ENGL101 Notes
Module 1
Chapter 1
Why Argue?
We argue all the time.
Some are simple, and some are important.
When more is at stake, the chances are greater that we will fail to be persuaded by what we
hear or read or become frustrated by our own failure to persuade.
We often fail to persuade because we lack evidence to back up our claims, because the evidence
we do have is inadequate, or because we did not clearly or thoroughly show why challenging
views are inadequate.
oFormal arguments are expected to include evidence in support of generalizations if they
are to succeed in making strong points, solving real problems, or changing minds.
What Is an Argument?
Argument is more explicitly an effort to change readers’ minds about an issue—a topic of
concern or urgency that is not easily agreed upon due to its complexity or controversy.
oArguments arise when people disagree on what is true or false, accurate or inaccurate,
sufficient or insufficient, about the subject being discussed.
oA point often overlooked about argument is that it is necessary if one is to fully
understand a particular issue. Note that the word argue comes from the Latin , arguere
“to make clear.”
We would generally call a day-in-the-life article mainly .explanatory or reportorial writing
However, if your aim is to show that people often have the wrong idea about the role or
importance of something, you would be raising an issue in need of resolving. You would then be
engaged in .argumentative writing
An argument must possess four basic ingredients to be successful.
oFirst, it must contain as much relevant information about the issue as possible.
oSecond, it must present convincing evidence that enables the audience to accept the
writer’s or speaker’s claim as authentic.
oThird, it must fairly represent challenging views and then explain why those views are
wrong or limited.
oFourth, it must lay out a pattern of reasoning; that is, it must logically progress from
thesis to support of thesis to conclusion.
A Formal Definition of Argument
An argument is a form of discourse in which the writer or speaker tries to persuade an audience
to accept, reject, or think a certain way about a problem that cannot be solved by scientific or
mathematical reasoning alone.
oThe assertion that the circumference of a circle is a product of its diameter times pi is
not arguable because the assertion cannot be disputed; it is a universally accepted
mathematical fact.
oAt the other extreme, asserting an unsubstantiated opinion is not stating an argument;
it is only announcing a stance on a particular issue.
For example, someone in a casual conversation who asserts that public flogging
of robbers would be a more effective deterrent than jailing them is voicing an
opinion, not presenting an argument.
If you respond by saying, “Yeah, probably,” or, “No way—that would contribute
to a culture of violence,” you are also stating an opinion.
If you respond instead by requesting evidence, such as statistics that show a
correlation between public punishment and crime rate, you are helping to
shape the conversation into a true argument.
It is useful to keep in mind that arguere, in addition to meaning “to make clear,”
also means “to prove.”
A good argument is not casual.
oIt takes considerable time and effort to prepare.
oIt not only presents evidence to back up its claim but also acknowledges the existence of
other claims about the issue before committing to the claim that corresponds most
closely to the arguer’s convictions.
oA good argument also guides the audience through a logical, step-by-step line of
reasoning from thesis to conclusion.
oIn short, a good argument uses an argumentative structure.
Amplifying the Definition
An argument is a form of discourse in which the writer or speaker presents a pattern of
reasoning, reinforced by detailed evidence and refutation of challenging claims, that tries to
persuade the audience to accept the claim.
“. . . a pattern of reasoning . . .”
oA good argument discloses its train of thought in a logical progression that leads the
reader or listener from thesis to support of thesis to conclusion.
oIt also implies that any unfamiliar terms or concepts are carefully defined or explained
and that enough background information is provided to enable readers or listeners to
understand the larger context (interacting background elements) contributing to the
argument.
oFor example, to make the claim that gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are selling
better than fuel-efficient subcompacts does not qualify as an argument because no
context for the claim is given. Readers or listeners would ask, “So what?” But if the
assertion is placed in the context of an urgent problem—for example, that the
enormous popularity of SUVs is rapidly increasing gasoline consumption nationally,
which in turn is leading to greater dependence on foreign oil—then a valid argument is
established.
“. . . reinforced by detailed evidence . . .”
oIn a formal argument, any assertion must be backed up with specific, compelling
evidence that is accurate, timely, relevant, and sufficient.
oSuch evidence can be data derived from surveys, experiments, observations, and
firsthand field investigations (statistical evidence) or from expert opinion (authoritative
evidence).
“. . . that tries to persuade the audience to accept the claim.”
oThe ultimate aim of any argument is to convince the audience that the arguer’s point of
view is a sensible one, worthy of serious consideration if not outright acceptance.
oTo accomplish this aim, arguers often reinforce their evidence with what are known as
appeals—appeals to authority and traditional values, to feelings, and to reason.
oIn an ideal world, evidence (the hard facts) alone would be enough to persuade
audiences to accept the truth of a claim, but, in reality, more persuasive force often is
needed, and appeals are drawn in.
What Is an Arguable Thesis?
Statements of fact are not arguable because they are beyond dispute.
oOne cannot challenge the fact that Homer’s Iliad is about the Trojan War; however, one
can challenge the assertion (or claim) that the Trojan War actually occurred.
oMerely to assert that you don’t believe the Trojan War occurred would be expressing
your opinion, but it is not an arguable thesis.
oConsider what is necessary for this opinion to qualify for both criteria.
For an opinion to become a thesis, it must be presented as a problem capable of
being investigated—for example, “Judging from the latest archaeological
evidence, I wish to argue that the fabled Trojan War did not occur.”
Moreover, the thesis must be counter-arguable. In other words, it should at
least be conceivable that the evidence used to support the thesis could be
interpreted differently or that new evidence could negate the old or at least
lead to a very different interpretation of the old.
We now have a thesis because (1) we have characterized the subject matter as a problem (that
is, experts have been trying to determine for a long time whether the Trojan War occurred) (2)
that is capable of being investigated at least through archaeological evidence (and perhaps
through other forms of evidence as well—accounts by contemporary historians, for example)
and (3) that has a thesis that is refutable.
