only presume that all Americans have a general obligation to avoid courses of action that could conceivably undermine the larger interests of our society. Since enough Americans have a mistaken belief that they can get their news from any source to get “the facts,” or the belief that their own particular news sources of choice usually get the facts right, we can foresee the possibility that biased news reporting can undermine the interests of the American people.

In summary, an informed populace is essential to the health of our society, but the American people must rely on the news media to stay informed. When news reporting is biased, the American people can be largely misinformed. This can undermine the true interests of the American people. Thus, American news reporters have a moral obligation to our society to strive for impartiality in their reporting.

EXAMPLE #2:

Learning to Reason Well

by Jim Watkins

There are important similarities between learning to drive a stick shift and learning how to think critically, such that it is safe to say that learning to reason well is like learning to drive a manual transmission in a car.

Consider the contrast between a manual versus an automatic transmission. All other things being equal, a manual transmission puts more control in the hands of the driver. This can lead to better overall performance. Under these conditions, greater control will be beneficial if it is placed in the hands of those who are competent. At first, we are not competent to drive a stick shift. Importantly, we develop our shifting skills by operating the transmission (often poorly at first), recognizing our errors, and refining our habits to the point that we can operate the transmission well. By analogy, the manual transmission is like reason. An automatic transmission is like intuition. In contrast with human intuition, reasoning puts more control in the hands of the person. In theory, this can lead to deeper understanding. Like driving a manual transmission, the greater control offered by reason will only be beneficial if it is placed in the hands of those who are competent. Importantly, we develop our reasoning skills by using our reason (often poorly at first), recognizing our errors, and refining our habits to the point that we can reason well. Given the similarity between the transmission and the human mind with regard to how an individual develops the ability to operate either of these things. So, learning to reason well is like learning to successfully operate a manual transmission in a car.

Some might object that the analogy breaks down because there is a relevant difference between automobile transmissions and human minds. Automatic transmissions, it is argued, offer a level of performance that is sufficient for fulfilling our objective (travelling around town), while normal human intuition is insufficient for fulfilling our objective (refining our understanding.) Thus, it is said, the analogy breaks down.

The above objection is mistaken. The cited difference does not detract from the similarity between the two cases regarding the manner in which the given skills are acquired. Both cases require the learner to actively engage the relevant apparatus to the point that they develop the skills necessary to operate the given apparatus (whether the “apparatus” is the transmission or the mind). Both new drivers and new thinkers will struggle, but in both cases success will come through the committed efforts of the students. So, while the objection cites a real difference, that difference is irrelevant to the original argument.

There are important similarities between learning to drive a stick shift and learning how to think critically. Differences between the two cases are irrelevant to the fact that learning to reason well is like learning to drive a manual transmission in a car.