Argumentative Essays

I. What is Argumentation?

a. A reasoned, logical way of asserting the soundness of a position, belief or conclusion.

b. Serves several purposes.

i. Convince other people to accept your position.

ii. Defend your position.

iii. Question or refute another position.

II. Understanding Argumentation and Persuasion

a. Persuasion.

i. General term that refers to the method by which a writer moves an audience to adopt a belief or follow a course of action.

ii. Has no formal structure.

b. Argumentation

i. Appeals to reason.

ii. Connects a series of statements so that they logically lead to a conclusion.

iii. Does not try to move an audience to action.

iv. Has a formal structure.

1. argument

2. makes points

3. supplies evidence

4. establishes a logical chain of reasoning

5. refutes opposing arguments accommodates the views of an audience

v. Also appeals to emotion.

1. Emotion should not take place of logic.

2. Emotion supports and reinforces logic.

c. Lies, threats and appeals to greed and prejudice are unacceptable

d. Only use views which people would consider fair.

III. Planning an Argumentative Essay

a. Choosing a topic

i. Have an intellectual or emotional stake with the topic yet stay open-minded.

ii. Be able to consider the topic from others’ viewpoints.

iii. If you can’t be open-minded, choose another topic.

iv. Be well informed about the topic

v. Be able to confine discussion to the space available to you

vi. Know your goals (what you expect to accomplish with this essay).

b. Taking a Stand

i. State the position for which you will argue.

ii. Form a debatable thesis.

1. At least some people should object to it.

2. Form an antithesis to check stability of your thesis.

a. Asserts the opposite position.

iii. Support each point logically and persuasively.

c. Analyzing your audience

i. Know the characteristics, values and beliefs of your audience.

ii. Know the audience is skeptical and need to be persuaded to your view.

iii. Know that the opposition is looking for holes in your argument.

iv. Must appeal to readers who are hostile, neutral and friendly.

v. Must provide evidence.

d. Gathering and Documenting Evidence

i. All points must be supported by evidence, facts and opinions.

1. Know that evidence does not prove your point otherwise there would be no need for your paper.

ii. Kinds of evidence

1. Facts

a. Statements that most people agree are true and can be affirmed independently.

b. May be drawn from your own experience.

2. Opinions

a. Interpretations of facts.

b. Some opinions are more convincing then others depending on whose they are (One would more likely trust a professionals opinion rather than a civilians).

iii. Criteria for evidence

1. evidence should be relevant.

2. evidence should be representative

3. evidence should be efficient

iv. Documentation of evidence

1. follow a format such as the MLA to document evidence

2. Documentation gives readers the ability to assess the sources.

3. Helps you avoid plagiarism

4. Don’t need documentation for common knowledge.

v. Dealing with the Opposition.

1. Address the Opposition

2. Refuting the opposition makes the strongest argument

3. Show the opposition that they are unstable.

e. Understanding Rogerian Argument

i. Arguing without assuming an adversarial relationshipß Carl Rogers.

ii. Frequently hammering the fact that the opponent is wrong.

iii. Rogerian Argument

1. Begin by summarizing opposing viewpoints

2. Carefully consider the position of those who disagree with you. What are their legitimate concerns? If you were in their place, how would you react?

3. Present opposing points of view accurately and fairly. Demonstrate your respect for the ideas of those who disagree with you.

4. Concede the strength of a compelling opposing argument

5. Think of the concerns that you and your opposition share

6. Demonstrate to the readers how they will benefit from the position you are defining

IV. Using Deductive and Inductive Arguments

a. Deductive arguments

i. Proceeds from a general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion

ii. Syllogism

1. Major premise (All Olympic runners are fast).

2. Minor premise (Jesse Owens was an Olympic runner).

3. Conclusion (Therefore, Jesse Owens was fast).

iii. When a conclusion logically follows the major and minor premises, it is said to be valid.

iv. A valid syllogism may be incorrect.

b. Inductive arguments

i. Proceeds from individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict form. Conclusions are less definitive than syllogisms

1. Question: How did that living-room window get broken?

2. Evidence: There is a baseball on the living-room-floor. The baseball was not there this morning. Some children were playing baseball this afternoon. They were playing in the vacant lot across from the window. They stopped playing a little while ago. They aren’t in the vacant lot now.

3. Conclusion: One of the children hit or threw the ball through the window. Then they all ran away.

ii. Some evidence may not be true making the conclusion untrue as well.

iii. Conclusions are never certain, only highly probable.

c. Using Toulmin Logic

i. An effort to describe argumentation as it actually occurs in everyday lifeß Stephen Toulmin

1. Claim: main point of the essay (Carol should be elected class president).

2. Grounds: material a writer uses to support the claim (Carol is an honor student).

3. Warrant: inference that connects the claim to the grounds (A person who is an honor student would make a good class president).

d. Recognizing Fallacies

i. Statements that may sound reasonable or true but are deceptive and dishonest.

1. Analogy: a comparison that explains an unfamiliar element by comparing it to a more familiar one.

2. Personal Attack: tries to divert attention from the facts by attacking the motives or character of the person making the argument.

3. Hasty or Sweeping Generalization: A conclusion is reached based on too little evidence.

4. False Dilemma: Suggesting that only two alternatives exist even thought there may be others.

5. Equivocation: The meaning of a key term changes at some point in an argument. Seems as if a conclusion follows the premises when it actually does not.

6. Red Herring: The focus of an argument is changed to divert the audience from the actual issue.

7. You Also: Asserts that an opponent’s argument has no value because the opponent does not follow his or her own advice.

8. Appeal to Doubtful Authority: Bolstering an argument with references to experts or famous people. These quotes are valid when the person quoted or referred to is an expert in the area being discussed. They are not valid when the individuals have no expertise on the issue.

9. Misleading Statistics: Statistics can be misrepresented or distorted in an attempt to influence the audience.

10. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Assuming that because two events occur close together in time, the first must be the cause of the second.

11. Non Seguitur (It Does Not Follow): A statement does not logically follow from a previous statement.

e. Structuring an Argumentative Essay

i. Introduction: Introduces the issue. State the thesis.

ii. Induction – offers evidence to support the thesis. Deduction – uses syllogisms to support the thesis. States the arguments against the thesis and refutes them.

iii. Sums up the argument if it is long and complex. Restates the thesis in different words. Makes a forceful closing statement.

f. Argumentation Checklist

i. Does your assignment call for argumentation?

ii. Have you chosen a topic about which you can argue effectively?

iii. Do you have a debatable thesis?

iv. Have you considered the beliefs and opinions of your audience?

v. Is your evidence relevant, representative, and sufficient?

vi. Have you documented evidence that you have gathered from sources?

vii. Have you made an effort to address your audience’s possible objections to your position?

viii. Have you refuted your opposing arguments?

ix. Have you used inductive or deductive reasoning (or a combination of both) to move from your evidence to your conclusion?

x. Have you avoided logical fallacies?

xi. Have you used appropriate transitional words and phrases?