The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing
Ch. 4-6



This is the beginning of “I Say,” whereas Ch. 1-3
were focused on “They Say.”
Our authors note that “Moving to the ‘I Say’ stage
can be daunting in academia, where it often may
seem that you need to be an expert in a field to
have an argument at all” (55).
The truth is that you need “to realize… that good
arguments are based not on knowledge that only
a special class of experts has access to, but on
everyday habits of mind that can be isolated,
identified, and used by almost anyone” (55-6).


Though one may not always be an expert,
successful arguments are built on “basic
rhetorical patterns that most of us use on a
daily basis” (56).
We are going to look at the 3 most common
ways to respond.

3 categories of responses seems odd

Remember your readers attention, this is why you may find that
keeping it simple in approach can be useful



The authors point out that “It is always a good tactic to begin
your response not by launching directly into a mass of details
but by stating clearly whether you agree, disagree, or both, using
a direct, no-nonsense formula” (57).
Say things like: “I agree,” “I disagree,” or “I am of two minds. I
agree that
, but I cannot agree that
.” (57)
After using one of these responses, you can move towards the
complications of your argument – now that you have your
audience’s firm attention



Seems like a simpler move than most
Often associated with critical thinking:
Questioning, which can be the easiest way to
start off an essay
There are hidden challenges
 “You need to do more than simply assert that you
disagree with a particular view” (58).
 “you also have to offer persuasive reasons why you
disagree” (58).

Example from the text
“Although they say women’s rights are improving, I say
women’s rights are not improving.”
 This response simply contradicts the view its disagreeing
with and “fails to add anything interesting and new” (59).
The argument above is not an argument, for it to be one
you need to be support what you have to say (59).
You need to show that you are adding something to the
argument, “you need to demonstrate that you have
something to contribute” (59).


This method uses the idea that “you disagree
not with the position of itself but with the
assumption that it is a new or stunning
revelation” (59).
Example
According to a recent report by some researchers at
Stanford University, high school students with college
aspirations “often lack crucial information on applying to
college and on succeeding academically once they get
there.”
Well, duh… It shouldn’t take a Stanford research team
to tell us that when it comes to “succeeding academically,”
many students don’t have a clue.
- Gerald Graff, “Trickle-Down Obfuscation”
X is mistaken because she overlooks recent fossil discoveries
in the South.
X’s claim that
assumption that
rests upon the questionable
.
I disagree with X’s view that
research has shown,
.
because, as recent
X contradicts herself/can’t have it both ways. On the one hand,
she argues
. On the other hand, she also says
.
By focusing on
of
.
, X overlooks the deeper problems

This is called the “twist it” move. This is
where “you agree with the evidence that
someone else has presented but show
through a twist of logic that this evidence
actually supports your own, contrary position”
(60).
“X argues for stricter gun control legislation, saying that
the crime rate is on the rise and that we need to
restrict the circulation of guns. I agree that the crime
rate is on the rise, but that’s precisely why I oppose
stricter gun control legislation. We need to own guns
to protect ourselves against criminals” (60).
The “twist it” move comes from the way that X
claims “that the crime rate is on the rise but
then argues that this increasing crime rate is in
fact a valid reason for opposing gun control
legislation” (60).
1.
2.
3.
Not wanting to be unpleasant
Not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings
Not to make yourself vulnerable to being
disagreed with in return
Though we can be fearful of confrontation but
simply ignoring a disagreement doesn’t
make it go away.
The key is that its not a “put down,” there is a
respectful way of doing it



1.
2.
Its less than simple, like disagreeing
You need to “do more than simply echo views you agree
with…it’s important to bring something new and fresh to the
table, adding something that make you a valuable participant in
the conversation” (61).
There are “moves that enable you to contribute something of
your own to a conversation even as you agree with what
someone else has said” (61).
You can point out something that has gone unnoticed
You can cite a personal experience that ties in
What’s is ultimately important is to provide some difference and
contrast between what you are agreeing with and your view –
there still needs to be distinction
I agree that diversity in the student body is educationally
valuable because my experience at Central University
confirms it.
X’s theory of
is extremely useful because it sheds
light on the difficult problem of
.
X is surely right about
because, as she may not
be aware, recent studies have show that
.
Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested
to know that it basically boils down to
.



It’s okay to agree, but make sure that you try to be
your own person, avoid being “unoriginal”
Remember that if you are agreeing with one person,
you are disagreeing with another
Example:
These findings join a growing convergence of evidence across the
human sciences leading to a revolutionary shift in consciousness… If
cooperation, typically associated with altruism and self-sacrifice, sets
off the same signals of delight as pleasures commonly associated
with hedonism and self-indulgence; if the opposition between selfish
and selfless, self vs. relationship biologically makes no sense, then a
new paradigm is necessary to reframe the very terms of the
conversation.
- Carol Gilligan, “Sisterhood Is Pleasurable: A Quiet
Revolution in Psychology”

Boiled down, Gilligan is saying:
 I agree that
, a point that needs emphasizing since
so many people still believe
.
 If group X is right that
, as I think they are, then
we need to reassess the popular assumption that
.

