WRITING
CENTER "INFORMATION PICK-UP"
(S.S.C.C.)
WRITING
ARGUMENTATION OR PERSUASIVE ESSAYS
• WHAT IS AN
ARGUMENTATION OR PERSUASIVE PAPER? WHAT
ARE SOME OF THE PURPOSES FOR ARGUMENTATION?
• WHAT ARE
FACTS? WHAT IS FACTUAL ARGUMENT?
• WHAT ARE
VALUES? WHAT IS EVALUATIVE ARGUMENT?
• STRATEGIES: HOW CAN STUDENTS BEGIN TO APPROACH SUCH A
PERSUASIVE ESSAY?
• WHAT IS A
TRADITIONAL STRUCTURE OF A PERSUASION OR ARGUMENTATION ESSAY?
• AVOIDING
ERRORS IN LOGIC
• WHAT IS AN
ARGUMENTATION OR PERSUASIVE PAPER? WHAT
ARE SOME OF THE PURPOSES FOR ARGUMENTATION?
An
argumentation or persuasive paper attempts to convince the readers of its
position on an issue--usually controversial and timely.
Argumentation
does not depend on manipulation or emotionalism or any twisting of facts. Solid rules of argument--as in formal
intellectual debate--guide the writing of such papers. For example, there are rules of etiquette,
logic (both deductive and inductive), dependence on empirical or provable
facts, and the use of a social context (e.g. the argument has value for society
and its readers).
An
opinion by itself has no inherent value.
Its value lies in how it can be supported with evidence and be made
convincing.
PURPOSES FOR ARGUMENTATION WRITING:
• To
convince the readers of the correctness of its position philosophically or
theoretically;
• To
change the behavior of readers in a pragmatic sense;
• To
inform readers of a social issue;
• To
highlight an issue which is little-known or generally ignored [but which the
author(s) feel are relevant].
Usually,
an argument has two main lines of reasoning if it is to suggest a policy
change.
FACT: VALUE:
(PROVABLE
DETAIL) (A
VALUE SYSTEM OF
PRINCIPLES,
THE IDEA OF
AN
IMPROVED CONDITION IF
CERTAIN
CHANGES ARE MADE)
PROPOSED
CHANGE
• WHAT ARE
FACTS? WHAT IS FACTUAL ARGUMENT?
FACTUAL
CLAIMS ARE:
• in
theory and principle (and practice) refutable or able to be proven wrong. In other words, a factual claim has to be "testable"
and "provable." It can not be
speculative or based on "gut instinct." For science, the definition of a fact relies on whether it is
observable, measurable, able to be repeated or duplicated in a controlled test
situation, and thus provable;
• logical
and do not carry internal contradictions;
• objective
and not subjective and can be seen by non-involved unbiased observers;
• sometimes
inferred (guessed at) from observable phenomena;
• NEVER
circular arguments (which uses the conclusion to explain away counter-evidence)
in which a person might assert "I am the one and only Super person and no
one else can be the Super person because the Super person is me" or
"What is good for society is what is good for me."
• NEVER
vague or ill-defined or unlimited.
WHAT IS LOGIC?
DEDUCTION: a conclusion reached through something known
or assumed; inference; process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows
necessarily from the premise
A
deduction is controlled by its premises and is basically a "reorganization
of the facts contained in them" (Fairbanks). No leap of assumption is made here (except the basic one which is
that the premises are true).
INDUCTION: any form of reasoning in which the
conclusion--while supported by the premises--does not necessarily follow them;
process of estimating the validity of observations of a class of facts as
evidence of a proposition (generalization) about the entire class
The
use of prior experience is crucial in induction as that is the body of
knowledge a person uses to make judgments about the world (including things
which are unseen). In an induction,
there is a leap of assumption from what is known to what is not fully
known.
WHAT IS A
HYPOTHESIS? A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a
question which forms from observation of natural phenomena. Possible consequences may be deduced from a
hypothesis if that hypothesis is true, and these consequences are often what
are tested for in controlled experiments.
An
example of a hypothetical syllogism follows:
If the baby is hungry, he will cry. (hypothesis)
The baby is not crying. (observable fact)
____________________________________________________________________
The baby is not hungry. (conclusion)
However, if you have a different observation, that may
change your conclusion.
If the baby is hungry, he will cry. (hypothesis)
The baby is crying.
(observable fact)
____________________________________________________________________
The baby is hungry?
(conclusion?)