The next step is to ensure that the argument to be presented is substantive.
oMerely referring to “archaeological evidence” will not do because it is too generalized;
it’s like the advertising phrase, “Doctors everywhere recommend. . .” or “A million
satisfied customers prove. . .”
oTo make the thesis substantive, reference to evidence needs to be more specific:
“Archaeological evidence from the latest excavations in Turkey suggest that the fabled
Trojan War did not occur.”
“Wait,” you say. “Doesn’t evidence from excavations qualify as ‘fact’ and therefore become
beyond dispute?”
oNo. Facts are self-evident: The square root of 144 will always equal 12, no matter who
does the calculating.
oArchaeological findings are subject to interpretation.
oOne archeologist will study newly discovered artifacts and construct one historical
scenario; another archaeologist will study the same artifacts yet construct a completely
different scenario.
oThat’s because the evidence uncovered (a potsherd, a sculpture fragment, or the like)
does not shed enough light on the historical event being investigated.
Using Evidence in Argument
Argumentative writing uses two kinds of evidence, indisputable (or factual) and disputable.
oThe first kind refers to matters of public record that anyone can verify.
oNo one is going to dispute the fact that the earth revolves around the sun every 365.25
days, say, or that the state of California was admitted to the Union on September 9,
1850.
oHow such facts are applied is another matter, but the facts themselves are beyond
dispute.
But what about disputable evidence?
oImagine that a friend’s room is filled with art books and reproductions of paintings.
oIf someone asks about this friend’s interests, you would reply, “Art!” without hesitation
and cite as evidence the books and paintings.
oBut that evidence is disputable: The books and paintings could belong to a roommate,
could be a mere inheritance, or could represent a former interest recently abandoned.
Just the fact that evidence is disputable, however, does not mean it is unreliable.
oSuch evidence often represents the closest one can get to the truth.
oWill banning handguns prevent tragedies like the Columbine school shootings?
oOne researcher might discover statistical evidence of a correlation between banning
guns and reduced crime; yet another researcher could find evidence of a contrary
correlation.
oDifferent parts of the country or the world, different years, different times of year,
different age groups—all represent constantly changing variables that can affect such a
correlation.
oThe more aware you are of the possible ways in which evidence may be disputed, the
less likely you are to reach facile or premature conclusions.
Refuting Challenging Views
Perhaps the most commonly overlooked or ignored element of a successful argument is the
refutation or rebuttal—the acknowledgment and fair representation of those claims that oppose
or in some way challenge the claim you are arguing.
oRemember that the very reason for engaging in argument is to try and resolve a
disagreement, to show that one claim is more deserving of acceptance than other
claims.
oTo succeed in this goal, you need to do more than present compelling evidence; you
must also show why your challengers’ views (together with the evidence they present)
are either incorrect or flawed.
Incorrect evidence is easy to refute, assuming you can pinpoint the error.
All you need to do is produce the correct evidence.
Flawed evidence, however, is more difficult to refute.
oEvidence is flawed when it relies on data that may well have been reliable at one time
but have since become unreliable. (“Getting a suntan is healthy” might have been
supportable by reliable evidence fifty years ago; today, the evidence suggests that
getting a suntan is unhealthy due to potentially cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation.)
oOr the data may still be correct or relevant but the challenger did not interpret them
properly.
For example, it is statistically true, according to the 2015 edition of The World
Almanac and Book of Facts, that in 2013 the United States had one and a half
times as many personal computer users than China (340.6 million compared to
269.5 million).
But one can interpret that fact in different ways.
If your challenger argues that fewer people use personal computers in China
because fewer people can afford personal computers there than in the United
States, you might refute that conclusion by arguing that availability, not
affordability, is the cause (or at least the principal cause).
Of course, you would need to demonstrate that claim with additional specific
data.
oThus, a challenging view may be flawed (a) because a certain fact or set of facts was
overlooked or (b) because inappropriate criteria were being applied. For another
example, to judge a movie by box office success alone may be an inappropriate criterion
for determining the quality of that movie.
o
To frame an effective refutation for your argument, follow these steps:
oAsk yourself, “What are the possible objections to my claim?” See if you can anticipate
refutations to your claim even if you cannot readily locate them.
oSearch for actual arguments that challenge your own. Be sure to summarize these
arguments fairly; that is, do not omit parts of the claim that you think you would not be
able to counterargue. Note: It is entirely possible that a challenging view will strike you
as so convincing that you may want to revise or even abandon your original claim.
oLook for common ground—places where the challenging claim intersects with your own.
Note: The Rogerian method of argument (see Chapter 6) requires you to give special
emphasis to common ground.
oExplain why the challenging claim is incorrect or flawed.
Communicating with a Purpose
Any communication act consists of the or , an , and the being writer speaker audience subject
communicated. This is known as the or Aristotelian Communication Triangle
oThe Aristotelian Triangle reminds us that the act of writing involves writing about
something to someone—that writing never occurs in a vacuum.
oAny act of communication involves a writer or speaker conveying a particular viewpoint
to a particular audience in a particular way.
We have all had the experience of describing something one way to one person
and quite another way to someone else.
For example, we might discuss a romantic relationship one way with a friend,
quite another way with a parent, and yet another way with a minister, rabbi, or
psychologist.
The writer or speaker, subject, and audience all shape the communication.
A fourth major element that shapes communication is purpose. There are three basic kinds of
communication, each with a different purpose:
oReferential or expository: communication that primarily aims to inform and explain;
oExpressive: communication that primarily aims to stimulate the imagination, create
mood or “atmosphere,” and evoke feelings; and
oArgumentative: communication that primarily aims to help skeptical readers or listeners
make up their mind about a debatable issue.
