Writing an Argument
An argument is a rhetorical strategy in which you try to persuade
readers by a combination of positive information that favors your
position and reasons that counter other positions. Writers use
varying strategies to convince readers.
Key Terms in Argumentation
As a writer in the academic world and beyond, you will be called
on to write argumentative essays. Don’t confuse an argument
with a fight; they’re very different. When you write an
argumentative essay, you’re trying to persuade people to see your
side of the story. Basically, you’re making a point and including
reasons why people should agree with you on it.
Think of your argument as being a rhetorical triangle composed
of audience, message, and the writer. If you understand how each
of these elements interact, you can create a more effective
argument. For instance, who is your audience? Are they inclined to
like, dislike, or be neutral about your argument? Will they
understand it? Can you appeal to their sense of logic or emotion?
What is the message? How have you developed it? Is the evidence
in the right places to convince the audience? What is your position
as a writer: an authority, a concerned citizen, etc? How credible
are you? Does your style reinforce the message you are sending?
Varying combinations of these three elements may lead you to
choose one or more kinds of appeals in your argument. For
instance, if you want to move the audience by appealing to their
emotions, sympathies, or motivations, you will be using pathos. If
you are using your own credibility and knowledge to create a
sincere impression on the audience, you are using ethos. And if
you are focusing on the content of your message–the facts, logic,
and reasoning of an appeal–you are using logos.
An argument based on logos–what we call a logical argument–can
take two shapes. If you want to build a case point by point, and
come to your conclusion at the end, you will use inductive
reasoning. In such an argument, you present your evidence and
arrive at a conclusion that seems likely to be true. Usually you
choose such a structure if you’re not sure the audience will agree
with you and want them to see how you have gone from particular
evidence to a conclusion. So, Sergeant Joe Friday finds bullet
casings, bloody footprints, and a dead body in the library; he then
comes to the conclusion that a murder has taken place. This is an
inductive argument.
If, however, you think your audience is likely to agree with you,
you may want to state your principles first, and then give the
reasons why you think people should agree with you. This process
of moving from the general to the particular is called deductive
reasoning. In such a pattern, you use generally accepted ideas to
lead to your specific argument. For example, if you wanted to
argue that your friend Julio should take ECON 378 next semester,
you might build your argument like this:
In ECON 378 you work until your head explodes. (general idea)
Julio likes to work until his head explodes. (general idea)
Therefore Julio would like ECON 378. (specific argument)
This three-part structure for building a deductive argument is
called a syllogism. The general ideas are called major premises.
You can condense this three-part structure even further into a twopart structure called an enthymeme, a claim supported by a
"because..." statement. (In an enthymeme, the first major premise
goes unstated.) The syllogism above would become an
argumentative statement like "Julio would like ECON 378 because
he likes to work until his head explodes."
This handout was developed by tutors Scott Gilbert and Meredith Reynolds.
The Classical Argument
Since rhetors began teaching Greek farmers strategies for
appealing their cases to Greek courts in the fifth century B.C., the
classical argument has stood as a model for writers who believe
their case can be argued logically and plausibly to an open-minded
audience. In its simplest form, the classical argument has five main
parts:
The introduction, which warms up the audience, establishes
goodwill and rapport with the readers, and announces the general
theme or thesis of the argument.
The narration, which summarizes relevant background material,
provides any information the audience needs to know about the
environment and circumstances that produce the argument, and set
up the stakes–what’s at risk in this question.
The confirmation, which lays out in a logical order (usually
strongest to weakest or most obvious to most subtle) the claims
that support the thesis, providing evidence for each claim.
The refutation and concession, which looks at opposing
viewpoints to the writer’s claims, anticipating objections from the
audience, and allowing as much of the opposing viewpoints as
possible without weakening the thesis.
The summation, which provides a strong conclusion, amplifying
the force of the argument, and showing the readers that this
solution is the best at meeting the circumstances.
Each of these paragraphs represents a "chunk" of the paper, which
might be one or more paragraphs; for instance, the introduction
and narration sections might be combined into one chunk, while
the confirmation and concession sections will probably be several
paragraphs each.
Here are some suggestions and strategies for developing each
section of your classical argument.
