Writing

Writing Argumentative
Argumentative Essays
Essays

Mack Gipson, Jr.

Tutorial and Enrichment Center

Gayla S. Keesee
Education Specialist
10/2006
An argument presents logical reasons
and evidence to support a viewpoint.
Parts of an
Argument
 ISSUE - problem or controversy about
which people disagree
 CLAIM - the position on the issue (Thesis)
 SUPPORT - reasons and evidence that the
claim is reasonable and should be
accepted
 REFUTATION - opposing viewpoints
Thesis Statements

 Topic—Issue

 ControllingIdea—Claim
 Supporting Details

 Must be concise and to the point

Organizing
Your Argument
 Clustering pattern—present
information in sections
1. Background 1. Background
2. Evidence 2. Refutation
3. Counterarguments 3. Evidence
4. Rebuttal 4. Summary
Similar to Comparison/Contrast Organizational Patterns
Organizing
Your Argument

 Alternating pattern
 Shift between evidence,
counterargument, and rebuttal
for each separate piece of
evidence

Similar to Comparison/Contrast Organizational Patterns

Organizing
Your Argument
 Problem—Solution
1. General introduction to the problem—background
 Include thesis statement
2. History of the problem
 Past attempts at a solution (Sources needed)
3. Extent of the problem
 who is affected
 how bad it is (Sources needed)
4. Repercussion if not solved (Sources needed)
5. Conclusion
 Restatement of thesis and summary of main ideas
Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF FACT - statement that can be
proven or verified by observation or
research
 “Within ten years, destruction
of the rain forests will cause
hundreds of plant and animal
species to become extinct.”
Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF VALUE - states that one thing or
idea is better or more desirable than
another.
 “Requiring community service
in high school will produce more
community-aware graduates.”
Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF POLICY - suggests what should
or ought to be done to solve a problem.
 “To reduce school violence, more gun and
metal detectors should be installed in public
schools.”
Types of Support
 EVIDENCE—show why the claim is valid
 Reasons
 Facts
 Statistics
 Personal experiences
 Comparisons
 Examples
 EMOTIONAL APPEALS
 Ideas targeted toward needs or
values readers likely to care about
 Errors in
Supporting Evidence

Do not weaken your argument

 Unfair Emotional Appeals
 Invalid or unstated assumptions

 Conclusions that do not logically

come from the evidence
Unfair
Emotional Appeals

 Emotionally Charged or Biased Language

 “Modern universities are infested by the
whining of idle intellectuals who force their
decadence and discontent onto our captive
youth.”
 infested, whining, idle, force, decadence,
and discontent imply writer’s disdain for
scholars and will immediately alienate many
readers
Unfair
Emotional Appeals

 Testimonials/false authorities—
assumes that an expert in one
field is also an expert in another.
 athletes endorsing SUV’s
 movie stars selling shampoo
Unfair
Emotional Appeals

 Appeal to “Common Folk”

 an ad showing a product being used in an average
household
 a politician suggesting he is like everyone else

 “Join the Crowd” Appeal or Bandwagon

 Everyone else is, so why don’t you…?
 Everyone else believes that …, so you should also.
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Ad Hominem - attack on the person rather than

his/her viewpoint
 “She says we need more military spending, but that is
false, since she is only saying it because she is a
Republican.”
 “I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to
say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a
Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold
such views.”
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Guilt by association - a person rejects a claim

simply because it is pointed out that people she
dislikes accept the claim.
 “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph
Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't
believe it.”

 Bin Laden supports Iraq in opposition to the U.S.

There is an “alliance of terror” between bin Laden and Iraq, and
this is a reason to make war on Iraq.
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Hasty Generalization - conclusion based

on insufficient evidence or bias
 Someone who is a sexist might conclude
that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters
because one woman crashed one.
 “Because one apple is sour, all
of them in the bowl must be sour.”
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Either-Or Fallacy - states that only two

alternatives exist when in fact there
are more than two.
 “Because of the violence, TV must be
either allowed or banned.”
 “My country: love it or leave it.”
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Non Sequitur - a conclusion that

does not follow from the original
statement.
 “Because my doctor is young, I’m
sure she’ll be a good doctor.”
 “Science has not ‘proven’ that EMF
can cause cancer ... so what are you
worrying about ... it's safe.”
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question

– author supports a conclusion by giving a
reason that says the same thing.
 Conclusion: Gun control legislation needs
serious and drastic revision.
 Supporting Reason: Our country cannot
afford to continue without legislative
revision.
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 Slippery Slope - assumes that if one thing

is allowed, it will be the first step in a
downward spiral
 If a teenager uses birth control, he/she will
have sex more often.
 If a person uses marijuana, he/she will
naturally start using hard drugs soon.
Errors in
Logical Reasoning

 False Cause - assumes that because

one event follows another, the first
is the cause of the second


 “Because I brought my umbrella today,

it didn’t rain.”
 “Because I washed my car, it will rain.”
Checklist for
Evaluating Arguments

 Relevancy and Sufficiency of Evidence

 Is there enough of the right kind to support your claim?
 Definition of Terms
 Terms should be carefully defined and used
consistently
 Cause-Effect Relationships
 Evidence that the relationship exists
should be present
Checklist for
Evaluating Arguments

 Personal Experience
 May be biased—need additional support
 Examples
 Should not be used by themselves
 Statistics
 Can be misused, manipulated or misinterpreted
 Comparisons and Analogies
 Reliability depends on how closely they correspond
to the situation
Offering a
Counterargument

 Demonstrates your
credibility
 Researched multiple
sides of the argument
 Made an informed
decision
Counterarguing
Effectively
 Consider your audience
 Conceding some of your
opposition’s concerns
demonstrates respect for their
opinions
 Remain tactful yet firm
 No rude or mocking language
 can cause your audience to reject
your position without carefully
considering your claims.
Checklist for Evaluating
Counterarguments

 Refuting Opposing Viewpoints

 Address opposing viewpoints clearly and
fairly
 Refute the opposing viewpoint with logic and
relevant evidence
 Question the accuracy, relevancy or
sufficiency of the opponent’s evidence
For a fantastic tutorial
 The unit is built around one particular type of
argumentative essay. It is important to understand that
there are many other ways of structuring
argumentative essays than the one proposed in this
unit. However, the structure outlined here has proved
to be very effective in giving students a clear,
accessible and useable model for their own essays.

 http://www.ltn.lv/~markir/essaywriting/frntpage.htm