2. Intermediate Research Skills Workshop 2 Argumentative Writing (2016)

1
© Arnold Wentzel arnoldwen@gmail.com
Intermediate
Research Skills 2
Workshops presented in Colombia in 2016
Arnold Wentzel
University of Johannesburg

2
Part 2: Intermediate research skills
Workshop 2:
Forming arguments and writing argumentatively
Argumentation has been called the ‘hidden skill’ of academic research, because you cannot
be a good researcher without making arguments. Yet few people can tell you how to write
argumentatively. Argument is not just giving your opinion or criticising others – it is much
more. In this workshop I will show you how to do it.
Argument is the act of making claims. Take the following two statements: ‘one plus one
equals two’ and ‘Colombia is the best country in the world’. Only one of these statements
makes a claim. The first statement is not a claim since it is a fact – and a fact is something
that everyone agrees on. The second statement is a claim, because it is a statement about
which there can be different perspectives.
If all authors had the same view about everything, there would no reason to write anything,
because one person could say everything there is to say. But in the social sciences, it does not
work this way. There is much to talk about. The talking takes place around points where there
are different perspectives and room for difference – and this is what argument is all about.
Unless there is an interaction between different ideas, there is no argument.
In school and your undergraduate studies, you were probably not taught to argue; to pass you
simply had to repeat facts. This is a bad habit you have to unlearn quickly – you cannot be a
good researcher if you simply write down facts.
Argument is inevitable in the social sciences. In the social sciences we study a reality that is
not objective, but created by people and their beliefs. Money, markets, organisations, poverty
etc. would all disappear if humans were no longer on this planet, and so human beliefs create
most of the things we study. These beliefs are usually inconsistent and change constantly,
which means that differences in perspectives will always be around, so that almost everything
we study will be open to argument.
Before getting into argumentative writing, I first want to help you see what goes into one
single argument. This will help you later when you have to put arguments together in your
writing.
1 Elements of an argument
An argument is when you have a message (when you have something to say or a point to
make) and when it is possible for there to be an interaction between different views around
this message.

3
1.1 The Toulmin model
Let’s look at a single argument in more detail. Stephen Toulmin1
identified the following
elements that should appear in any good argument (also shown in the figure below):
Source: Adapted from Mitroff & Mason (1980:337)2
 There should be an explicit statement of the claim (C). A claim is any statement that
allows for differences. The differences can be opposing views but it could also be
different ways of interpreting the statement.
 The facts or evidence that supports the claim, which Toulmin refers to as data (D).
Data comes from the Latin word datum which means ‘what is given’, so data is
anything (quantitative or qualitative) that the discipline accepts as correct (mainly
facts). Data may include statistics from credible sources, accepted theories, references
to peer-reviewed studies and more.
 An explanation of why the data is relevant in support of the claim, which Toulmin
calls the warrant (W). A warrant explains why the data leads us to the claim. So, if
someone says your claim is unwarranted, they don’t mean you don’t have data, they
mean that the data does not seem relevant enough to support your claim.
 All claims are open to different views, so no claim is certain. Therefore, claims must
have qualifications (Q), which means we deliberately weaken the claim so as to
appear ‘confidently uncertain’.
 The conditions under which the argument might not be valid, also called the
counterargument or rebuttal (R). The rebuttal can focus on challenging the claim, the
data or the warrant.
Let’s do an example, and transform it from a poor argument into a good argument. With each
attempt, see if you can identify which element/s of argument it contains, and which elements
are still missing. Here is the first attempt:
Universities do not prepare graduates to become employable.
1
Toulmin, S. 1958. Uses of argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
2
Mitroff, I.I. & Mason, R.O. 1980. Structuring ill-structured policy issues: Further explorations in a
methodology for messy problems. Strategic Management Journal, 1(4):331-342
Claim
C
Warrant
DC
Data
D
Rebuttal
~C
~(DC)
~D
Q

