Chapter 11: Types of Argument
“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”
– Michel de Montaigne
Building Sound Arguments
According to the famous satirist Jonathan Swift, “Argument is the worst sort of conversation.” You may be inclined to agree. When people argue, they are engaged in conflict, and it’s usually not pretty. It sometimes appears that way because people resort to fallacious arguments or false statements, or they simply do not treat each other with respect. They get defensive, try to prove their own points, and fail to listen to each other.
However, this should not be what happens in a written argument. Instead, when you make an argument in your writing, you will want to present your position with logical points, supporting each point with appropriate sources. You will want to give your audience every reason to perceive you as ethical and trustworthy. Your audience will expect you to treat them with respect, and to present your argument in a way that does not make them defensive. Contribute to your credibility by building sound arguments and using strategic arguments with skill and planning.
In this section, we will discuss the classic form of an argument and explain other common types of arguments.
Features of Academic Argument
A clear and arguable position: You must present a reasonable argument for which both evidence and opposing or alternate views (counterarguments) exist. If few would disagree with you or you cannot find any evidence of a credible opposing view, you should consider rethinking and revising your position. A common error occurs when students try to present a statement of fact as an argumentative position. See the example below to learn how an idea or statement of fact can be developed and revised to become an effective thesis statement.
An obvious organizational structure: A solid argument takes planning. If your argument is disorganized or the thesis and/or the key reasons are unclear or placed in a confusing order, your argument and supporting content may not be taken seriously. Taking the time to plan the essay with a rough phrase-form outline including your citations will save you hours of time when you start writing.
Necessary background information: You must present the issues, history, or larger contexts that provide the foundation for understanding your argument so that your readers (and you) can comprehend and see the urgency in the specific argument you are making. That is, you must acknowledge the current rhetorical context and provide a sense of the argument’s importance or exigence.
Viable reasons for your position: Your argument offers valid reasons for your position for which you provide relevant evidence. These reasons usually become the key points expressed in the topic sentences of your body paragraphs.
Convincing evidence: You present convincing, credible, relevant researched evidence including facts, statistics, surveys, expert testimony, anecdotes, and textual (i.e. such as history, reports, analyses) evidence. Think about the appeals you learned about in Composition 1: logos, ethos, pathos, Kairos, and Stasis when selecting your evidence. Varying evidence types will help you vary the rhetorical appeals and create a more balanced argument and greater audience appeal.
Appeals to readers’ values: Effective arguments appeal to readers’ emotions, values, wants, and needs. You might appeal to your readers’ sense of compassion or justice through a compelling narrative/anecdote. However, you will want to make sure that you have a balance between appeals to your reader’s values and presenting sound evidence to support those appeals and keep your argument from being driven solely by appeals to pathos.
A trustworthy tone: Through a confident tone, clear focus, knowledgeable voice, and well-researched, credible evidence, you can develop readers’ confidence in your credibility conveying to them that you possess internal ethos. This means that vague or shallow evidence and writing that is unedited and/or too informal in tone will reduce your audience’s trust in your argument resulting in a smaller chance that your readers will seriously consider the ideas you are presenting as valid.
Careful consideration of counterarguments: You present your awareness of opposing views about your argument to address the audience’s needs or expectations and to reinforce your internal ethos. If you do not address the “yeah, but” or “what about” in your readers’ or listeners’ minds, your argument may not be taken seriously and, even worse, your audience will think you have not researched your topic well enough or that you underestimate their existing knowledge. You should concede some points the opposition makes and refute others through evidence when you can.
Appropriate use of patterns of development to present your argument: Your argument reflects the application of the most effective patterns of development or rhetorical modes which you learned about in Chapter 10 (i.e. exemplification, explanation, analysis, classification, comparison/contrast, definition, description, narration), with which to develop the content supporting your reasons.