This
conclusion may be right, but then again, it may not. The baby could be crying for other reasons as well such as a wet
diaper, loneliness, digestive discomfort, fever, or some other reason.
Note
that just because the evidence is consistent with a hypothesis does not
necessarily make the hypothesis true.
Empirical arguments are limited in this way. A valid argument must be "theoretically subject to
disproof." (Fairbanks)
FACTUAL ARGUMENTS NEED TO SOMETIMES CATEGORIZE AND
DEFINE:
Categorization
(classification and division) and definition break up a thing into certain
mutually-exclusive groups--in order to clarify a certain
"reality." Certain criteria
are set up to explain how "x" fits into a certain group and what
"differentiae" help define it.
1) genus
(broader category)
2)
differentiae (specific characteristics)
TYPES OF CRITERIA:
1) necessary properties: Everything in the group must have this
general characteristic or these general characteristics.
2) sufficient properties: These are aspects which--if met--would
define a certain object and place it into a certain category.
3) accidental properties: These are more specific and unique aspects
which are non-essential and almost "incidental"...and may be found in
some of the objects within a category.
CAUSATION: It is valid to
make a convincing causal argument in order to classify as well. As Fairbanks writes:
"How
could scientists discover what properties all mammals had in common unless they
collected all the specimens and inspected them? But on the other hand, how could they decide what specimens
should go into the collection to be inspected unless they previously possessed
a set of defining features against which to match them?
"We
understand today as scientists did not two hundred years ago that mammals form
a natural class because they share a common ancestor, some of whose
characteristics happen to have remained stable in all her descendants despite
the varied evolutionary development of other characteristics. This common hereditary endowment is also, of
course, the causal explanation of why mammals should share traits above and
beyond those that we regard as the defining traits of the class.
"This
understanding of the causal basis of natural categorization frees us from rigid
reliance on necessary and sufficient criteria.
Instead, we might think of 'family relationships' as determining
membership in a class."
OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN IN
SETTING UP AN ARGUMENT:
Semantic
Disputes: Define your vocabulary terms and language
(and symbol) usage clearly in your argument.
Make sure that you are talking about the same issue when you join an
argument. Clarify.
Post-Hoc
Fallacy: Do not assume
that because one thing happened before another that there was a causal
link. For example, if a person just had
a sip of tea and then an earthquake occurred, did the sipping of the tea cause
the earth tremor?
• WHAT ARE
VALUES? WHAT IS EVALUATIVE ARGUMENT?
"Perhaps
the greatest mistake inexperienced writers make is to evaluate their subject
solely according to their own principles rather than those of their audience as
well," writes Fairbanks.
Indeed,
writers need to have a fair sense of the moral or value system of their readers
and to write strategically to those values.
Of course, reality suggests that writers should also show readers what
self-interests would be fulfilled by following through with certain actions as
well.
Also,
writers should not only put forth their own value system but take into account
ethical counter-arguments and face off these as well.
THREE TYPES
OF VALUES CLAIMS and SYSTEMS:
Values claims are arguments/assertions about judgments
or standards, which fall into three basic areas:
1) utilitarian (pragmatic): What qualities should people seek to serve
the purposes in their lives?
2) aesthetic: What values or qualities contribute to our
understanding of "beauty"?
3) ethical: What criteria do people use for deciding
what is right or wrong?
STRUCTURE OF A VALUE SYSTEM (from the most general to
the most specific levels):
general
principles: over-arching values and concepts
middle
principles: applied principles to situations, less
idealistic than general principles and more pragmatic
specific
judgments: decisions made on a case-by-case basis while
taking into account the situation as well as the principles of the situation
SEMANTICS:
Be
careful to use vocabulary and terminology carefully. Many terms are not "value-free" or without societal
connotations. While the denotations may
be innocent, connotations are read into certain words, and writers should use
these with caution.
Ultimate Terms:
God Terms and Devil Terms:
An
"ultimate term" is one which has an innate value connotation without
the need for further analysis or support.
Two types of "ultimate terms" are either "god terms"
or "devil terms"--with the first considered positive and good and the
latter considered evil and negative.
Such terms may have connotations which are so overwhelmingly powerful or
"potent" that they may be abused in argumentation. Always clarify how you are using a term.
• STRATEGIES: HOW CAN STUDENTS BEGIN TO APPROACH SUCH A
PERSUASIVE ESSAY?
PREMISES: In any kind
of logical argument, the premise(s) which the author begins with has to be
correct and factual. If one begins with
a wrong assumption, one's argument may be debunked or destroyed once that one
premise is proved wrong.