4
This is a poor argument, but it has at least one element of an argument – the claim. This
statement is a claim because it is possible for there to be more than one view about it – some
people may say that universities do prepare graduates while other may say that it depends on
various factors (like the direction of study etc.) But a claim needs to be supported by
evidence, so to improve it the next attempt should provide some evidence.
The youth unemployment rate is 55% (Statistics SA, 2012). Universities do not prepare
graduates to become employable.
Now evidence has been provided (in italics) with a credible reference from a governmental
statistical agency. But the data seems to be disconnected from the claim – it is not clear how
the evidence leads us to the claim. A warrant is needed to explain how the data is connected
to the claim.
The youth unemployment rate is 55% (Statistics SA, 2012). A quarter of these young
people have studied towards a qualification at a university. Universities do not prepare
graduates to become employable.
The phrase in italics links the data to the claim, because it refers to the data (a quarter of the
55%) and to the claim (they studied at a university). So now it is clearer how the data leads to
the claim.
But at the moment the claim is too strong because it assumes that all universities are the same
and are not doing their job at all. What is missing is a qualification of the claim to make it
weaker. There are four ways to qualify a claim:*
i) Reduce the possibility
A higher interest rate
will result in
may result in
could result in
a lower inflation rate.
It is certain that…
It is very probable that…
It is likely that…
It is possible that…
It is unlikely that…
It highly improbable that…
…a higher interest rate will result in
a lower inflation rate
There is a strong possibility that…
There is a good possibility that…
There is a slight possibility that…
There is a remote possibility that…
ii) Create distance
Today businesses have…
Businesses seem to have…
It would seem that businesses have…
…less confidence in the economy
Given the limited data available…
In the view of the experts at the SARB…
According to a study by some economists… …inflation targeting has been effective
*
Adapted from Academic Writing for Graduate Students by John Swales and Christine Feak

5
iii) Specify the generalisation
 Qualify the verb e.g. a higher repo rate will often|usually|tend to reduce the inflation rate.
 Qualify the noun e.g. In the majority of countries one finds that most of the time a higher repo
rate leads to a generally lower inflation rate.
 Add exceptions e.g. Apart from|Except for periods of rising oil prices, a higher repo rate reduces
the inflation rate.
Now let’s return to the example to see how the author qualifies the claim.
people have studied towards a qualification at a university. So it appears that universities
play a role in graduates not being employable.
Note the two phrases in italics that qualify the claim. Even though they seem to make the
claim weaker, they actually make the claim more difficult to attack because the author is
saying it ‘appears’ that universities are failing, not that they are necessarily failing. And it is
also more accurate because universities are not the only cause of lack of employability,
although they could ‘play a role’.
At this point the argument is much better, but it still presents only one view. What is missing
is a rebuttal or counterargument. But you have to be careful how you employ a
counterargument. The next attempt just adds a counterargument without doing anything with
it – notice how this harms the argument in the next attempt.
play a role in graduates not being employable. However, Smith (2011:15) argues that
individual characteristics are more important when it comes to determining employability.
The counterargument is just thrown in, and the author expects the reader to decide for
themselves whether they agree or not. That does not work because the point of making an
argument is to convince the reader of your point. So, if you introduce a counterargument, you
have to show that it is mistaken, or use the counterargument to refine what you are saying.
The author tries to use the counterargument in the next attempt – notice how it improves the
argument.
individual characteristics are more important when it comes to determining
employability. While this is true, Jones (2010) showed that universities can change
individual characteristics. This suggests that universities are indeed failing their graduates
because instead of developing them as individuals, they focus mainly on conveying generic
subject knowledge.
In the italic text the author shows that even though individuals’ own abilities influence their
employability, it does not mean that only individual abilities matter. This is because
universities can in fact improve individuals’ abilityies, which suggests that universities focus
on the wrong thing. What the author did is to agree with the counterargument, but then turned
it around to make it support the original claim. In a way, you do to the counterargument what