These three modes of communication are not mutually exclusive.
oFor instance, writers of arguments must take time to inform readers about the facts
underlying a problem.
oThey also must try to make such explanations interesting—perhaps by dramatically re-
creating a moment of discovery or by describing the beauty of an observed
phenomenon.
oBut argumentative writing does have a distinct purpose, which is to present, support, or
challenge a debatable proposition (such as a conflict in ethical behavior or
policymaking).
oSuch views cannot be proven with experiments or made compelling through descriptive
writing alone.
To incorporate this element of purpose, we can transform Aristotle’s triangle into a rhetorical
rhombus.
oSimple as this diagram may seem, it calls to mind a subtle interconnection among the
elements; that is, any one element is indispensable to the other three.
oThus, the writer’s way of seeing the world is made significant by the fact that he or she
has a particular purpose for writing; a subject is enriched by the way in which it is made
relevant to a particular audience; and so on.
Once you establish that your primary purpose is not expository (to inform) or expressive (to
evoke feelings) but rather argumentative (to persuade your audience to agree with your claim),
you will want to consider purpose in that context.
Purpose in an Argumentative Context
The purpose of your argument is the reason why you want your audience to agree with your
claim and take whatever action is necessary to carry it out.
oOften, the purpose for wanting to communicate anything is complex.
oFor example, if your claim is that wolf hunting must be stopped (say, by passing laws
that prohibit wolf hunting), your purpose might consist of the following:
The facts make it clear to you that wolves are rapidly becoming an endangered
species.
You are convinced that such species endangerment poses a serious threat to the
environment.
You love wolves, and it distresses you to see these beautiful, intelligent animals
slaughtered by those who cannot appreciate them.
Purpose, then, is the motivational force that imbues the mere potential for communication with
the desire to communicate.
oIn a required writing course, however, purpose becomes even more complicated.
oUnlike working writers, whose purpose for writing a given piece is intrinsically related to
the subject, student writers are often motivated by extrinsic matters, such as getting a
good grade on the assignment or in the course.
Although there is nothing wrong with this kind of motivation, it does not quite
constitute a bona fide purpose for writing about a given topic.
oIt is preferable, however, to adopt a professional sense of purpose toward your subject
matter.
The best way to accomplish this involved, engaged stance is to role-play.
Become the writer you would like to be.
Instead of thinking of yourself as a student in a composition course, think of
yourself as an expert in the field about which you are writing—one who
genuinely cares about the topics at hand enough to want your audience to
understand them and appreciate them the way you do.
Audience in an Argumentative Context
The people at whom you aim your argument can significantly influence the way you present that
argument.
oFor example, two arguments supporting the prohibition of wolf hunting, one aimed at
legislators and the other aimed at hunters, would differ greatly from each other.
oIf you were addressing an audience of legislators, you would want to focus on the need
for laws that would better protect the environment.
oIf you were addressing an audience of hunters, you would want to explain why it is in
the hunters’ best interest to stop hunting wolves. You could argue that damage to the
habitat would ultimately cause the wolves to die out.
Audience also affects the writing and reading of arguments, in that some arguments may be
classified as academic (or scholarly) and others as nonacademic (or popular).
oAcademic arguments are written for fellow scholars affiliated with higher education,
although some scholars are “independent”—that is, they are not employed by a college
or university yet pursue similar research projects.
oThe purpose of such writing is knowledge sharing or idea sharing; academic arguers say,
in effect, “Here is what fellow researchers have determined thus far about the issue at
hand; now, here are my views on the matter.”
oA research paper is the student version of the professional scholarly article, in which the
scholar carefully and explicitly articulates a claim and provides support for that claim.
As a college student, you are probably experiencing several different audiences for arguments.
oIn a literature course, you are asked to write papers in which you argue for what you
consider to be an important theme in a poem, work of fiction, or play.
This type of argumentation is known as literary criticism.
The evidence you would gather for such an argument would consist of specific
passages from the literary work in question (and possibly other works by the
same author as well), relevant information about the author’s life and times,
and commentary from other scholars.
oIn a science course, you learn to write scientific papers in which you analyze, say, the
properties of newly observed phenomena or laboratory reports in which you accurately
describe and interpret the results of physics, chemistry, or psychology experiments.
oAnother type of academic argument is the ethnographic study, common to sociology
and anthropology.
The ethnographer closely observes the behavior of individuals of a particular
community or group and derives inferences from what has been observed.
oOne of the most common types of academic writing is the position paper, in which you
take a stance on a debatable issue, making sure that you represent each challenging
view as fairly as possible before demonstrating the limitations of those views and
proceeding to support your own view.
oYour history courses present you with the opportunity to conduct a historical inquiry
into a particular period or event.
New archaeological discoveries or lost documents brought to light can
profoundly change the way a historical event or even an entire period is
interpreted.
oStudents as well as professionals in the fields of engineering, business administration
(management, finance, marketing), and law all must produce documents that have an
argumentative component: A proposal describes a work in progress, often to receive
approval for its completion; a feasibility study demonstrates the need for a new
program or facility; and a progress report chronicles, as the name implies, the progress
that has been made on a given project.
Of course, many of these forms of academic writing exist outside the academy.
Magazines publish literary criticism, specialized companies submit proposals to
large manufacturers or agencies, and so on.
On the other hand, nonacademic arguments focus more on reporting the “gist” of new
developments or controversies.
oAcademic arguments examine issues in depth and use specialized language to ensure
precision, whereas nonacademic arguments tend to gloss over the technicalities and use
nonspecialized language, which is less accurate but more accessible to the general
public.