In the realm of persuasive writing and rhetoric, understanding and employing various argument strategies is crucial for effectively communicating ideas and persuading audiences. This chapter explores three foundational argument strategies: Rogerian, Toulmin, and Classical Aristotelian. Each approach offers unique techniques and structures for crafting compelling arguments, catering to different contexts and purposes. By mastering these argument strategies, writers can effectively navigate various rhetorical situations, tailor their messages to diverse audiences, and enhance their persuasive power.
Classical Rhetorical Strategy
Table 11.1 Classical Rhetorical Strategy
|
Category |
Description |
|
1. Exordium |
Prepares the audience to consider your argument |
|
2. Narration |
Provides the audience with the necessary background or context for your argument |
|
3. Confirmation |
Offers the audience evidence to support your argument |
|
4. Refutation |
Introduces counterarguments, also known as opposing viewpoints, to the audience and then refutes and or concedes the counterarguments or objections |
|
5. Peroration |
The conclusion of your argument |
This is a standard pattern in rhetoric, and you will probably see it in both speech and English courses. The pattern is useful to guide you in preparing your document and can serve as a valuable checklist to ensure you are prepared to create a fully developed argument. While this formal pattern has distinct advantages, you may not see it used exactly as indicated here as it often serves as the foundation for other styles of argumentation.
Toulmin Model of Argumentation
What may be more familiar to you is Stephen Toulmin’s rhetorical strategy, which focuses on three main elements. Stephen Toulmin was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in rhetoric for analyzing arguments. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, was considered his most influential work, particularly in rhetoric and communication and computer science.
The Toulmin Model elements:
- Claim: the assertion being made; the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
- Grounds/Data: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
- Warrant: the principle, provision, or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
- Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
- Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counterexamples and counterarguments.
- Qualification: specification of limits to the claim, warrant, and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted
Defining Claim
- A claim of fact takes a position on questions like: What happened? Is it true? Does it exist? Example: “Though student demonstrations may be less evident than they were in the 1960s, students are more politically active than ever.”
- A claim of definition takes a position on questions like: What is it? How should it be classified or interpreted? How does its usual meaning change in a particular context? Example: “By examining what it means to ‘network,’ it’s clear that social networking sites encourage not networking but something else entirely.”
- A claim of value takes a position on questions like: Is it good or bad? Of what worth is it? Is it moral or immoral? Who thinks so? What do those people value? What values or criteria should I use to determine how good or bad? Example: “Video games are a valuable addition to modern education.”
- A claim of cause takes a position on questions like: What caused it? Why did it happen? Where did it come from? What are the effects? What probably will be the results on a short-term and long-term basis? Example: “By seeking to replicate the experience of reading physical books, new hardware and software actually will lead to an appreciation of printed and bound texts for years to come.”
- A claim of comparison takes a position on questions like: What can be learned by comparing one subject to another? What is the worth of one thing compared to another? How can we better understand one thing by looking at another? Example: “The varied policies of the US and British education systems reveal a difference in values.”
- A claim of policy takes a position on questions like: What should we do? How should we act? What should be future policy? How can we solve this problem? What course of action should we pursue? Example: “Sex education should be part of the public school curriculum.”
If the claim states your position or stance, then the reasons explain and demonstrate why you believe that position or stance is legitimate. So, in a nutshell, reasons are your opinion for why your main opinion (thesis-level claim) is true. This is why reasons are oftentimes the topic sentences of body paragraphs because they help make sure that each paragraph functions to explain/prove the driving claim (i.e. thesis) true.Because positions/stances are always grounded in certain beliefs and/or experiences, any time a claim is stated there must be reasons behind it. Reasons can take different forms depending on the rhetorical situation; in particular, the person communicating the claim must be mindful of who the intended audience is and what reasons that audience will find most compelling. Keep in mind that when you are writing an academic paper that is argument-based, it can be helpful to imagine that your audience holds a different position than you do on the topic, which places the burden on you to demonstrate why your ideas are sound. When you imagine your audience agrees with you from the start, you may be more likely to present weaker reasons (as well as evidence) to back your claim.