6
you did to the data – you show how it supports your claim. By refuting a counterargument
you indirectly strengthen your own argument.
1.2 The importance of counterarguments
Some people think that counterarguments are unnecessary, but they actually make your
claims stronger and clearer if you use them right. To make your argument clearer and
stronger, you should introduce the arguments of those who different views than you, and then
critique them.
A counterargument can focus on any of the following:
 The claim (the author's claim is false)
 The qualifier (the author's claim is too strong or too weak)
 The warrant (the author draws the wrong conclusions from the evidence)
 The data (the author uses wrong or inappropriate data)
 The method (the method by which the author generated the data is wrong or
inappropriate)
You can criticise those with whom you disagree in your own voice, but this may not come
across as credible. It is more credible if you use other authors to criticise those you disagree
with. As an example, here is an extract from a research proposal by one of my students
(Anthea) that helps to illustrate how one handles counterarguments to strengthen one's own
view. In her essay she was arguing that ethnicity plays an important role in influencing career
choices. Notice that she raises a counterargument (focused on criticising the method) and then
shows that the claim of the counterargument is wrong. Also notice how she uses other authors
to refute the counterargument, rather than doing so directly.
Hofstede (2000) found that different ethnicities have particular cultural traits... [author
provided specific evidence].
However, his theory however was not without controversy and a number of studies
questioned his theory (McSweeney, 2002; Baskerville, 2003; Fang, 2003). McSweeney
(2002) appears to have provided the strongest criticism... M S ee ey’s riti is of the
method of study arose out of the fact that in some countries Hofstede made use of sample
populations that were too small… While M S ee ey’s riti is that the sa ple size
Hofstede used was too small is valid, it does not negate the final results concerning the
dimensions found. Van Oudenhoven (2001) replicated Hofstede's results using a different
and larger sample... The fact that the dimensions remained true 20 years later among
aried sa ples… offers strong evidence that the people from different nationalities fall into
particular dimensions showing cultural traits.
The riti is of Hofstede’s odel has failed to dis redit his theory; i fa t, it has gai ed
increasing support. His book has been cited in more than 26,000 publications since its
pu li atio . The ge eral a epta e of Hofstede’s odel a d its o siste t replication (see
Vaara, Sarala & Stahl, 2012 for a recent example) offers strong support for the claim that
different ethnicities and races possess different cultural traits.3
3
Adapted from the proposal of Anthea Paelo (2012), some parts were shortened and others expanded.

7
Anthea could simply have argued the one side – maybe just writing the first paragraph, and
leaving out the rest. While this would be fine in some cases, it is very dangerous not to
engage the counterarguments if the issue is critical to your essay. The issue of whether ethnic
groups have cultural traits was critical to her research, but it is also controversial. Pretending
that there are no alternative views would have left her claim open to severe criticism and
made her look as if she was trying to hide something. By anticipating the criticism and
addressing it, her argument immediately became stronger and also more interesting.
The only way to show that you are the strongest, is to defeat your strongest possible
opponent. Similarly, if you can refute the strongest counterargument to your claim, your
claim immediately appears much stronger. Counterarguments also clarify your argument
since it allows your readers to see the contrast between true and false. We only know what is
false if we know what is true. Knowing what is wrong makes it easier for the reader to
understand what is right.
1.3 Application of Toulmin model
In the first workshop, the one that showed you how transform an idea into a researchable
question, I showed you how to write the following sections: (1) Background to the research;
(2) Research problem; and (3) Research design. Using Toulmin’s model, I want to show you
that you would have made arguments in each of these sections.
 Background:
 Claim: there is a problem in the real world.
 Data: facts about the real world from credible sources.
 Warrant: for some group, show how the facts lead to a problem for them.
 Counterargument: refute those who might say that this problem does not exist or is
not that urgent.
 Research problem:
 Claim: there is something about the real-world problem that we do not know as
researchers.
 Data: references to previous studies about the real-world problem.
 Warrant: a systematic review of the studies that show how the studies are inadequate
in some way.
 Research design:
 Claim: I have a good idea what I need to do to answer the question
 Data: possible designs, other studies
 Warrant: show that the design is appropriate given the question and available data
Understanding the Toulmin model also helps you to see that, even though you are using other
people’s ideas, there are many places where your own voice as writer comes out. Your voice
will emerge from the following:
 The claim: You are the one who chooses which claim to make, even though you have to
support that claim with evidence drawn from other people’s research.
 The data: You decide which data is best and which authors to use in support of your
claim.