Academic Arguments
oSpecialized (i.e., discipline-specific), precise language
oFormal or semiformal tone
oAll primary and secondary sources explicitly cited and documented, using standard
formats (MLA, APA, etc.)
oContributions by other scholars in the field are discussed formally and in detail
oScholarly audience
Non-academic Arguments
oNonspecialized, less precise but more accessible language
oLess formal, more personal tone
oSources are acknowledged informally, without footnoting
oContributions by other writers in the field are discussed briefly
oGeneral audience
The more aware you are of your target audience’s needs and existing biases, the greater the
likelihood that you will address their particular concerns about the topic and, in turn, persuade
them to accept your thesis. To heighten your audience awareness, ask yourself these questions:
oWhat do my readers most likely already know about the issue? Most likely do not know?
oHow might the issue affect my readers personally?
oWhat would happen to my argument if my conclusions or recommendations are
accepted? If they are not accepted?
oWhy might readers not accept my conclusions or recommendations?
Writer in an Argumentative Context
How is the writer a variable in the communication, aside from the obvious fact that the writer is
the one who presents the argument (the “Communication” that lies at the center of the
rhetorical rhombus and is its very reason for being)?
oActually, the writer can assume one of many roles, depending on the target audience.
Say, for example, you are trying to convince a friend to lend you $500 to use as
a down payment for a summer trip to Europe. Your role here is that of
trustworthy friend.
If instead you are trying to convince your bank to lend you that same $500, your
role becomes that of client or applicant. You are likely to use different language
and different support in making your argument to the bank’s loan officer than to
your friend.
oSimilarly, writers often are obliged to play different roles, depending on the particular
needs of different audiences.
Subject in an Argumentative Context
The subject refers to what the argument (the text) is about. Although the subject remains
identifiably constant, a writer might shift the focus of a subject to accommodate a particular
audience or situation.
oFor example, to convince your friend to lend you $500 for the down payment on that
European trip (your argument’s subject), you might focus on how the friend could come
with you to make for an even more rewarding trip.
oTo convince the bank, you might shift the focus to emphasize future job security and the
likelihood of your paying back the loan.
As you study the Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian models of argument in the chapters that
follow, think about how the rhetorical rhombus applies to each and about how different models
place different emphasis on urpose, udience, riter, or ubject (PAWS).p a w s
The Process of Composing an Argument
Writing arguments (or essays of any kind) is mainly a dynamic, recursive process rather than a
linear one.
oThat is, you can start anywhere and return to any stage at any time.
oYou can brainstorm for additional ideas, rework the organizational scheme, wad up and
rewrite part of the existing draft, or walk over to the library or log on to the Internet to
conduct additional research—and you can do any of these activities whenever you feel
the need.
oSome writers simply do not feel comfortable composing in a linear fashion; some like to
compose their endings first, or “flesh out” particular points of an argument as they leap
to mind, and then organize them into a coherent sequence later on.
oSome writers need to map out their ideas in clusters, write outlines, or simply let loose
their spontaneous flow of associations via freewriting.
Freewriting to Generate Ideas Rapidly
As you may recall from your earlier composition studies, freewriting is a good way to generate
material for an argument.
oStart writing without any advance planning.
oLet your thoughts run loose on the page; do not concern yourself with organization,
sentence structure, word choice, or relevancy to the topic of your argument.
oYou might surprise yourself with how much you already know!
There are two kinds of freewriting, unfocused and focused.
oIn unfocused freewriting, let your pen move across the page, recording whatever comes
to mind. Try not to pause.
oIn focused freewriting, you write spontaneously as well but attempt something
resembling an actual draft of the essay.
Your goal is to generate as much as you know about the topic.
It is an excellent way of discovering gaps in knowledge.
In the following example, a student, Janis, engages in some unfocused freewriting to stir up
ideas about a subject for her argument. She is thinking spontaneously with a pencil, you might
say, making no effort to develop a thesis:
oLet’s see, I’m supposed to write an argument that would persuade first-year college
students what would be the best major in preparation for a particular career. Well, I’m
undeclared myself, but want to study law after I graduate, so maybe I could do a
comparative analysis of three or four majors that would seem to offer the best
preparation for law school (hey, this could help me make up my own mind). Poli sci
seems like an obvious possibility, since lawyers need to have a basic knowledge of the
way governments work, the nature of public policy, how laws are passed.... Also,
English, because lawyers need strong communication skills and need to acquire the kind
of deep insight into the human heart that great works of literature offer.... Then I might
talk to law students as well as professors in the four different majors—and maybe even
practicing attorneys to find out what they majored in as undergraduates, and why. Hey,
my aunt is a lawyer! I could talk to her.
Janis knows that she likely will discard most, if not all, of her freewriting; her
goal was not to whip out a rough draft or even test out a topic but to help her
mind tease out ideas and associations that otherwise might have remained
buried. The goal of freewriting is greater than overcoming not knowing what to
say; it includes becoming more receptive to what is possible.
Here is an example of focused freewriting:
oMaybe I’ll limit the scope of my essay to how liberal arts courses such as history, English,
or political science can serve as excellent preparation for a legal career. First I’d want to
show how courses in these majors train students in basic skills such as thinking critically,
communicating clearly, researching (Internet, library, interviewing), acquiring a solid
understanding of key periods in world history; what else? Maybe how federal, state,
local govs. operate; finally, how these skills serve as a foundation for the study of law.
Using the Journalist’s 5Ws/H
The heuristic device 5Ws/H has long been favored by journalists because it serves as a quick
reminder for answering the key questions—Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How—when
reporting a news story, but it also serves writers of argument.
oAfter all, reporting the facts underlying a debatable issue will make your views more
convincing.
oThus, if you argue that critical thinking skills should be taught to children as early as first
grade, you might use the 5Ws/H heuristic as follows:
WHO: Who are the teachers already teaching critical thinking to children?