The introduction has three jobs: to capture your audience’s
interest, establish their perception of you as a writer, and set out
your point of view for the argument. These multiple roles require
careful planning on your part. You might capture interest by using
a focusing anecdote or quotation, a shocking statistic, or by
restating a problem or controversy in a new way. You could also
begin with an analogy or parallel case, a personal statement, or (if
you genuinely believe your audience will agree with you) a bold
statement of your thesis. The language choices you use will convey
a great deal about your image to your audience; for instance, if
you’re writing about abortion, audiences will react differently to
language about "pro-lifers" than they will to language about
"people who oppose abortion" or "pro-family supporters." This
introduction usually funnels down into a solid, clear thesis
statement; if you can’t find a sentence in this chunk that explicitly
says what point you are supporting, you need to keep refining the
introduction.
In the narration you want to establish a context for your
argument. This means that you need to explain the situation to
which your argument is responding, as well as any relevant
background information, history, statistics, and so on that affect it.
(For instance, the abortion argument might well mention Roe vs.
Wade, more recent cases, legal precedents, and even public
opinion polls.) Once again, the language with which you describe
this background will give the audience a picture of you, so choose
it carefully. By the end of this chunk, the readers should
understand what’s at stake in this argument–the issues and
alternatives the community faces–so that they can evaluate your
claims fairly.
The confirmation section allows you to explain why you believe
in your thesis. It takes up several supporting claims individually, so
that you can develop each one by bringing in facts, examples,
testimony, definitions, and so on. It’s important that you explain
why the evidence for each claim supports it and the larger thesis;
this builds a chain of reasoning in support of your argument.
The refutation and concession is sometimes a hard section for
writers to develop–who wants to think of the reasons why an
argument won’t work? But this can often be the strongest part of an
argument, for when you show an audience that you have
anticipated potential opposition and objections, and have an
answer for them, you defuse the audience’s ability to oppose you
and persuade them to accept your point of view. If there are places
where you agree with your opposition, conceding their points
creates goodwill and respect without weakening your thesis. For
instance, if you are supporting parental notification for abortions,
you might concede that there are times when girls can’t be
expected to get their parents’ permission, such as in abuse or incest
cases–but then suggest that a court-appointed counselor give
permission instead so that the young girl gets an adult’s support in
making this decision.
It’s tempting in the conclusion just to restate the claims and thesis,
but this doesn’t give a sense of momentum or closure to your
argument. Instead, try to harken back to the narration and the
issues–remind your readers what’s at stake here, and try to show
why your thesis provides the best solution to the issue being faced.
This gives an impression of the rightness and importance of your
argument, and suggests its larger significance or long-range
impact. More importantly, it gives the readers a psychological
sense of closure–the argument winds up instead of breaking off.
More readings on classical argument:
Edward P. J. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
(Oxford, 1971)
Walter H. Beale, Real Writing (Scott Foresman, 1986)
Terms in a Toulmin Argument
Many writers of arguments look to terminology developed by
philosopher Stephen Toulmin to describe the elements of an
argumentative essay. You can use these to check that your
argument has all the key ingredients it needs to be successful.
A claim (proposition, thesis): answers the questions "What point
will your paper will try to make?" or "What belief or opinion is the
author defending?" To be credible to an audience, claims must
usually be supported with specific evidence. For instance, a writer
may claim that "Standardized tests are biased against female and
minority students." In a Toulmin argument, readers ask, "How do
you know that is true?" or "What is that based on?" Such questions
are challenging the writer to prove the claim with support. In
order to defuse an audience’s potential challenges, some writers
use qualifiers to clarify their claims and protect their credibility.
Acknowledging that the claim may not be absolute protects them
from proving that their claim is true in every case. Qualifiers are
usually adverbs that modify the verb in the claim or adjectives that
modify a key noun; some common ones are typically, usually, for
the most part, some, several, few, and sometimes. Qualified
versions of the first claim might be "Many standardized tests are
biased against female and minority students" or "Standardized tests
are sometimes biased against female and minority students." Either
of these, because of the limiting qualifiers, are easier to prove than
the unqualified claim.