8
 The qualifier: Based on your understanding of the evidence you decide how far to go in
qualifying your claim.
 The warrant: A warrant interprets the data, and as the author of your research, you are
the one who explains what we should see in the data.
 The rebuttal: You pick the counterarguments that you think are the best, and you decide
how to handle these counterarguments.
1.4 In summary
The Toulmin model by itself won’t teach you how to write better, but it does help you to
evaluate your own arguments and those of others. To write argumentatively you need to
manage many arguments, which is what the next sections will show you.
Herewith a summary of the elements of an argument:
Claim
What you want to say
When you write you need to make a point and convince others
of it (claim). It is only a claim if there can be different
perspectives.
Data
What is given
Evidence that is accepted by the discipline (quantitative or
qualitative) that support the claim.
Warrant
So what?
Link data to the claim – show how and why the data should
lead us to believe the claim.
Qualifier
Admit uncertainty
All knowledge is problematic and open to question, and we
express the degree of certainty with qualifiers.
Rebuttal (counter-
argument)
Other perspectives
There may be counterarguments to the claim, qualifier, warrant
or data used. Rebutting strong counterarguments makes your
argument stronger, or conceding to rebuttals helps you to make
your position more flexible.
Follow these steps when you write a single argument:
1. Identify an issue (talking point) within your larger essay where there are different views
2. Summarise the different views fairly
3. Decide who you agree with and how you will position yourself
4. Determine what evidence you will call on to support your position and how the
evidence warrants your position.
5. Use the arguments of the view you agree with to critique the arguments of the view you
don't agree with (based on claim, qualification, warrant, data or method)
6. With all this at hand, write up your argument by letting the authors interact with other
and using appropriate argumentative language
Steps 1-5 are the thinking steps (though it may involve some rough written work) and step 6
is the actual writing step.
When you write up the argument, there is no correct order in which to place the claim (C),
data (D), warrant (W), qualification (Q) and rebuttal (R), but here are some of the more
common approaches:

9
 C  D  W  Q  R  Q
 D  W  C  Q  R  C
 R  C  D  W  Q
There are other approaches too. Whatever approach you follow needs to be logical – that is
really the only requirement.
No essay, proposal or thesis consists of just a single argument. So once you understand how
to assemble a single argument, you need to find arguments and link them together to lead to a
larger argument.
2 Flow between arguments
Any complex piece of writing will try to say (or argue) one big
thing – we call this overall argument the thesis. But to argue a
thesis, smaller arguments need to be made in different
sections, and those arguments must be connected in placed in a
logical order, so that one leads to the other, until the last
section finally concludes with the thesis. This applies to
paragraphs too – a section is broken up into paragraphs, each
one making a smaller argument and logically leads to the
argument of that section. Similarly, paragraphs are made up of sentences… and so on. This is
represented in the diagram here, where big circle is the thesis (the overall argument), made up
of the smaller arguments of the sections, and these are made up of the even smaller
arguments of the paragraphs.
But these arguments cannot just be placed in any order; each argument has to feed into the
next argument. We can use the Toulmin model to help us see this. Data does not just have to
be what other people have found. Your own argument in one section or paragraph, becomes
the foundation on which you base the next section or paragraph. The diagram below shows
this – that your own arguments must become data for your next argument.
To write a complex argument, made up of many smaller arguments, you need to master two
skills: (1) find the smaller arguments inside a larger argument; and (2) connect those smaller
arguments logically.
Claim
C
Warrant
DC
Data
D
Rebuttal
~C
~(DC)
~D
Claims of previous
arguments
(others and your own)
Q

10
2.1 Finding smaller arguments
To find smaller arguments, you must first know what your overall message (thesis) is. This
becomes the "seed" from which you will grow the smaller arguments.
Before writing anything you must be
able to summarise your thesis in a single
sentence. The sentence must be clear
and concise, and you must be able to
clearly define every term in your thesis.
Once you have a thesis (A), you will use
it to create the smaller arguments that
make up your chapters (B). You will use
the arguments of your chapters to create the smaller arguments of the sections (C) and so on.
Every chapter, section, subsection and paragraph must convey a single argument.
To find the smaller arguments I start with the thesis, and then have an ‘imaginary
conversation’ with myself. I imagine that I have a friend. The process is like this:
1. Make a statement to your friend.
2. Imagine the friend responds with a question. The friend is only allowed to ask a
question, and the question must be an open-ended question that encourages you to
explain more. The imaginary friend is not allowed to ask closed-ended questions –
those are questions that can be answered with a single word or phrase.
3. You respond to the question, which becomes the next statement (return to step 1 until
you have enough smaller arguments to give you clear guidance in your writing).
The aim of this process is to produce a hierarchical structure with all the important
arguments, that can be used as an outline for writing. Let’s do an example with the article you
will find in Appendix A. You always start with the overall argument. In this article I wanted
to argue that arrogance can be good, so I will start with a statement of this overall thesis and
see how the conversation develops:
Me: Arrogance can be good.
Friend: How is that possible?
Me For two reasons. We don’t really understand the meaning of ‘arrogance’ which is
why we think it is bad, and secondly, there are actually different kinds of arrogance
and we should not think about them in the same way.
This creates the first level of arguments
derived from the thesis, with two
branches, as shown in the next
diagram.
Now let’s take each branch at a time,
and using the same process, derive
further arguments.