WHAT: What kinds of activities or materials do these teachers use to teach
critical thinking?
WHERE: (1) Where in the country (or abroad) is this instruction taking place? (2)
In which grades is this instruction being used with greatest effectiveness?
WHEN: (1) When during the school year should critical thinking skills be taught?
(2) When should this instruction be presented in the lesson plan for the day? For
the semester?
WHY: (1) Why should anyone teach critical thinking to preadolescent children?
(2) Why would preadolescent children need critical thinking skills?
HOW: (1) How are instructors teaching critical thinking—their methods? (2)
How should instructors teach critical thinking?
Immersing Yourself in the Subject
Imagine spending twenty minutes or so freewriting and getting down on paper everything that
comes to mind; you produce several scraggly pages in longhand or neater ones on a computer.
You read them over, highlighting with a marker or with your computer’s highlighting tool what
seems most relevant and useful.
Then, you ask yourself these questions:
oWhat seems to be the dominant or recurrent trend?
oWhat more do I need to know about my topic to write persuasively about it?
oWhat kinds of evidence do I need to back up my thesis, however tentative it may be at
this stage?
oIn taking these steps, you are preparing to immerse yourself in your subject.
Having relevant information available is important to all writers. Once you know what more you
need, you can start looking for information.
oAn enormous quantity of information can be accessed quickly on the Internet, so it is a
good place to begin your research. A strong search engine such as Google, Dogpile, or
Yahoo! can bring material from any subject onto your screen in seconds.
oOn the other hand, a large percentage of Internet sources are superficial, dated, or not
very relevant to your needs. Balance your Internet research by examining a variety of
reliable print sources, such as books, articles, encyclopedias (general as well as subject
specific), handbooks, and specialized dictionaries.
Your goal in reading and researching should be to learn all you possibly can about your topic.
oFamiliarize yourself with the differing views experts have about it. Talk to experts.
oAs a college student, you are surrounded by them; get in the habit of contacting
professors who can give you timely and in-depth information about your topic or
suggest material to read.
oRead and explore as many sources as possible.
oIn other words, immerse yourself in the subject matter of your argument. This
involvement will show in your writing and will give the finished paper added depth and
vigor.
Using Listing and Clustering
Like freewriting, listing and clustering tap into writers’ natural inclination to take a mental
inventory of what they already know about a topic as well as to discover what they do not know
about it.
oTo list, jot down as quickly as you can ideas (or idea fragments) or names of people,
places, events, or objects.
oOne student prepared the following list as a prelude to writing about the increasing
problem of childhood obesity:
Fast-food chains aggressively target their products to preteen kids.
TV commercials give wrong impressions.
Parents too busy to cook.
Hamburgers often loaded with mayonnaise.
Burgers, fries, milk shakes, ice cream loaded with fat.
Parents not paying close enough attention to their kids’ diets.
oYou can use lists to make notes to yourself or to ask questions the moment they occur
to you:
Check how many calories are in a typical fast-food burger.
How much fat content in a bag of fries?
What do nutritionists and pediatricians say about the increasing obesity
problem?
Find out how often kids eat fast food, on the average.
How can kids learn more about this problem in school?
Clustering helps writers take an inventory of what they know, but it also helps them discover
relationships among the ideas they list by seeing how the cluster bubbles connect.
oThis discovery helps writers organize their ideas more efficiently when they begin
outlining or drafting their arguments.
oTo cluster an idea for an argumentative essay, take a sheet of paper and write down
words or phrases; at the same time, keep similar words and phrases close together and
draw large circles around them to form “clusters.” Next, draw lines between bubbles
that seem to go together.
Workable Topics for an Argumentative Essay
What kinds of topics make strong argumentative essays?
oIn a nutshell, the topics are on substantive issues that are timely or perennially relevant
and that stir up a healthy, heated debate.
oGood topics also give readers insight into the issue being discussed or invite readers to
test their long-held values and beliefs.
oNo matter what point of view you wish to defend or challenge, if the issue matters
deeply to many people, it is likely to be a successful topic.
oAvoid topics that cannot be logically defended, such as those involving culinary or
aesthetic taste
“Oranges taste better than apples”
“Jackson Pollack’s abstract paintings are more aesthetically pleasing than Mark
Rothko’s”
oAvoid topics that are too speculative to be either defendable or refutable
“Everything in the universe has been predetermined”
Sometimes your instructor will assign you a topic just to see what you can do with it; other
times, you will be responsible for coming up with your own topics. Follow these suggestions
when working up a topic for your assignments:
oKeep the scope manageable. That is, aim for depth rather than breadth.
If you’re planning a four-page (1,000-word) paper, a topic such as the effects of
video games on the attention spans of preadolescent children would be too
ambitious—more appropriate for a master’s thesis.
A more manageable topic would be the effects of one particular type of video
game on the attention spans of sixth graders or a paper that considers a
possible correlation between time spent video gaming and development of
reading skills among sixth graders.
oMake sure you can come up with a defendable thesis for your topic, backed with solid
evidence.
f your topic is residence hall safety and you want to argue that better security is
needed, be sure you can obtain data on security breaches (obtainable from your
school’s public safety or campus police office) to support your thesis.
oAnticipate ways your thesis may be refutable. Is it possible to come up with a
counterargument to your thesis?
In the case of residence hall security, is it possible to argue that the security
breaches could have occurred no matter how well the security measures were
enforced? Or that the breach in security was merely due to the rare oversight of
one public safety officer?
Try to anticipate as many counterarguments to your thesis as possible and be
prepared to refute them.
Taking a Fresh Approach to Your Topic
Even though you may be asked to write on a specific topic, you should always aim for a fresh
approach to that topic.