Many people start with a claim, but then find that it is challenged. If you just ask me to do something, I will not simply agree with what you want. I will ask why I should agree with you. I will ask you to prove your claim. This is where grounds become important.
Defining Grounds/Data
The grounds (or data) are the basis of real persuasion and are made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim. It is the ‘truth’ on which the claim is based. Grounds may also include proof of expertise and the basic premises on which the rest of the argument is built.
The actual truth of the data may be less than 100%, as much data is ultimately based on perception. We assume what we measure is true, but there may be problems in this measurement, ranging from a faulty measurement instrument to biased sampling.
It is critical to the argument that the grounds are not challenged because, if they are, they may become a claim, which you will need to prove with even deeper information and further argument.
Information is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational are more likely to be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. It is often a useful test to give something factual to the other person that disproves their argument and watch how they handle it. Some will accept it without question. Some will dismiss it out of hand. Others will dig deeper, requiring more explanation. This is where the warrant comes into its own.
Defining Evidence
An audience is unlikely to be persuaded to accept a claim based on the author’s reasons alone, particularly if that audience holds a different position than you/the author(s). As discussed in earlier sections, evidence can be defined as information that supports the reasons, demonstrating why they are sound ideas (that support the claim).
We tend to think of evidence in terms of statistics (or quantitative data) since people find truth in numbers. However, evidence does not have to be numerical; instead, evidence can take the form of an anecdote (a brief account or story), excerpts from a conversation or an interview, a quotation from a published source, an image or graphic, etc.
Also keep in mind that a statistic is not necessarily accurate; just as a quotation can be taken out of context, numbers can also be manipulated.
As an audience member, you must be skeptical of the evidence someone presents to you, but, likewise, as a writer, you must be diligent in evaluating the credibility and applicability of any information you come across that you intend to present in support of your argument.
Using Evidence Effectively and Ethically
Defining Warrant
Defining Backing
Defining Qualifier
Defining Rebuttal
Figure 11.1 The Elements of the Toulmin Model
Example
- Claim: You should buy our tooth-whitening product.
- Data: Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using the product for a specified time.
- Warrant: People want whiter teeth.
- Backing: Celebrities want whiter teeth.
- Rebuttal: Commercial says “unless you don’t want to attract guys.”
- Qualifier: Fine print says “product must be used six weeks for results.”
Notice that those commercials don’t usually bother trying to convince you that you want whiter teeth; instead, they assume that you have bought into the value our culture places on whiter teeth. When an assumption–a warrant in Toulmin’s terms–is unstated, it’s called an implicit warrant. Sometimes, however, the warrant may need to be stated because it is a powerful part of the argument. When the warrant is stated, it’s called an explicit warrant.
Example
- Claim: People should probably own a gun.
- Data: Studies show that people who own a gun are less likely to be mugged.
- Warrant: People want to be safe.
- Backing: May not be necessary. In this case, it is common sense that people want to be safe.
- Rebuttal: Not everyone should own a gun. Children and those with mental disorders/problems should not own a gun.
- Qualifier: The word “probably” in the claim.
Example
- Claim: Flag burning should be unconstitutional in most cases.
- Data: A national poll says that 60% of Americans want flag burning to be unconstitutional
- Warrant: People want to respect the flag.
- Backing: Official government procedures for the disposal of flags.
- Rebuttal: Not everyone in the U.S. respects the flag.
- Qualifier: The phrase “in most cases”
Toulmin says that the weakest part of any argument is its weakest warrant. Remember that the warrant is the link between the data and the claim. If the warrant isn’t valid, the argument collapses.
Key Takeaways
The Toulmin Model is a method of constructing and analyzing arguments, focusing on practical reasoning. It comprises six key elements:
- Claim: The main assertion or thesis.
- Data/Grounds: Evidence and facts supporting the claim.
- Warrant: The logical connection between the data and the claim.
- Backing: Additional justification for the warrant.