The point of these “templates [is to] allow you to
do, then, is to agree with one view while
challenging another – a move that leads into the
domain of agreeing and disagreeing
simultaneously” (64).
This is the authors favorite way of responding,
for them “it helps us get beyond the kind of
‘is too’ / ‘is not’ exchanges that often
characterize the disputes of young children
and the more polarized shouting matches of
talk radio and TV” (64).
Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his
overriding assumption that religion is no longer a
major force today.
Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully
endorse his final conclusion that
.
Though I concede that
.
, I still insist that
X is right that
, but she seems on more
dubious ground when she claims that
.
While X is probably wrong when she claims that
she is right that
.
Whereas X provides ample evidence that
and Z’s research on
and
convinces me that
instead.
,
,Y
 I’m of two minds about X’s claim that
. On
the one hand, I agree that
. On the other
hand, I’m not sure if
.
 My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X’s
position that
, but I find Y’s argument
about
and Z’s research on
to be
equally persuasive.


Many authors worry about expressing
indecision, ambivalence, about an issue as
much as agreeing or disagreeing – this can
lead to confusion in the reader
According to our authors, “At other times,
however, acknowledging that a clear-cut
resolution of an issue is impossible can
demonstrate your sophistication as a writer”
(67).

I want you to read “Agonism in the Academy:
Surviving the Argument Culture” by Deborah
Tannen.
Its begins on p. 214 in your They Say, I Say of
the 2nd edition or find it online at:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tan
nend/chronicle033100.htm

Determine who is saying what in the texts
you read…
◦ This is important when reading challenging works
for school.
◦ The authors mention that:
when students have trouble understanding difficult texts,
it is not just because the texts contain unfamiliar ideas or
words, but because the texts rely on subtle clues to let
readers know when a particular view should be attributed
to the writer or to someone else. (68-9)
“We are all middle-class,” or so it would seem. Our
national consciousness, as shaped in large part by the
media and our political leadership, provides us with a
picture of ourselves as a nation of prosperity and
opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class lifestyle. As a result, our class differences are muted and
our collective character is homogenized.
Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most
significant factor to determining both our very being in
the world and the nature of the society we live in.
- Gregory Mantsios, “Rewards
and
Opportunities: The
Politics and
Economics of Class in the U.S.”


The authors note that “Although Mantsios makes it look
easy, he is actually making several sophisticated
rhetorical moves here that help him distinguish the
common view he opposes from his own position” (69).
Look at this:
 the phrase “or so it would seem,” this demonstrates that
the author does not necessarily agree with the view he is
sharing
 Puts this opening view in quotation marks, showing that
these are not his words
 Summarizing, he distances himself by saying that “our
national consciousness, as shaped in large part by the
media and our political leadership” – he also uses phrases
like “our class differences,” “muted,” “our collective
character,” and “homogenized”

Mantsios continues:
 He uses the word “yet” in the second paragraph, this
indicates contradiction
 There is a parallelism between the first and second
paragraph that sets up a contrast for the author
 Although he does not use the words: “I argue” or “I say,”
he still identifies his view
Paying attention to these voice markers can allow one to
pick up

Here’s Mantsio’s article if you remove the
voice markers
We are all middle-class… We are a nation of prosperity
and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class lifestyle…
Class divisions are real and arguably the most
significant factor in determining both our very being in the
world and the nature of the society we live in.
What’s the difference? Can you feel it?

To avoid the confusion, clearly state your points to
your audience.
Although X makes the best possible case for universal,
government-funded health care, I am not persuaded.
My view, however, contrary to what X has argued, is that
.
Adding to X’s argument, I would point out that
According to both X and Y,
Politicians, X argues, should
Most athletes will tell you that
.
.
.
.

Most of the time, yes, but there is a need at some
point, in limited form to use it but to say it but get
around the monotonous overuse, look at these:
X is right that certain common patterns can be found in the
communities.
The evidence shows that
X’s assertion that
Anyone familiar with
But
factor in
.
does not fit the facts.
should agree that
.
are real, and are arguably the most significant
.


Ways of identifying the markers without saying
things like “X argues” can look like this:
Instead of writing:
 Liberals believe that cultural differences needed to be
represented. I have a problem with this view, however.

You might write:
 I have a problem with what liberals call cultural differences.
 There is a major problem with the liberal doctrine of socalled cultural differences.