What do we mean by “fresh”?—a way of thinking about the topic that likely has been given little
or no previous attention.
oFor example, say you have been asked to argue whether reading fiction helps develop
critical thinking skills.
Instead of merely taking a “yes-it-does” or “no-it-doesn’t” stance, you might
argue that it all depends on the complexity of the fictional work—and proceed
to give examples of complex fictional works versus simplistic fictional works.
oAnother approach would be to examine the whole notion of “complexity” in the context
of fiction: does it (or should it) apply to the psychological aspects of the characters? The
twists and turns of the plot? The historical context?
Using Appeals in Argument
To argue successfully, a person does not rely solely on facts; facts need to be explained, be
placed into a particular context (that is, related to the problem being argued), or have their
importance validated.
oSuccessful writers of argument often demonstrate the importance of these facts to
persuade their audience that the facts are important. For such a demonstration, these
arguers turn to strategies of persuasion known as appeals.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his Rhetoric identifies three kinds of appeals:
oEthical: the appeal to tradition, authority, and ethical and moral behavior, which
Aristotle terms ethos;
oEmotional: the appeal to feelings and basic human needs, such as security, love,
belonging, and health and well-being, which Aristotle terms pathos; and
oRational: the appeal to reason and logic, which Aristotle terms logos.
These three appeals correspond to Aristotle’s three modes of communication, Writer, Audience,
and Subject.
oEthos (character, values, trusted authority) is the attribute of a responsible Writer.
oSimilarly, Pathos (emotion, compassion) suggests appealing to the needs and desires
of the public—that is, of the Audience.
oLogos (reason) corresponds to the factual, rational truth content of the Subject.
How do appeals reinforce evidence?
oSay that a writer wishes to argue that if acid rain fallout continues to increase,
agriculture in a certain region will be threatened.
To argue this claim convincingly, a writer first needs to bring in indisputable
facts—those derived from scientific experiments. These facts would suggest a
correlation between increased acidity and rainfall and decreased crop yield.
oNote that the correlation may be disputable, but it still constitutes valid evidence.
oUse of appeals can enhance the persuasive force of the thesis. The writer above, for
example, might use one or more of the following appeals:
An ethical appeal that introduces the testimony of an expert, such as a farmer
whose crops have been affected or an industrial chemist who has a professional
understanding of the way in which acidity in rainfall reacts with soil nutrients.
An emotional appeal that discusses the basic human need for uncontaminated
food or justifies the fear of cancer many people will have if the situation is not
corrected.
A rational appeal that emphasizes the logical and inevitable consequences of
what happens to soil and crops when acid rainfall goes untreated.
oAppeals such as these go a long way toward reinforcing the evidence and strengthening
the writer’s argument.
Combining appeals in a given argument can be especially effective.
Organizing the Argument
All writing must be organized or structured. Whether you are relating an experience (narration),
or explaining an idea or process (exposition or explanation), or defending a thesis
(argumentation), you must structure your writing to communicate best with an audience.
Organizing your writing means that you do the following:
oIntroduce the topic (the situation in a narrative; the subject matter to be explained in an
exposition or explanation; the problem in an argument).
oPresent the particulars of the situation (the sequencing of incidents in a narrative;
elements of a phenomenon in an exposition or explanation; the nature of the problem,
followed by the body of evidence, in an argument).
oConclude (the outcome in a narrative; the “whole picture” in an explanation; the
interpretation, assessment, and recommendations, if appropriate, in an argument).
How you meet these three organizational requirements in an argument depends on the type of
model you adopt: the Classical (or Aristotelian/Ciceronian), the Toulmin, or the Rogerian.
oIn the Classical model, the organizational scheme is predetermined. One begins with an
introduction that establishes the problem and states the thesis; next, one analyzes the
evidence and refutes opposing views in light of the evidence collected; finally, one
draws conclusions and provides recommendations.
oIn a variation of the Classical model known as the Toulmin model (named for the
philosopher Steven Toulmin), truth is not absolute but value dependent. Accordingly,
the logic content of the argument is scrutinized for its underlying values. Evidence does
not operate in a vacuum but must be tested according to the values (called warrants) of
the arguer. These values always come into play during the argument, meaning that no
one argues for timeless, eternal truths.
oIn the Rogerian model (named for the psychologist Carl Rogers), one shifts emphasis to
the social act of negotiating difference through argument. Truth is not only value based,
it must be negotiated cooperatively if argument is to have any constructive social
function.
Drafting the Argument
There are several ways to compose a draft.
oOne way of drafting (and, alas, too common) is to put off the task until the day or night
before it is due and then to dash off a single draft and proofread it hastily.
In general, this is the least productive way of writing.
The best writers tend to revise most often, not least often.
oAnother way of drafting is to use an outline as a template.
By elaborating on each section of the outline, the drafter takes an important
step toward substantive development of the essay.
The subsequent rethinking of the argument and the additional research that
results become more apparent using this method.
oA third way is to produce a discovery draft, which is like freewriting in its spontaneity
and in its goal of getting down on paper as much as possible about the topic.
However, discovery drafters do have a rudimentary sense of structure and
purpose in mind.
They believe that, to some extent at least, the things they want to say will fall
into place through the very act of writing, and if not, they can rearrange, revise,
and edit once they have a rough draft in hand.
Whichever drafting method you choose, allow yourself enough time to reread the draft two or
three times and to make marginal notations about possible changes.
oMark up a printout of your draft with reminders of what else to include, questions that
might help you identify and gather additional evidence, and ideas for changes that will
strengthen your argument.
Common Problems in Composing an Argument and Ways to Resolve Them
Most writing projects seem more like obstacle courses than walks through the park. The
obstacles also can be difficult to anticipate because they usually arise from the particular
demands of the subject at hand. That said, here are five common problems that arise during
drafting, along with suggestions for resolving them:
oThe basis for the argument—the problem—has not been clearly or fully articulated.