Support (evidence, backing) is the examples, facts and data that
aid in proving the claim's validity. Depending on who your
audience is, this evidence could also include emotional appeals,
quotations from famous people or recognized experts, or
statements based on the writer’s personal credibility. In the
argument on test bias, readers might expect to see statistics that
prove the test questions are biased, samples of misleading
questions, quotations from educators and testing experts, and
testimony from students who have taken such tests. All of these
might be good kinds of support, depending on the identity of the
audience.
Underlying the claims in Toulmin arguments are warrants, the
inferences or assumptions that are taken for granted by the writer
(and sometimes by the argument). Warrants connect
(conspicuously or inconspicuously) the claim and the support; they
derive from our cultural experiences and personal observations.
For instance, if over the last five years, girls at Madison High have
received higher grades than boys in every subject and yet the
Madison boys consistently score higher on the SAT than the girls
do, someone might claim that the SAT was biased against girls.
The warrant for this claim is the belief that something must be
preventing the girls from showing their academic excellence on the
SAT.
Finally, a key point in Toulmin arguments is the concession, which
brings differing opinions together by acknowledging a part of the
opposing argument that cannot be refuted. Conceding that an
opposing point is valid and then building upon it to further one's
own claim allows a writer to make the audience feel appreciated
without giving up her or his own position. For instance, in the SAT
argument, the writer might concede that other reasons, like test
anxiety or fewer math courses, lower girls’ scores on the test, but
go on to provide evidence that even when these factors are
considered, the questions are written in such a way as to favor
boys. If the writer can discredit the opposition’s counter-arguments
by proving their logic is faulty, their support is weak or their
warrants are invalid, he or she has created a rebuttal that supports
his or her own original position and furthers his or her claim.
THIS HANDOUT WAS CREATED BY TUTORS MEREDITH REYNOLDS AND
SCOTT GILBERT.
Rogerian Argumentation
One of the greatest challenges for a writer of arguments is to keep
the audience from becoming so defensive and annoyed that it will
not listen to anything the writer has to say. Sometimes audiences
can feel threatened by viewpoints different from their own, and in
such cases persuasion can rarely take place. The psychologist Carl
Rogers developed a negotiating strategy to help people avoid such
situations; he called it "empathic listening". In an empathic
position, the writer refrains from passing judgment on the
audience’s ideas until he or she has listened attentively to the
audience’s position, tried to follow the audience’s reasoning, and
acknowledged the validity of the audience’s viewpoint (if only
from a limited perspective). By trying to understand where the
audience is coming from and avoiding loaded or attacking
language that might put the audience on the defensive, the writer
shows empathy for the audience’s viewpoint and opens the door
for mutual understanding and respect. This psychological approach
encourages people to listen to each other rather than to try to shout
each other down.
Because it focuses on building bridges between writer and
audience, and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs,
and opinions the two share, a Rogerian argument doesn’t
emphasize an "I win–you lose" outcome as much as classical or
Toulmin arguments do. Rather it emphasizes a "You win and I win
too" solution, one where negotiation and mutual respect are valued.
Thus, it is particularly useful in psychological and emotional
arguments, where pathos and ethos rather than logos and strict
logic predominate.
A Rogerian argument usually begins with the writer exploring the
common ground she or he shares with the audience. For instance,
in an argument in favor of handgun registration, the writer might
begin by stating his or her respect for individual rights, especially
the right to self-defense and protection of one’s property. The
writer might also show appreciation for sportsmen and collectors,
who regard handguns as equipment for an activity or collectibles to
be valued. In exploring this common ground, the writer tries to
state the audience’s side of the issue fairly and objectively, so that
the audience realizes the writer is treating it with respect.
In the body of a Rogerian argument, the writer gives an objective
statement of her or his position, again trying to avoid loaded and
attacking language and trying not to imply that this position is
somehow morally superior to the audience’s position. The writer
explains the contexts in which his or her position is valid and
explores how they differ from the audience’s. For instance, the gun
registration writer might note that gun collections are frequent
targets for thieves, and point out that registration might help the
owners retrieve such stolen property before it is used to commit a
crime.
In the conclusion, the writer finally presents his or her thesis,
usually phrased in such a way that shows the audience that the
writer has made some concessions toward the audience’s positions.