- Qualifier: Statements that limit the strength of the claim, indicating its scope or certainty.
- Rebuttal/Reservation: Addressing counterarguments and conditions under which the claim might not hold.
The Toulmin Model is particularly useful in structuring arguments to ensure they are logically sound and persuasive. It emphasizes linking evidence to claims and considering opposing viewpoints to build a robust argument.
Rogerian Argument
- Introduce the controversy in a neutral voice.
- State the middle ground you are seeking to find by understanding both sides.
Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another, summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.
- Introduction
- Side A
- Side B
- Claim or middle path
- Conclusion
The Claim or Middle Path
Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. Using the issue of racial profiling in the United States, a solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. Building on that example, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence and quotations when appropriate.
The Rogerian argument analysis expands your knowledge and understanding of an issue far beyond a simple pro/con discussion and can help you develop a more sophisticated, complex argument. Processing your argument through the filter of a Rogerian perspective could also help you avoid some argumentative pitfalls. For example, fully understanding and trying to find common ground with opposing views may help you prevent:
- Taking too hostile a position against an opposing argument, thus alienating your audience.
- Not acknowledging the values, wants, or needs the opposing argument fulfills for the members of your audience will result in you never addressing them yourself.
- Writing a weak, uniformed counterargument to your own argument leading to audience mistrust of your internal ethos.
Key Takeaways
The Rogerian argument approach focuses on understanding opposing views without bias and finding common ground. This method involves presenting the controversy neutrally, fairly summarizing both sides, and proposing a middle path that acknowledges shared beliefs. By avoiding a hostile stance and demonstrating an open mind, you build trust with your audience and develop a more sophisticated argument. The structure includes an introduction, presentation of both sides, identification of common ground, and a conclusion that emphasizes the proposed compromise. This approach helps avoid alienating the audience and ensures a well-informed counterargument.
Argument Genres
Sometimes writing instructors assign specific types of arguments. These genre arguments have different purposes and will require different writing strategies. These purposes and strategies require writers to assume different roles. If assigned one of these arguments, you may find yourself investigating a cause, defining a term, evaluating a product, or solving a problem. You’ll still be arguing and using rhetorical principles to make these arguments, but you’ll need to consider your role and particular purpose as you compose your argument.
Causal Arguments
In a causal argument, a writer must argue about a problem or controversy’s cause. Causal arguments are difficult because most controversial issues have complicated causes. Many people also tend to believe in causes that correspond to their political beliefs. Consider the various explanations for school shootings. Some will insist the problem is the easy availability of firearms while others will insist that shooters are inspired by violent video games and entertainment. When making a causal argument, a writer should consider their biases and rely on evidence to support their claims.
In a causal argument, writers may be tempted by logical fallacies. For example, it’s important to remember that correlation is not equal to causation. If two events happen at the same time, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one event caused the other.
Definition Arguments
This type of argument may seem puzzling. How do we argue about a word’s definition? Isn’t that what dictionaries are for? For most definition arguments, the real argument isn’t the precise meaning of the word. Instead, the argument is about the implications of that definition and how the definition may be applied to specific situations. Consider the word “obscene.” One dictionary defines “obscene” as “offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.” A writer may want to argue that Playboy is obscene. Or that a recent controversial film is obscene. By making this kind of argument, the writer would suggest some course of action: the obscene material should be age-limited, should be condemned, or should be banned. In this kind of paper, the author would make claims about “accepted standards” and “offensive or disgusting” as they apply to the potentially obscene item.
Many popular arguments rely on definitions. Determining whether something is obscene or offensive is just one popular item.