Let the initial response to a problem be your starting point for laying the
foundation, not the foundation itself. Angry that your local library has cut its
hours? Use that as the catalyst for framing the problem of public library closures
in your area, describing the underlying causes, and explaining why the problem
deserves urgent attention.
oThe thesis is not sufficiently forceful or urgent.
If you’re arguing that your school needs to improve its health care services, be
sure that you are able to pinpoint specific improvements and why the reasons
are needed.
oThe evidence to support your claim is faulty or missing.
For your claim to be convincing, you must present compelling evidence to
support it. How can you determine what constitutes compelling evidence?
Check to see that the evidence is relevant, current, sufficient (in other words,
not just an isolated, atypical case), and accurate.
oThe appeal(s) to emotion, logic, and/or authority (laws, customs, and the like) ought to
be used to greater advantage.
Appeals provide the dimension of persuasion to an argument. To convince
readers of your views, go beyond detached logic to stir their hearts, their minds,
their souls.
oOpportunities to represent and refute challenging views have been overlooked, ignored,
or slighted.
Develop the habit of “testing” your thesis by imagining how it could be refuted;
by doing so, you will be better prepared to locate counterarguments. Keep in
mind, too, that some counterarguments may be so compelling that you will
want to at least modify your original thesis.
Composing Openings
Openings can be difficult to write because they usually lay out the terrain for the whole
argument.
oNobody likes to spend a lot of time writing an introduction, only to realize later that it
has to be scrapped because the claim or approach has shifted during drafting.
oBut no rule says that you must write your opening first.
oYou can postpone writing the full opening until you have written part of the body of the
paper or until you have a firm sense of your paper’s shape.
Openings serve two purposes, to introduce the topic and the background information needed to
understand or appreciate the topic’s seriousness and to state the thesis.
oAn occasional opening refers to a current event or local incident and uses it as the
occasion for writing the essay. “In light of the current crisis in Addis Ababa. . .”
oA startling opening grabs the attention of readers with unexpected information. “While
you are reading this sentence, fifty people will die of cigarette-related illnesses in this
country.”
oAn anecdotal opening uses a brief story to engage the reader’s attention quickly. An
argument against the continuous use of all the technology available on one’s tablets or
smartphones might begin with an anecdote about the hours an individual can play
Angry Birds without realizing that he or she has spent two hours trying to achieve three
stars on every level.
oAn analytical opening launches immediately into a critical discussion of the issue. An
argument on the effects of alcohol on the body might open with an explanation of how
alcohol damages certain bodily functions.
What makes one opening more appropriate than another?
oWhen choosing, consider the four interconnected elements of communication discussed
earlier in the rhetorical rhombus. You may find that your subject lends itself more to an
analytical opening. Or perhaps the writer’s personal experience with the issue leads to
an anecdotal opening. Or your purpose to shock readers into accepting the urgency of
the matter suggests a startling opening. Maybe the kind of audience you are targeting
(impatient to learn the facts? uncertain about the relevance of the topic?) justifies the
use of an occasional opening.
oTherefore, weigh the purpose of your argument, the kinds of readers you are targeting,
and the nature of the subject matter when considering your opening.
Composing the Body of the Argument
If you think of your argument’s opening as the promise you make to your readers about what
you are going to do, then the body of the argument is the fulfillment of that promise.
oHere you deliver the goods that comprise the subject node of the rhetorical rhombus:
the detailed support—facts, examples, illustrations—as well as the emotional, logical,
and ethical appeals that collectively demonstrate to your readers that the claim you set
forth in your introduction is valid.
How should you proceed in writing out the body of your argument?
oFirst, check that the sequence you developed in your outline includes everything you
want to say about the issue.
oJot down additional notes in the margins if necessary.
oIf you have completed a freewrite or rough draft, now is the time to retrieve those
pages and decide what to keep.
oYou may already have more of the draft of your argument completed than you realize!
Many writers find it productive to move back and forth from draft to outline.
oThe outline gives a bird’s-eye view of the whole scheme; the draft concentrates on the
minutiae of point-by-point discussion and exemplification.
Composing Conclusions
A good conclusion enables readers to grasp the full impact of the argument.
oIf the introduction states the claim and the body argues for the validity of the claim by
citing evidence for it, the conclusion encapsulates all those points of evidence, leaving
readers with a renewed sense of the argument’s validity.
To write an effective conclusion, aim for conciseness: Capture in just one or two paragraphs the
gist of your argument.
oConclusions of short papers need not be long and could be just three to four sentences.
What might you do in a conclusion?
oReflect on the paper.
Return to the image or analogy or anecdote you discussed in the introduction
and provide a frame for the piece.
Restate the thesis to underscore the argument of your essay.
Summarize your main points if the argument is complex or the paper is longer
than six pages.
oBroaden the scope beyond your paper.
Forecast the future if your main points should prove to be true.
Point out the implications of the ideas presented.
Exhort your readers to action.
oReinforce your readers’ emotional involvement in the matter at hand. Keep in mind that
“emotional involvement” can refer to feelings of security, hope, happiness, self-
confidence, optimism, or overall well-being.
Introduce or reintroduce in a different way appropriate rational, ethical, or
emotional appeals.
Aim for conciseness. Less is more when it comes to striking an emotional chord
with readers.
Revising the Argument: A Form of Reevaluation
In revising argumentative essays, attend closely to the ways you have presented the problem,
stated your claims, reported the evidence and testimony, represented the challenging views,
drawn inferences, and reached reasonable conclusions. What follows is a closer look at each of
these steps:
oPresenting the problem.
Unless you capture the exact nature and full complexity of the problem you are
examining, your entire argument is built on a shaky foundation.
