Planning an Argument Paper

4,204 views
3,846 views

Published on

This is the one that I use as example of planning the paper. The key to this slide is acknowledging the opposing side & addressing their concerns. That is what I want you to do in your papers.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,204
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Planning an Argument Paper

  1. 1. PLANNING AN ARGUMENT PAPER Drunk Driving
  2. 2. TOPICS ALREADY COVERED THROUGH PAST TWO PAPERS  Drunk Driving: The Extent  Effects of Drunk Driving: Beyond the Accident
  3. 3. POSSIBLE THESIS  Drunk driving is wrong, irresponsible, and wastes many lives.  In order to reduce drunk driving in the United States, we need tougher legislation, better enforcement, and a higher rate of conviction and incarceration.  Drunk driving rates will not decrease until there is cooperation between legislators, law enforcement, and judges.
  4. 4. MY THESIS WINNER  In order to reduce the rate of drunk driving in the United States, we need tougher legislation, better enforcement, and a higher rate of conviction and incarceration.
  5. 5. OUTLINE – THE THREE MAIN POINTS Tougher legislation will act as a deterrent to people considering driving after drinking. Better enforcement such as giving arresting officers the ability to confiscate licenses on the spot will discourage people from driving drunk. Forcing the judicial system to incarcerate instead of offering probation for drunk driving will send a clear message to not drink and drive.
  6. 6. OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (1) • Fewer people drive drunk in countries where drunk driving laws are strict – Sweden and Norway are examples. • There are more drunk driving accidents in those countries where there are few or less harsh drunk driving laws – Some African countries are examples. Tougher legislation will act as a deterrent to people considering driving after drinking.
  7. 7. OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (2) • States where officers can confiscate licenses on the spot until the hearing have reduced drunk driving. • Sobriety check points near places that cater to drinkers should be allowed without prior notification through the media. Better enforcement such as giving arresting officers the ability to confiscate licenses on the spot will discourage people from driving drunk.
  8. 8. OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (3) • Second time offenders should not be offered probation before judgment. • A system of penalties should be created and universally enforced. Forcing the judicial system to incarcerate instead of offering probation to drunk driving will send a clear message to not drink and drive.
  9. 9. GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED  What are possible objections to each of these main points of the outline? 1. Tougher legislation 2. Better enforcement 3. Judicial conviction
  10. 10. GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED Possible objection: One person wrote about the inability of people to measure their own intoxication levels and that the strict law in California is too harsh because judging one’s level of intoxication is complex and difficult. (http://www.cockeyed.com/scienc e/breathalyzer/breathalyser01.sht ml) How I would refute: Regardless of how complex measuring intoxication levels are, people should practice reasonable drinking and adhere to the guidelines given out for time, amount, weight, and height. And when in doubt, just don’t drink and drive. Tougher legislation
  11. 11. GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED Objection: Some people claim that the breathalyzer is not accurate enough in judging one’s level of intoxication – blood samples are more reliable. (http://www2.potsdam.edu/han sondj/Drivingissues/110428486 9.html ). How I would refute: Law enforcement uses more than just the results of a breathalyzer test in determining whether someone is too intoxicated to drive. A person will not be convicted simply on a breathalyzer test result. Better enforcement
  12. 12. GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED Objection: Some people claim that harsh penalties like incarceration for the first offense is too harsh – it disrupts families and can result in people losing their sources of income. (http://www.blog.duiattorney .com/) Refutation: Tougher penalties are necessary. One time of driving drunk can result in the death of an innocent driver. Judicial conviction
  13. 13. BUILD YOUR ARGUMENT WITH DETAILS Thesis Main Point 1 Supporting Detail 1.1 Supporting Detail 1.2 Likely Objection & Refutation Main Point 2 Supporting Detail 2.1 Supporting Detail 2.2 Likely Objection & Refutation Main Point 3 Supporting Detail 3.1 Supporting Detail 3.2 Likely Objection & Refutation

×