Evaluation Arguments
You may be more familiar with evaluation arguments than you realize. If you’ve ever read a movie, restaurant, or other product review, you’ve read an evaluation argument. As online shopping and social media have expanded, you may have even written your own evaluation argument on Amazon, Google, or Yelp. A good evaluation argument will rely upon clear criteria. “Criteria” (singular “criterion”) are the conditions by which you make your evaluation; these conditions could be used to evaluate anything that is in the same category. A restaurant review may be based on food quality, price, service, and ambiance. An evaluation should also consider the specific category of what’s being evaluated: one shouldn’t evaluate a local pub with the same criteria as a fine dining establishment. By establishing a narrow category, the writer can write a more accurate evaluation. While reviews are the most popular form of evaluation arguments, that is not the only place they are used. Evaluation arguments are useful for supporting or opposing public policies or proposed laws. A community may propose several solutions to deal with a school district’s budget woes. A teacher from that district may write a guest editorial arguing for the best policy or write an article criticizing a poor choice.
Proposal Argument (Problem/Solution)
Proposal arguments require the writer to perform two tasks: argue that there is a problem, and then propose a solution to that problem. Usually, the problem will be a local problem. It is good to focus on a smaller community because national or global problems or much more complex; therefore, making them harder to successfully argue in the limited space of a college essay.
Proposals have two separate arguments. The first is the problem: it’s not enough to label an issue a problem; a writer must prove that the problem is severe to an audience. Take, for instance, the opioid crisis. A writer may need to convince community members who aren’t addicts why the crisis is a problem for their community; therefore, it is not enough to discuss how addiction hurts addicts. Showing how the community is harmed by the crime associated with addiction would be a better way to motivate a community to solve the problem.
The second argument is the solution. Explain what the solution is and how it solves the problem. A writer should establish that their solution is the best solution. The best solution is the cheapest solution that best addresses the problem. “Cheapest” here refers to more than monetary costs. While monetary costs are oftentimes a considerable factor, there are other costs like labor and change that may affect people physically, mentally, or emotionally. “Addressing the problem” is an acknowledgment that most proposals won’t completely solve a problem. The goal is a reasonable solution that eliminates most of the harm, or the most serious harm, caused by the problem. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of proposals is considering the unintended consequences of a solution. These can be positive or negative. Writers should ask “What happens next?” of their solutions.
Structuring Argument in Your Paper
Now that we have looked at the different terms and styles of arguments, we need to start thinking about how these things come together in a paper because writing academic research papers is (more than likely) going to be a lot messier than this chapter, or any textbook, makes it seem.
In a traditional argument-based paper, the claim is generally stated in the thesis (often at the end of the introduction), with the reasons appearing as the topic sentences of body paragraphs. The body paragraphs’ content is then focused on providing evidence supporting the topic sentences, ultimately supporting the claim. Such organization helps to ensure the argument is always at the forefront of the writing, providing guideposts in key places to direct the reader’s attention to the reasons and evidence. There may be occasions, though, when it is preferable to delay stating the claim until later.
If the audience is likely to be so opposed to your position that you are concerned they may not read further if your claim appears at the start of the paper, you may choose to postpone stating the claim until after presenting your reasons and evidence. Doing so allows you to demonstrate the merits of your case, hopefully persuading your reader in the process, before explicitly stating a claim the reader may have been hesitant to accept initially. Note that this approach is more of an exception than the rule, so you likely will not format your argument-based papers in this way.
In addition, regardless of what reasons you plan to use to support your claim, they will not be equal in their strength/ability. Realistically, the reasons will fall along a spectrum from strongest to weakest (note that “weakest” does not carry the traditional connotation of the word “weak”), so, when writing an argument-based paper, you will need to determine the best order in which to place your reasons. The most common suggestion for ordering is to place your weakest reasons in the middle of the paper, with your strongest appearing at the beginning and end. This approach makes sense in terms of wanting to show the reader early in the writing that your claim is backed by sound reasoning and to leave him/her with a final impression that your argument is solid. You also should consider the complexity of the reasons; if some of your ideas are more complicated to understand than others, you will need to strike a balance between strength and complexity in the structure to ensure that your reader is not only persuaded throughout the paper but also that they can fully understand the logical progression from one point to the next.