BUILD-UP
OF INFORMATION: Some arguments may be built up of myriad
collected and well-presented facts.
These facts should strongly lead up to a certain conclusion or an
obvious "value" (shared between readers and the author)
judgment. It is difficult to decide
what kind of evidence and how much of it would make the argument clear and
decisive to readers; student writers will need to work on writing more to an audience
and getting feedback in order to judge the efficacy of their work.
USE OF
THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS: Theoretical arguments might be made
inductively or intuitively, but these are much weaker than real-life (vs.
arguments on principle) arguments. Such
arguments say to readers, "What if..." and ask them to take an idea
to its logical end conclusion (philosophically), but such arguments are not
"applied" to real life and so are considered weaker. These may even be considered purely
speculative and therefore less effective in making a point.
VALIDITY
OF SOURCES ( BIAS OR FAIRNESS OF THE
SOURCES OF INFORMATION):
Convincing
and accurate data? Is the source of information believable? Does this organization which provides
information have an ulterior motive in providing this data? Is the data biased or discriminatory or
unfair? Is the accuracy unquestionable?
Is the
information applicable? Does the information support the thesis? (Or is it relevant to a different argument
only?)
Timely? Is
the information timely? (Old
information often is supplanted by newer discoveries and therefore has an
"expiration" date or "shelf life".)
Logical
argument? Is the argument convincing logically, and does it fit
with the other information you know...or is it revolutionary and shocking? If it is surprising, more explanation may be
needed to incorporate and accept such information in a paper.
Generalizing? Are
you generalizing too much from limited information? Can such a generalization logically and realistically be made?
ANTICIPATING COUNTER-ARGUMENTS IS CRUCIAL:
Arguing
well means predicting arguments against your position and deciding how you may
defend against those. After all, just
finding support for your position will not necessarily make a strong
argument. Premises may be found to
assert just about anything including that there are space aliens on earth, that
the earth is flat, that a child has the potential to be a future president, or
whatever. The premises alone do not
hold up an argument.
CITATION OF SOURCES:
Readers
of your essay should be able to track your argument and find the original
sources of information. Therefore, you
need to cite where you got your information.
Basically, you will need the following information: author, title, date of publication,
publication name, name of publisher, page numbers of referential information,
and so on.
Do
research American Psychological Association (APA) and Modern Language
Association (MLA) methods of source citation as well as the use of end-notes
and in-text citation in other Writing Center hand-outs.
CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTATION POSSIBLE?
Conclusive
argumentation may not be possible especially on highly-divisive or
controversial topics. Strive for
strengthening your position and how you argue it. Don't strive to solve world problems per se.
• WHAT IS A
TRADITIONAL STRUCTURE OF A PERSUASION OR ARGUMENTATION ESSAY?
TOPIC (subject
matter):
________________________________
TOPIC STATEMENT (a value judgment on the subject
matter):
____________________________________________________________
PRESUMED AUDIENCE:
A GROUP OF COLLEGE PEERS & THE COURSE INSTRUCTOR
INTRODUCTION:
The introduction must not only attract the readers' attention, but it
must also state the thesis/stance of the writer.
MAIN POINT #1:
_____________________________________________________________
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
MAIN POINT #2:
_____________________________________________________________
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
MAIN POINT #3:
______________________________________________________________
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
REFUTATION or REBUTTAL OF THE OTHER SIDE'S ARGUMENT AGAINST ONE'S POSITION: Argument is
not only putting forth one's point in a formal way, but it is also defending
one's position against the stronger arguments of the opposition.
REFUTATION/REBUTTAL MAIN POINT #1: __________________________________________
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
REFUTATION/REBUTTAL MAIN POINT #2: _________________________________________
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
SUPPORTING
DETAIL/FACT:
CONCESSION #1:
____________________________________________________________
Does the other side have merit as well? Are there exceptions or qualifications
you'll make to your argument? In order
not to have an absolutist position, it may help to make some concessions or
compromises in your argument.
CONCESSION/COMPROMISE #2: ______________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION: A
conclusion may be one of the following:
1) close-ended
summary of the contents (a restatement of the thesis)
2) open-ended
conclusion: a) question
b) prediction or projection into the future
• AVOIDING
ERRORS IN LOGIC
Cautious
and well-thought-out reasoning must be the underlying basis of any strong
argument. (Illogical argument falls
with one blow.) Weaknesses in inductive
or deductive reasoning, lazy or unclear use of words, emotional appeals,
manipulative presentation of information, selective vision (e.g. ignoring major
arguments against your stance), and such all weaken one's argument.