For instance, the gun registration writer might concede that this
law should only apply to new sales of handguns, not to guns the
audience already owns. By giving some ground, the writer invites
the audience to concede as well, and hopefully to reach an
agreement about the issue. If the conclusion can show the audience
how it will benefit from adopting (at least to some degree) the
writer’s position, an even better chance for persuasion takes place.
Thesis Statements
According to Heffernan and Lincoln in their handbook Writing, a
thesis statement
•is the main point you express, explain, or try to prove in your
paper
•makes a specific, precise assertion about your topic
•should be specific, pointed, and provocative, promising the
reader(s) some new information about your topic
•should always be more than a vague generalization.
This means that your thesis statement should make a kind of
road map for your readers to follow as they go through your
paper. It should focus on the exact message you want them to take
from your paper, and lay out an outline for how your paper will
develop.
Since a thesis must be specific, this wouldn’t be a very good thesis
statement:
"The Writing Center is a neat place to
go."
This doesn’t tell us why the Center is "neat", or even what you
think "neat" means–tidy or interesting? A more specific thesis
statement would be:
"The Writing Center is a helpful place to go
because the staff is friendly, the tutors
are knowledgeable, and its services can help
improve your writing."
This tells your reader that your paper will now have three chunks
to follow: one on the friendly staff, one on the knowledgeable
tutors, and one on the helpful services. You’ve mapped out your
paper for your readers.
Let’s break this process of writing a thesis statement down even
further. Make sure your thesis statement does what your
assignment asks you to do. This means that the idea in your thesis
statement has to take the form required by the assignment; the
thesis statement above wouldn’t be a very good thesis for an
argument paper, for instance, because it doesn’t have a sharp
argumentative edge.
If your assignment is to describe a waterfall, for instance, you
need a thesis that has descriptive language about the waterfall in it:
Weak: "The waterfall at Snoqualmie
Pass is very pretty."
Better: "You can see, hear, and
feel many stimulating
things at Snoqualmie Falls."
This second thesis predicts a paper that has an introduction, chunks
on the sights of the Falls, the sounds of the Falls, & the sensory
experiences of the Falls, and then a conclusion wrapping it up.
If you are asked to write a comparison of two characters from a
story, your thesis could be
"In The Sound and the Fury, Quentin and
Caddie are
used to contrast the viewpoints of
characters who
live in the mind and those who live in
the sensual
physical world as a way of pointing out
that neither
of these ways is totally adequate as a
viewpoint
on life."
This paper would have a chunk about how Quentin represents the
life of the mind and one about how Caddie represents the sensual
world, and then a chunk showing the limitations of each viewpoint.
In an argumentative paper, you could write a thesis like this one:
Although opponents of gun control say
that it does
nothing to fight crime or save lives, a
seven-day
waiting period before being able to buy
a gun is
necessary to keep more people from
dying, to keep more
people from being robbed, and to keep
guns out of the
hands of known criminals.
This paper would follow the logical plan of an introduction, a
chunk representing the opponents’ points of view, a chunk
showing how the seven-day waiting period could keep deaths and
robberies down and keep guns out of criminals’ hands, and a final
exhortation to implement the waiting period. (It could be organized
in either a classical or Rogerian scheme using this thesis.)
So remember: A thesis statement guides the writer as well as the
writing. It should keep you on track, and every paragraph or larger
chunk of the paper should have a clear connection to the thesis
statement. It’s a good idea to write your thesis statement on a small
piece of paper or sticky note as you draft your paper; then you can
check each paragraph you write to see how it supports your thesis.
Sometimes as you write a paper, your ideas may change; in this
case, make sure you revise your thesis statement. For instance, if
you were writing the gun control paper above, and decided as you
did your research that a longer waiting period was needed, you’d
need to change both the thesis statement and the internal references
to it so that everything agrees with your revised thesis. It’s okay to
revise your thesis if it helps you make your paper clearer to your
audience!
Many resources will have materials to help you practice generating
and revising thesis statements. Usually any writing handbook (such
as the one required for your composition courses) will have a
section with exercises on thesis statements. The Winthrop Writing
Center also has a number of examples available in our reference
section; we’d be happy to help you find some to examine.
This handout was developed by tutor Tina Dittbenner.