Example
Example for organizing reasons effectively
Imagine that you are assigned an argument paper that must focus on an education-related issue, with the audience consisting of your peers. You select as your claim the idea that all undergraduate writing courses that fulfill a general education requirement should include a tutor, who would attend all class meetings and assist students as needed. As you plan your paper, you decide to use the following reasons to support your claim:
- Students may be more comfortable seeking individualized help with their writing from a peer (advanced undergraduate student or graduate student) than their instructor.
- The tutor could provide valuable feedback to the instructor about students they might not otherwise know.
- Student grades and retention would improve.
To support the first reason, your evidence consists of anecdotes from fellow students. To support the second and third reasons, your evidence consists of published research that suggests these benefits. In what order would you place the reasons in your paper, and why?
Addressing Opposing Arguments and Counter Claims in Argumentative Writing
Once you have identified your audience and purpose, it is important to understand all sides of the issue, including the assumptions and values of your opposition. Writing is the interconnected relationship between the person who creates the message (the writer) and the person who receives the message (the reader). Thus, you are in dialogue with your audience and should anticipate the different viewpoints that exist in regards to your topic.
The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian models include an address of the opposing viewpoints and counter claims. Since your audience likely includes those who would disagree with your claim, success of your argument requires that you acknowledge beliefs and opinions that differ from your own.
Why do you think you should address the opposing viewpoints? In other words, how will doing so help the success of your argument?
If you do not address the opposing viewpoints, readers might assume you lack sufficient knowledge and understanding of the issue, that you have chosen to ignore the readers’ concerns about your position, or that you are lazy. Engaging with opinions different from your own communicates a thorough knowledge of the issue and convinces the audience that you understand and acknowledge the concerns of those who may initially disagree with you. These are all key factors in establishing your ethos.
What are some ways you can discover the opposing viewpoints?
- Research your issue thoroughly, from multiple perspectives, using a variety of sources.
- Conduct an audience analysis: profile and identify their values, beliefs, and assumptions.
Begin by looking for weaknesses in the opposing viewpoints in the following areas:
Definition
- Check that terms and words used correctly and appropriately for the context
- Confirm meanings and explanations clear
- Discover other ways to define or understand terms or concepts
- Reveal vague or weak language
Logic
- Reveal logical fallacies
- Identify intentional or unintentional bias
- Examine the underlying assumptions
- Look for distractions such as change in focus or direction
Support (reasons and evidence)
- Determine if reasons are sensible
- Expose gaps in the evidence
- Examine the evidence for credibility
- Discover evidence to disprove the counter claims
Exercise 11.1
- Describe the beliefs, biases, and values of your opposition.
- On which points can you agree (concede)?
- Which points can you refute (disagree and disprove)?
- How do your points of concession and refutation connect back to your claim?
Responding to Opposing Viewpoints & Counterarguments
Since your audience likely includes those who would disagree with your claim, the success of your argument requires that you acknowledge beliefs and opinions that differ from your own. A variety of options exist for doing so successfully.
Options for acknowledging and addressing opposing viewpoints:
- Acknowledge (summarize objectively)
- Concede (recognize value and points of agreement)
- Refute (identify points of disagreement and explain)
- Combo “Yes, but…”
- Connect back to your claim
Responding to viewpoints that oppose your own does not require an either/or stance. In fact, you will likely move between concession and refutation in order to create balance and build ethos. In this way, consider responding to opposing viewpoints as a rhetorical move that takes place on a continuum (Figure 11.2). This perspective allows you to choose the right response for your specific purpose. In responding to the opposing viewpoint, the ideal method is the one that achieves your purpose for your audience. Note that the final step listed under “methods” is to connect to your claim. Every point in your essay should support your claim, so remember that in discussing the opposing viewpoint, you are ultimately seeking to support your claim.
Figure 11.2 Opposing Viewpoint Continuum of Response
For the most part, refutation involves undermining an opponent’s argument. You might deny that they have proved their claim, refute the truth of his premises, or object to the inferences drawn from the premises. You will show those arguments are, to some degree, wrong, invalid, or fallacious.