Avoid
fallacies or "flawed statements in arguments" (Wyrick &
Slaughter). While they may initially
sound reasonable, on closer examination, they may not be defended
logically.
1. DO NOT
OVER-GENERALIZE or COMMIT "HASTY GENERALIZATION" IN LOGIC:
Example: The only reason why so many people get divorced
is that they're genetically
programmed to philander and mate with many.
(This may be one
of
the reasons, but this is surely not the only reason for the high divorce
rate.)
2. AVOID
EQUIVOCATIONS (SEMANTICS): Do not shift
the meaning of a key term or terms in the middle of your argument to make your
conclusion seem logical.
Example: During university life, students find
themselves stressed out and
pushed
to the limits of their physical, emotional and intellectual
endurance. It is, then, part of university life for
students to cheat.
(This
asserts that part of "university life" must include cheating.
"University
life" refers to a general experience when "cheating" is an
"act,"
and
the two are not parallel in any way.
The one experience does not
necessarily
include deception.)
3. DO NOT
OVERSIMPLIFY THE ISSUE. Many issues are
complex and the result of various factors.
Delve deeply into an issue for a full understanding before making any
proclamations about it.
Example: The problem of the underclass in the U.S.
can be solved with jobs.
If
only he can avoid doughnuts in the morning, Gary can lose all the
weight
that he needs.
4. AVOID
BEGGING THE QUESTION OR USING A DEBATABLE PREMISE AS FACTUAL. "Begging the question" means
basing an argument on an unproved premise.
Example: Reckless race car drivers who race
nationally should not get health
or
life insurance. (Where is the proof
that race car drivers are reckless
even
if their field is high risk?)
Lazy
minorities should not benefit from affirmative action. (Where
is
the proof that minorities are necessarily "lazy"?)
5. DO NOT
NAME-CALL YOUR OPPONENT. Issues need to
be argued on their merits, not the people who hold certain positions/stances on
the argument.
Example: People who favor no-fault divorce are
bleeding heart liberals without
a
sense of morals.
People
who are against homosexual marriage are straight-backed
conservatives
who want to foist their religious agenda on an
unsuspecting
populace.
6. AVOID
EITHER-OR REASONING (A KIND OF OVERSIMPLIFICATION): Oftentimes, more than two alternatives exist to a situation. It may well be a falsehood to suggest that
only two options exist.
Example: Either we fund Paul Allen's Football
Northwest stadium proposal,
or
we lose football forever.
Either
you get this position, or you can kiss your career good-bye.
Either
you marry this man or remain single the rest of your life.
7. AVOID CONSENSUS GENITUM (GOING ALONG WITH THE CROWD, "THE
BANDWAGON" PHENOMENON): Don't
argue that something is true because "everybody's doing it."
Example: It's all right to shop lift. Everybody's doing it.
Many
people are going to smoke marijuana whether it's legal or not
anyway,
so go ahead and do it.
Lieutenant
Kelly Flynn can commit adultery as a B-52 bomber pilot
who
can carry a nuclear weapon because everyone else is doing it anyway.
8. AVOID RED
HERRING ARGUMENTS: Do not change the
subject in the middle of the argument to divert attention away from the real
issues.
Example: Timothy McVeigh has been convicted of
plotting and carrying out the
bombing
of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building and killing 168 people;
however,
he was a decorated Persian Gulf War veteran and such a good boy
when
he was growing up.
9. AVOID
"THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONE EVENT CAUSES ANOTHER BECAUSE IT OCCURRED
FIRST" (CLOUSE) OR THE POST HOC,
ERGO PROPTER HOC ("AFTER THIS, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THIS")
ARGUMENT: Do not falsely assume a
cause-and-effect relationship simply because one event preceded another.
Example: I coughed just before the earthquake
occurred, so my coughing probably
caused
the earthquake.
The
teacher said "good morning" just before she tripped at the podium,
so
she probably shouldn't say "good morning" again unless she wants to
risk
another
accident.
10.
"AVOID ATTACKING OR DEFENDING AN ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WAS
BELIEVED OR DONE IN THE PAST."
(CLOUSE)
Example: The U.S. and Russia can never be friends
because they were enemies in
the
past. (The past relationship cannot be
an analogy for the present.)