You can imbed your own opinion and help
summarize things

Instead of this:

You might write:
 Earlier in this chapter we coined the term “voice markers.”
We would argue that such markers are extremely important
for reading comprehension.
 We would argue that “voice markers,” as we identified them
earlier, are extremely important for reading comprehension.
Embedding references allows one to “economize”
thoughts without awkward interruptions.
X overlooks what I consider an important point about
cultural differences.
My own view is that what X insists is a
a
.
is in fact
I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls
.
These conclusions, which X discusses in
weight to the argument that
.
, add

Study a piece of your own writing to see how many
perspectives you account for and how well you distinguish
your own voice from those you are summarizing. Consider
the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
How many perspectives do you engage?
What other perspectives might you include?
How do you distinguish your views from other views you summarize?
Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases?
What options are available to you for clarifying who is saying what?
Which of these options are best suited for this particular text?
If you find that you do not include multiple views or
clearly distinguish between your views and
others’, revise your text to do so.



The authors share the tale of Jan Tompkins and
how she’ll wake up one night, during the midst
of her writing process, and realize that she
overlooked a major criticism to her argument
She does not panic or throw it out, but realizes
that “this is the moment of doubt and panic is
where my text really begins” (78).
She revises and incorporates the the criticisms
she has anticipated and that makes her text
stronger



Criticisms make our works stronger.
Our writing improves from by listening to the
objections
Naysayers make our texts stronger

The authors make this statement:
 “Isn’t the advice to incorporate critical views a recipe for
destroying your credibility and undermining your argument?
Here you are, trying to say something that will hold up” (79).

Tell your readers – Tell them what others will say
will actually enhance your ethos.
 The point here is that “writing well does not mean piling up
uncontroversial truths in a vacuum; it means engaging others
in a dialogue or debate” (79).

The authors state that “the more you give voice
to your critics’ objections, the more you tend to
disarm those critics, especially if you go on to
answer their objections in convincing ways” (79).
At this point I would like to raise some objections that
have been inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that
I have been ignoring the complexities of the situation.
Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting
that
.
Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds
that
.
Here many feminists would probably object that gender
does influence language.
But social Darwinists would certainly take issue with the
argument that
.
Biologists, of course, may want to question whether
.
Nevertheless, both followers and critics of Malcolm X will
probably suggest otherwise and argue that
.


Some people really take offense to labels:
feminists, Darwinists, biologists, etc. It can
feel like generalizing.
However,…
“since the life of ideas, including many of our most
private thoughts, is conducted through groups and
types rather than solitary individuals, intellectual
exchange requires labels to give definition and serve
as a convenient shorthand” (83).



You will want to minimize the generalization
and stereotyping.
To do this, “refine and qualify their use” (84).
Try these then:
 Although not all Christians think alike, some of them
will probably dispute my claim that
.
 Non-native English speakers are so diverse in their
views that it’s hard to generalize about them, but
some are likely to object on the grounds that
.

Objections…
But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its
actually being adopted?
Yet is it necessarily true that
as I have been suggesting that
? Is it always the case,
?
However, does the evidence I’ve cited prove conclusively that
?
You can also let your naysayer speak directly:
“Impossible,” some will say. “You must be reading the research
selectively.”

When you are introducing an opinion that is
counter or opposing to your own, make sure
you don’t fall prey to the temptation…
to give opposing views short shrift, to hurry past them, or
even to mock them, doing so is usually counterproductive.
When writers make the best case they can for their critics
(playing Peter Elbow’s ‘believing game’), they actually
bolster their credibility with readers rather than
undermine it. They make readers think, ‘This is a writer I
can trust.’ (86).

Don’t mock others points of view, remain
respectful



Even when you represent objections
successfully, you still have to answer those
objections
The authors mention that a “surefire way to
fail to overcome an objection is to dismiss it
out of hand” (88).
Perhaps…
 the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to
refute it completely but to agree with part of it while
challenging only the part you dispute. In other words, in
answering counterarguments, it is often best to say ‘yes,
but’ or ‘yes and no,’ treating the counterview as an
opportunity to revise and refine your own position. (88)
Although I grant that the book is poorly organized, I still
remain that it raises an important issue.
Proponents of X are right to argue that
they exaggerate when they claim that
While it is true that
follow that
.
. But
.
, it does not necessarily
On the one hand, I agree with X that
the other hand, I still insist that
.
. But on

Look over something you’ve written that makes
an argument. Check to see if you’ve anticipated
and responded to any objections. If not, revise
your text to do so. If so, have you anticipated all
the likely objections? Who if anyone have you
attributed the objections to? Have you
represented the objections fairly? Have you
answered them well enough, or do you think you
now need to qualify your own argument? Could
you use any of the language suggested in this
chapter? Does the introduction of a naysayer
strengthen your argument? Why, or why not?