To determine whether the problem is represented well, question whether the
introduction suits the audience and subject (recall the PAWS rhombus) and
whether you establish sufficient ethos and pathos for readers to care to read on
and to trust you, the writer.
oStating the claim.
Just as the problem must be stated clearly, so must the assertions that
presumably solve the problem.
Ask yourself whether your claim is realistic, practical, and sensible in light of the
nature of the problem and the circumstances underlying it.
oReporting the evidence.
Facts and statistics—the raw data that comprise evidence—do not carry much
meaning outside of a context of discussion.
In presenting evidence in support of a thesis, the writer aims to communicate
the significance of those facts and figures, not simply to drop them on the page.
The writer also aims to present facts and figures in a way that readers can easily
absorb, ideally in a visual configuration of some kind, such as an attractively
designed chart or graph.
When revising your discussion of evidence, ask yourself whether you interpret
the data accurately, relate one cluster of data to another clearly enough
(through visual representation of the data), and establish your ethos as a careful
researcher and thinker on the issue.
oRefuting challenging views.
When revising refutations, make sure that your writing represents the claims
and evidence of the other side as fairly as possible.
If you argue from a Rogerian perspective, think of establishing common ground
with the audience in terms of shared values (warrants) or of cooperating to
reach shared goals.
Resist the temptation to omit parts of a challenging perspective because you are
not sure how to refute it.
Also, double-check the reliability of your refutation: Does it reveal the
limitations or falsity of the challenging view?
oDrawing inferences and conclusions.
How do you interpret your findings?
How clearly do your underlying warrants emerge?
Should you give more attention to them?
How willing will your readers be to cooperate with you, based on your
interpretation of the findings?
What else can you say to ensure their cooperation—assuming that you would
find such cooperation desirable?
Donald Murray identifies three cardinal virtues of revision:
oRevision allows one to identify problems to be solved.
oRevision enables writers to explore the topic more deeply to arrive at new insights into
the topic.
oRevision enhances the brain’s capacity for recall and patterning.
Reading to Revise
Reading well, especially in the context of writing, provides you with a wider perspective of your
subject and of the many divergent views that give it depth and richness.
As a well-read writer, you are in the position of integrating the ideas of different authors into
your own views on the subject.
Reading and reflecting critically on what you have read also help you to revise more successfully
because they force you to get into the habit of reading your own writing as if it were someone
else’s.
The advantage to beginning your project well in advance of the due date is that you will have
the time to do such a critical reading of your drafts.
Using Your Reading Skills in Peer-Critiquing Workshops
You may be given the opportunity to respond critically to other students’ drafts. Always read the
draft as carefully as you would any published argument. Consider the following criteria as you
read the first draft of a peer:
oPurpose-related issues.
Is the purpose of the draft apparent? Stated clearly enough? Is the thesis (claim)
well-stated? Directly related to the purpose?
oContent-related issues.
Is the scope of the topic sufficiently limited? Does the writer provide enough
background information? Provide enough evidence in support of the claim?
Provide enough examples and illustrations to support the evidence? Represent
challenging views fully and fairly before pointing out their flaws? Are the
writer’s interpretive and concluding remarks thorough? Does the writer offer
clear recommendations, if appropriate?
oIssues relating to style and format.
Is the writing concise? Easy to read? Are the sentences coherent, well-
constructed, varied? Is the level of usage consistent and appropriate for the
intended audience? Is the word choice accurate? Are unfamiliar terms defined?
Does the writer use subheadings and visual aids where appropriate? Follow
proper documentation format?
Types of Revision Tasks
Revising an argument involves a lot more than just “fixing things up”; it also involves reseeing
the entire draft from a fresh perspective, checking to make sure that each assertion is fully
discussed and that the discussion follows a logical sequence. Here are some different types of
revision strategies.
oHolistic Revision
F. Scott Fitzgerald liked to speak of “revising from spirit”—that is, revising from
scratch after realizing that the first draft is on the wrong track or just does not
seem to “click” in your mind.
This kind of holistic revision—of revision as reseeing—makes it more likely that
new energy and insights will be infused into the argument.
For this kind of revision to work best, you often need to set aside (though not
necessarily scrap) the original draft and start afresh.
oContent Revision
When revising for content, you examine your ideas in greater depth than you
did during the earlier draft.
Typically, you gather more information or return to the original information to
process it more efficiently.
You may discover that you have underdeveloped an idea, so you would need to
provide specific detail to support your claim.
Usually, such revisions can be pasted into the original draft.
oOrganizational Revision
Writers often revise to strengthen the structure of their argument.
When you revise for organization, pay close attention to the logical progression
of your ideas.
An argument can be made more effective, for example, by saving the most
compelling point for last.
As for moving coherently and smoothly from one point to the next, make sure
you include transitional markers such as “on the other hand,” “nevertheless,”
“in spite of,” “according to,” “however,” and so on.
Strive for the best possible order of ideas, not just the order in which the ideas
occurred to you.
When an argument unfolds logically, you create what is casually referred to as
flow.
The smoother the flow, the more likely your readers are to follow along and
comprehend your argument.
oStylistic Revision
When revising to improve your style, pay attention to the way you sound on
paper—to the manner in which you convey your ideas.
Stylistic problems include inconsistency in tone of voice (too informal here,
excessively formal there), lack of sentence and paragraph variety and emphasis,
and use of jargon.
oProofreading
One of our students once referred to proofreading as prof-reading—making
sure the essay is ready for the prof’s critical eye.
Some students mistakenly equate proofreading with copyediting or even with
revision in general, but proofreading refers to a very careful line-by-line scrutiny
of the semifinal draft to make sure that no errors of any kind are present.
Proofreading is not reading in the usual sense.
If you try to proofread by reading normally, you will miss things.
An ideal way to proofread is slowly and orally.