If
our grandparents lived without health insurance for all of their
lives,
we can, too (They lived under different
circumstances with different
medical
costs and realities. The two situations
and time periods are not
comparable.)
11. AVOID THE
IDEA THAT ONE PERSON'S TRUTH MUST EXTEND OR GENERALIZE OUT TO ALL.
Example: I smoke, and I'm still quite healthy. (What is apparently true for oneself
may
not be true for others.)
George
didn't need to save for his university education, and he still
got
accepted into several universities with full scholarships. (What occurred
for
George would not statistically likely happen to others.)
Annette
won $1,000,000 in the lottery, and you can too! (The odds
range
one in several million. Etc.)
12. AVOID THE
"AS ANY FOOL CAN SEE" OR "DUMMY" APPROACH:
Example: As anyone can see, welfare hurts the
nation. (The "as anyone can
see"
belittles
the audience members who would disagree.)
It
is apparent to everyone that reverse discrimination lawsuits are
petty
and frivolous. (If it were
"apparent to everyone," then the essay would
not
need to be written making this assertion.
Avoid phrasing that would put down
the reader.)
The
famous slogan, "It's the economy, dummy," is yet another example
of
such a fallacious and manipulative approach to argument.
13. AVOID
CIRCULAR ARGUMENT: This assumes that
something is true simply because it's true.
This often creates a "dead-end argument" or "case
closed" situation. The argument
loops back on itself and doesn't prove anything.
Example: Apartment housing is scarce in Seattle
because too many people live in
this
area. (This argument is a simple
repetition.)
Crime
rates have gone up because more people
are committing
crimes.
14. DO NOT USE
NON SEQUITURS: ("IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW"): This fallacy involves
the belief that given a certain fact, it must eventually lead to a particular
result.
Example: An AIDS vaccine must be found because so
many world-class scientists
are
working on the problem, and so much money is being poured on the
issue. (To look at the analogy of cancer, many
resources have been put
into
that health issue, and no conclusive cure for cancer has been found.
Simply
because money and time and effort are being put towards a
problem
does not ensure that the problem will be solved.)
Their
marriage must work because the couple are
both religious.
(Being
religious does not necessarily mean the ability to create a successful
marriage.)
15. ESCHEW ARGUMENT AD POPULUM (ARGUMENT TO THE
PEOPLE): This argument involves
"coloring" a certain group or ideology or product by asking readers
to "associate one idea that appeals to people's emotions or prejudices
with another idea, regardless of a logical connection." (Wyrick & Slaughter)
Example: As a Northerner, this candidate subscribes
to separatist ideas and
therefore
should not be trusted.
Her
kind of Beltway politics involves only deceit, characteristic of
most
Washington, D.C. politicians.
16. AVOID ARGUMENT AD VERECUNDIAM ("ARGUMENT
TO AUTHORITY"): This argument
appeals to the inherent obedience in people.
It uses an authority figure to push a certain argument or stance, even
when that "authority" may not directly have knowledge of a certain
issue.
Example: Because Football Player A eats this type of
cereal, you should eat it, too.
Because
this world-famous model smokes and looks healthy, you should
smoke,
too.
Doctor
Mom says you should use this cough medicine.
A
famous golfer wants you to borrow money against the equity in
your
home at a high rate of interest.
17. AVOID TU QUOQUE (OR "YOU'RE ANOTHER"
or OPPOSITE ATTACK) TYPE OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT: This fallacy happens when a person avoids dealing with the issue
or "hostile charge" by making a similar attack on the opponent.
Example: Don't tell me how I should manage my
career! You've been fired three
times
in six years!
How
can you tell me to avoid drugs and alcohol when you've been
an
addict for two decades and only quit recently!
18. FALSE
ANALOGY: "To base an argument on
analogy means to base the argument on the comparison of two things you know to
be alike in certain aspects. The
fallacy occurs when the analogy is presumed to extend into other aspects."
Example: Anti-marijuana use laws will not work today
in the 1990s because
Prohibition
never worked in the 1920s. (The two are
not comparable.)
Mr.
Southwell will make a fine husband because he is such an
excellent
negotiator and diplomat. (Being a
spouse is not analogous to being
a
negotiator or diplomat.)
Sources:
Clouse, Barbara Fine.
Patterns for a Purpose. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1995.
Fairbanks, A. Harris.
Fact, Value, Policy: Reading and Writing Arguments. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1994.
Wyrick, Jean and Beverly J. Slaughter. The
Rinehart Reader (Second Edition).
Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers,
1989/1993.
(Revised 1998)