The Argument Essay
AP English Language and
Composition
The Argument Prompt

You will be given a statement, excerpt,
quotation, or anecdote and you will be
asked to either:



defend, challenge, or qualify the assertion.
support, oppose, or qualify the assertion.
agree with, disagree with, or qualify the
assertion.
Argument Prompt continued…

What does it mean to qualify an assertion?

Agree with some and disagree with other parts of
the text
How do you argue a point?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Present the issue/situation/problem.
State your assertion/claim/thesis.
Support your claim with facts, details, personal
experience, and examples to name a few.
Acknowledge and respond to real or possible
opposing views.
Make your final comment or summary of the
evidence.
Use ethos, pathos, logos.
Avoid logical fallacies.
Elements of Effective Writing





Diction
Details
Imagery
Tone
Syntax
Modes of Argument



Ethos
Pathos
Logos
Ethos

Establishing your credibility as an author
Citing people with authority to support your
argument

Ethics—right/wrong

Pathos




Be careful not to rely solely on appeal to
emotion.
It will weaken your argument.
However, used carefully it can be very
powerful.
Be sure the emotion contributes to not
detracts from the argument.
Logos




Facts or statistics
Personal experience
Authority
Values (can be tricky if you evoke a value
your reader doesn’t share)
Patterns of Logic

Inductive reasoning



Drawing conclusions based on evidence
Specific to general
Deductive reasoning


Begins with a basic truth and proceeds (The
Declaration of Independence is a good example.)
General to specific
Deductive reasoning

Premise


The truth, right, or belief from which a writer
deduces an argument.
The Syllogism

A three-part argument in which the conclusion
rests on two premises.



Major premise: All people have hearts.
Minor premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Logical Fallacies

Non-sequitir


Hasty generalization


Conclusion that “does not follow” from the
premise.
Draws a conclusion about an entire group based
on insufficient evidence.
Post hoc: attributing false causes

Cites an unrelated event that occurred earlier as
the cause of a current situation
More Logical Fallacies

Begging the question


The assertion/premise really remains to be
proven.
Circular Reasoning

Restates the premise rather than giving a reason
for holding the premise
More Logical Fallacies

Equivocating


Ignoring the question


Changing the subject
Jumping to conclusions


Uses vague or ambiguous language to mislead an
audience
Conclusion has not been adequately supported by the
evidence
Straw Man

Exaggerating opponents views or only responding to an
extreme view
Yes…More Logical Fallacies

Presenting a false dilemma


Slippery slope


Throwing in a side issue to distract
Attributing guilt by association


Censoring pornography will end freedom of the press.
Red Herring


Posing only two choices without looking at other
alternatives
Politicians use this.
Ad hominem: attacking the character of
opponents
More Logical Fallacies

Appealing to pity


Appealing to prejudice


Seen as an attempt to distract the reader
Appealing to tradition


Should never stand alone
Especially if tradition is the justification for a
position
Arguing by analogy

Can be used wrong; need to be careful