Methods of refutation include (but are not limited to) pointing out your opponent’s:
- inappropriate or inaccurate evidence
- lack of or insufficient evidence
- questionable authorities
- faulty premises
- vague or faulty definitions
- errors in deductive logic
- logical fallacies
Consider your audience and their emotional biases, the occasion, the subject, and your own personality to help you determine the best course of action regarding refutation.
Some instructors prefer (and some situations require) that you refute the opposition before beginning your argument. There is reasonable cause for such placement, especially if your opponent’s views are shared strongly by your audience.
However, if your opponent’s arguments are weak, you can afford to delay refutation until the end of your own argument, using your discussion to build a case against your opponent’s views. If your audience is hostile to your views, it might work to your advantage, psychologically, to delay your refutation until the end of your argument, to keep the direct attack of your opposition out of sight as long as possible. You need not remind your audience at the outset of your opposition, thus closing their ears to the remainder of what you have to say. By placing the refutation at the end, you may dispose your audience momentarily to hear what you have to say without compounding their hostility.
Finally, you can also incorporate refutation wherever it is needed in each paragraph, rather than placing it in a separate section. In a heavily contentious argument, it can be useful to structure your argument as a response to the opposing viewpoints throughout your essay.
Exercise 11.2
Read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
What is Dr. King’s purpose in writing? List some of the opposing viewpoints Dr. King raises and note how he responds to each. Does he concede, refute, or acknowledge in each instance? How does this strengthen or weaken his argument?
Ethical Considerations in Persuasion
In his book, Ethics in Human Communication, Richard Johannesen offers eleven points to consider when communicating. Although they are related to public speaking, they are also useful in academic writing. You may note that many of his cautions are clearly related to the fallacies discussed in this textbook. His main points reiterate ideas presented throughout this chapter and should be kept in mind as you prepare, and present, your message.
Do not
- use false, fabricated, misrepresented, distorted, or irrelevant evidence to support arguments or claims;
- intentionally use unsupported, misleading, or illogical reasoning;
- represent yourself as informed or an “expert” on a subject when you are not;
- use irrelevant appeals to divert attention from the issue at hand;
- ask your audience to link your idea or proposal to emotion-laden values, motives, or goals to which it is actually not related;
- deceive your audience by concealing your real purpose, your self-interest, the group you represent, or your position as an advocate of a viewpoint;
- distort, hide, or misrepresent the number, scope, intensity, or undesirable features of consequences or effects;
- use emotional appeals that lack a supporting basis of evidence or reasoning;
- oversimplify complex, gradation-laden situations into simplistic, two-valued, either-or, polar views or choices;
- pretend certainty where tentativeness and degrees of probability would be more accurate;
- advocate something that you yourself do not believe in.
In your message to persuade, consider honesty and integrity as you assemble your arguments. Your audience will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of more than one view and your understanding of the complexity of the issue, thus building your ethos, or credibility, as you present your document. Be careful not to stretch facts or assemble them only to prove your point; instead, prove the argument on its own merits. Deception, coercion, intentional bias, manipulation, and bribery should have no place in your message to persuade.
Exercise 11.3
Select a piece of persuasive writing such as a newspaper, op-ed essay, a magazine article, or a blog post. Examine the argument, the main points, and how the writer supports them. Which strategies from this section does the writer use? Does the writer use any fallacies or violate any ethical principles? Discuss your results with your classmates.
Attributions
“Composition 1: Introduction to Academic Writing” by Brittany Seay is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
“Composition 2: Research and Writing” by Brittany Seay is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
“Addressing Opposing Arguments and Counter Claims in Argumentative Writing” by Kolette Draegan is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
“Making an Argument” by Lumen Learning is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The Toulmin Argument Model. by Kirsten Devries is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Image credits
Two people arguing photo by Afif Ramdhasuma on Unsplash
Thumbs up and down image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
