THE FIVE-PARAGRAPH CON-PRO ARGUMENT ESSAY
This semester we move on from the one-paragraph essay of argument to the fiveparagraph essay of argument. It has an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a
concluding paragraph of summary and extension.
The distinctive aspect of the con-pro essay is that each of the body paragraphs
sets forth the opposing argument FIRST, and then argues against it to support the essay’s
thesis. At first this approach will seem strange to you, as if you are giving away too
much in an argument, but eventually writing this way will become second nature.
Moreover, an essay which shows that it really understands the opposing
arguments (but can meet them) is ultimately more persuasive than a paper which doesn't.
I first came across this approach in Sheridan Baker's The Practical Stylist, but readers of
Plato will recognize it as a distillation of Socratic dialogue reduced to an undramatised
formula.
A second consideration for you is the kind of thesis you choose to argue. There
are three kinds: matters of FACT, matters of VALUE, and matters of POLICY. In doing
this sort of argumentative five-paragraph essay, it is quite important for you to be aware
of the type of thesis you are supporting. A side note: Usually matters of taste do not
make good subjects for an argumentative essay. If you tried to prove that cherry pie was
“better” than blueberry pie, you would be undertaking an argument that would
ultimately prove fruitless.
Here is a possible topic: Resolved:The United States should withdraw from
Afghanistan unilaterally. This is a question of POLICY, which can be defined as a
matter of future action.
Here’s another type. “Chloroflurocarbons are dangerously depleting the ozone
layer.” This is a question of FACT.
Here’s a question of VALUE: “Abortion, though legal, is in truth immoral.”
For further amplification of these ideas, of course, see Aristotle's RHETORIC.
Below is a sample five-paragraph argumentative essay written by myself in the
structure I wish you to follow. It is an essay of literary analysis on a question of FACT.
Note, however, that the question is a debatable question.
IS CHAUCER’S CLERK OF OXENFORD AN IDEAL OR A TYPE?
[INTRO PARAGRAPH] When we look at the "General Prologue" to Chaucer’s
Canterbury Tales we find a diverse assemblage of characters all presented with sympathy
and zest. Yet among that assemblage we can pick out a few who seem to be described
with especial approbation, The Knight, The Parson of a Town, and The Plowman; these
seem to be Ideals. (see Allegory and Mirror: Tradition and Structure in Middle English
Literature by James I. Wimsett) There are others who are clearly pretty rough customers--crude, rude, and dishonest---such as the Summoner and the Pardoner. These are clearly
Debased Ideals. Among the rest, who are mostly types, there are some about whom it is
not fully clear whether they are debased ideals, ideals or just types after all. Chaucer’s
intentions are unclear. One such character is the Clerk of Oxford. Is he an Ideal of a
student of theology or is he just a typical student? I shall argue that he is just a type of
the serious student, but not an Ideal.
[CON-1.] A Clerk is someone studying to be a priest. This one has been at the
university a long time; he is one who "unto logyk hadde long ygo"(GP 286). That is to
say, he had finished his basic liberal arts studies, The Trivium, which included logic,
quite some time in the past. He has stayed on at Oxford University to increase his
knowledge. It can be argued that an ideal priest should be highly educated, learned in
the texts and theology of his religion. Clearly, The Clerk has a preference for learning
over "robes riche, or fithele, or gay sautrie" (GP 296). Rather than fancy clothes, or a
fiddle, or even a highly ornamented edition of the psalms, he much prefers to have at the
head of his bed "Twenty bookes clad in blak or reed,/Of Aristotle and his philosophie"
(GP 294-95). [PRO-1] Yet this very detail about his avoidance of frivolous riches and
his devotion to Aristotle does not establish him as an ideal character, but rather as a
typical graduate student at a university, one who has stayed on because he likes learning,
but has not gone out into the world to improve or sustain it with his knowledge. Aristotle
appears to be his consuming passion. Thus he is more interested in philosophy than in
bringing the message of Christ's love to other people, as an ideal priest should.
[CON-2] Even granting that it may not be so bad a thing for a clergyman to
devote his life to the study of Aristotle, perhaps we could argue that at least he is an ideal
student. After all, Chaucer gives him high praise in the last line of his portrait in the
General Prologue: "gladly wolde he learne and gladly teach" (308). If anything, some
might argue, this final line should prove him to be an Ideal rather than just a type.
[PRO-2] Unfortunately, much else in the portrait undercuts even the ideality of his
scholarship. That he does not seek after rich food is proven by his not being fat (288),
but his horse is thin as a rake too, making them together more a comic image than an
ideal. That his clothes are threadbare show that his poverty arises by choice. He does
not hold the income from a benefice, a parish which he does not serve in person, which is
a good thing, nor does he gain income from serving the great in some governmental
position. All he wants to do is "scholeye" and all the money he can beg from his friends
he invests in books. Thus, strictly speaking, he is not even an ideal student because he
studies only for studies' sake not for application to the world around him.
[CON-3] But is this really so? Perhaps all that study of Aristotle has made him
into something superior as a man.
Perhaps extensive study is good for the soul. What
kind of person is he? [PRO-3] Clearly he is not a bad person, a debased ideal.
But
Chaucer's description of him makes him a bit aloof. He is a man of few words, and those
are full of sententiousness and moral declaration. He is not particularly friendly or
agreeable. What he likes to do most is make moral pronouncement. This identifies him
as a narrow soul with a narrow mind, a typical kind of religiously trained person. He is
clearly a VERY serious young man, quite humorless, and a bit solemn and somber. He
has a narrow view of the world, a bookish view. While Chaucer approves of his
frugality, he recognizes in this character what in our own day we know as a perpetual
graduate student, one who never finishes his dissertation to become a full fledged
professor. What he most likes is hanging around a university town. He does not know
the real world, and his learning does not permit him to deal with it. His greatest grace is
his willingness to learn and his willingness to teach. These are the virtues of a university
scholar. But they are the virtues of the type, not of an Ideal. An Ideal would be able to
carry his learning much more lightly than does the Clerk.
[CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH---SUMMARY AND EXTENSION] The
example of the Clerk could be extended perhaps to the Prioresse as well, and the Monk
too, although his abuses are fairly flagrant. The depiction of the Prioresse is made
uncensorious by Chaucer’s gentle humor. It is perhaps proper that a Lady like the
Prioresse should concern herself with manners, since she is in the business of training
young women in her convent. To make the young women actually THINK, however, is
beyond her capacity, but that does not mean she is a debased ideal. As for the Clerk,
ideally, of course, we would like inspiring teachers. I have had only one such in my
entire life (and none of them in graduate school), who combined deep learning with a
readiness to talk to me as a person, but even that one failed me in a personal crisis. Most
of the time we have to accept pedants as our teachers. The Clerk is such a narrow,
pedantic type. It’s not so bad to be a type in life, but we should not confuse it with an
ideal. The clerk's self-imposed poverty, his humility, and seriousness as a student, are all
commendable, but they do not make him an ideal clergyman; they make him a type.