11
Me We don’t really understand the meaning of ‘arrogance’ which is why we think it is
bad.
Friend: How can we know what arrogance really means?
Me: We can understand its meaning by looking at the origin of the word and by
considering what the opposite of arrogance is
Me There are actually different kinds of arrogance and we should not think about them
in the same way.
Friend: What are these kinds of arrogance?
Me There is destructive arrogance which we should discourage, but also constructive
arrogance which we should encourage.
This produces an expanded hierarchy shown. The first level produced the main sections, and
the second level the important groups of paragraphs.
What remains is to ask open-ended questions for each one of the second-level claims to direct
the writing about each second-level argument, as shown below.
Me: We can understand arrogance by looking at the origin of the word.
Friend: What does the word’s origin tell us about its meaning?
Me: We can understand the meaning of arrogance also by considering its opposite.
Friend: How does the opposite of arrogance reveal the meaning better?
Me There is destructive arrogance which we should discourage, but also constructive
arrogance which we should encourage.
Friend: What is the difference between the two? Why should we encourage destructive
arrogance, and encourage constructive arrogance?
Guided by these questions, and using the Toulmin model, you can now expand on each
second-level argument, looking for data, warranting the data and considering
counterarguments.
The result of this process is a gradually expanding structure as shown below. The longer and
more complex the piece of writing, the more levels you will create. Also, unlike the example
above, at some levels you will often find more than two branches.

12
Writing cannot start yet, because the arguments are not yet connected, but we have now
broken the thesis into smaller arguments. Before explaining how to connect arguments, let
me first explain why it is so important to spend time on breaking the thesis into sections and
paragraphs.
The human mind needs ideas to be broken up and hierarchically grouped into categories,
because it helps us to remember those ideas. And if a reader can see remember what you have
written, they will also be able to follow what you write.
Try the following exercise: read the following shopping list only once and try to remember
all the items: eggs, cucumber, grapes, milk, carrots, apples, cream, bananas, lettuce. (Close
the page, do something else for five minutes and then write down what you remember.
You probably forgot a few items. To deal with this, we naturally categorise to help us cope
with the complexity around us because this reduces the load on our short-term memory.
Similarly, if you provide categories (in the form of sections and chapters) you make it easier
for readers to remember and understand your message. Now, let’s categorise the items. You
probably notice that there are three categories, as in the diagram below. Now, close the page,
do something else for a while and try to remember again.
I'm sure you will notice a substantial improvement in your memory. The kind of
categorisation you would have done could be represented as a pyramid (or an inverted tree
SHOPPING
LIST
Fruit
Grapes Apples Bananas
Vegetable
Carrots Cucumber Lettuce
Dairy
Eggs Milk Cream

13
structure). This pyramid structure4
is the fundamental (and conventional) structure to present
knowledge today. Your readers will expect to see this structure when you write. If your
writing does not follow this structure, many of your readers will be lost and struggle to
remember what you wrote. The ‘imaginary conversation technique’ tries to help you create a
similar structure, which will improve the quality of your writing.
2.2 Connecting arguments
Once you have all the argument units (chapters, sections, sub-sections, paragraphs), you have
to connect them. You will create connections between sections, between paragraphs, even
between sentences. Every sentence, paragraph or section needs to come from somewhere, and
lead to some point. In other words, any new unit has to be informed by its previous unit, and
also be the seed from which the next unit will grow.
If you don't do this, your reader will not follow your logic. Thinking of it in concrete terms:
every unit must pull something from the previous unit, and point towards something in the
next unit, more or less as represented in the next diagram.
Consider the following passage:
The double-entry accounting system was formalised by Luca Pacioli in 1494. Single-entry
bookkeeping is appropriate to simple business ventures. Every transaction enters only once
as an inflow or outflow of cash. It provides a quick method for determining accumulated
income at a certain date. Single-entry bookkeeping provides no information on changes in
wealth.
While the individual sentences are understandable, the passage as a whole is not clear. The
reason is that the sentences all seem disconnected. In this passage the flow between sentences
is not so clear and this can lead to a misunderstanding of the argument.
This problem can be fixed by making the connections clear. There are three methods to create
connections: (1) refer to previous ideas; (2) repeat key words and phrases; and (3) signal
connections.
One simple technique that uses all three methods is the ‘old-new information technique’. It is
easier to understand a sentence/paragraph/section if it starts with something you already
know (i.e. old information) from the previous sentence/paragraph/section. The old
information is drawn from the previous unit, and then new information is added to it.
Consider the improved version of the previous passage to see how this works between
sentences. Every sentence takes something from the previous sentence, and it is highlighted
by underlining the old information that each new sentence takes from the previous sentence.
4
The best book on this topic is the Pyramid Principle by Barbara Minto. Many of the ideas about the pyramid
structure approach derive from Barbara Minto's many insights. I highly recommend her book. Also useful is the
"issue tree" methodology developed by Linda Flower.

14
The double-entry accounting system was formalised by Luca Pacioli in 1494. It was a
significant improvement over single-entry bookkeeping. Single-entry bookkeeping is
appropriate to simpler business ventures. It is simpler because every transaction enters
only once as an inflow or outflow of cash. Knowing cash flows provides a quick method for
determining accumulated income at a certain date. However, single-entry bookkeeping
provides no information on changes in wealth.
In the last sentence, the word ‘however’ is used, and ‘because’ in the middle sentence. They
are underlined because they signal that the next sentence is connected to the previous
sentence. We call these words ´transition words´ and they make a big difference to your
writing because they signal connection.
Transition words send messages to the reader about how you see the relationship between
ideas. Generally, ideas either continue from (or build on) each other, or break away from each
other. Using the correct words can help improve the reader's understanding of your
arguments. See appendix B for more such transition words, and the kind of connection
signals they send. The next table provides a summary of these signals:
Signals of continuation Signals of breaking away
Now I am going give you a list that gives more
detail about the previous idea (firstly…
secondly… to begin… next… finally…)
Now I am going to contrast this against the
previous idea (by contrast, on the other
hand, whereas, yet)
Now I am going to add something to the
previous idea (also, in addition, furthermore)
Now I am going to elaborate on the previous
idea (in other words, actually, after all) Now I am going to break from or
contradict the previous idea (however,
nevertheless, regardless, even though)
Now I am going to give examples of the
previous idea (for example, in fact)
Now I am going to show you how this idea is
very much like the previous idea (likewise,
similarly) Now I am going to concede a point
(admittedly, granted, of course)
Now I am going to explain how this is a result
of the previous idea (because, as a result)
You can also employ "pointing words" that refer to something in a previous sentence. Words
like: this, that, these, those, their, such, it, their, he or she. However, you should use these
words with care. Only use such words if it is very clear what you are referring to. Just
because it is clear to you as writer, certainly does not mean it will be clear to the reader. Take
for example: “Poverty and unemployment rise together, and economic policy should respond
to this during recessions”. What does ‘this’ refer to? Poverty or unemployment or the
relationship between the two? Sometimes it is better to specify what you are referring to,
rather than using pointing words, even if it means repeating some words.
You can use the same connection techniques between paragraphs too. One way to apply these
techniques is to use ‘hooks’ –you hook onto something from the previous paragraph in the
next paragraph. Let’s return to one of our previous examples:
play a role in graduates not being employable.

15
The next paragraph can continue in many different ways. Let’s consider four different ways
below. Notice that each time I use a different type of hook, and that the hook is emphasised
by putting it in italics.
 Shallow hook (hooking onto one of the last words from the last sentence by repeating
it, in this case hooking on to the word ‘employable’)
Employability is determined y arious fa tors…
 Deeper hook (hooking onto one of the words a little deeper into the paragraph by
repeating it, in this case the phrase ‘youth unemployment’)
A formal education is only of many factors that influence youth unemployment…
 Multiple hooks (hooking onto several words in the previous paragraph)
A formal university qualification should make a person more employable…
 Idea hook (hooking onto the meaning of the previous paragraph without necessarily
repeating any of the words, in this case the phrase ‘this state of affairs’ refers to what
was explained in the previous paragraph. Also note the use of the transition word.)
However, this state of affairs cannot be blamed on universities alone…
It is rare that a good writer will only employ one type of hook. Usually one uses more than
one type of hook because this makes the connection stronger.
The basic structure of a paragraph makes it easy to connect it to other paragraphs. A
paragraph communicates only one idea and consists of two or more sentences. Usually the
first sentence is the main sentence – it tells the reader what idea the paragraph will discuss
and so creates an expectation in the reader's mind. The sentences that follow elaborate on the
main sentence and these elaborating sentences set up the next paragraph. The first sentence of
the next paragraph will then draw on something that was said in the previous paragraph, and
so on…
The length of a paragraph also allows for some repetition of key words and phrases
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This repetition establishes a further connection
between paragraphs. Don't be afraid of being repetitive – it is better to be repetitive than to be
misunderstood. Repetition binds ideas.
In order to make connections between sections, you can use all of the techniques mentioned
above, but I also recommend another technique – that of creating connecting sentences.
The technique is simple. The argument of each section is expressed as a single full sentence,
and then a connecting sentence is written that connects the arguments. The secret is to find
the correct order of arguments so that a connecting sentence makes the one argument flow
into the next one. There has to be a good reason which explains why you put the ideas in a
particular order, and the connecting sentence makes that clear. The next diagram shows a
possible order and connecting sentence at the first level of the example from Appendix A.

16
Notice that when we read the arguments and the connecting sentence, it reads like one
flowing sentence that makes sense: “The meaning of arrogance is misunderstood but this
does not mean that arrogance is always good because there are different kinds of arrogance.”
There are often many different ways to connect the claims. The only real test is the quality of
the connections. The connections between claims are rarely simple words like ‘and’ or
‘furthermore’; connections usually have to be longer phrases that make the one claim flow
into the next one without it feeling contrived.
If you can’t find a connection between arguments or the connection feels forced (broken
arrows below), there can be only one of three diagnoses: (1a) the claims are in the wrong
order; (2a) there is a missing claim; or (3a) one of the claims are redundant. The diagnosis
leads to the solution: (1b) try a different sequence of claims; (2b) determine what other claim
needs to be made to connect the two claims you are trying to connect; or (3b) see if the
connection can be made if one claim is removed.
Let’s finish the example, showing the possible sequence and connecting sentences for the
second level.

17
First argument… …and the reason it leads to… …next argument
The origin of the word tells
us a lot about its meaning…
...and to see that this meaning is
still applicable today we
should…
…consider the opposite
of arrogance today
Destructive arrogance is bad
and should be discouraged…
…but people want to discourage
all kinds of arrogance because
they don’t know that…
…arrogance can also be
constructive.
When you write the sections out in more detail, you would place the connecting sentences
either at the end of the first section or at the beginning of the next section.
As another example, let’s return to the introductory part of a research document discussed in
the first workshop to see how one would apply the technique of connecting sentences
between sections:
1. Background section argument: There is a problem in the real world for some group
of people…
Link: …and this real-world problem is unsolved…
2. Research problem section argument: …because the current research is inadequate…
Link: …and to address this inadequacy I will…
3. Research design section argument: …do the following to generate new knowledge…
If you read the bold sentences all in one go you will notice that it reads like one very long but
flowing sentence that makes sense: “There is a problem in the real world for some group of
people and this real-world problem is unsolved because the current research is inadequate and
to address this inadequacy I will do the following to generate new knowledge…”
3 Writing argumentatively
At this point you will be able to produce a hierarchical outline structure for a piece of writing.
You know how to construct a single argument, how to derive smaller arguments from a
bigger argument and how to connect them. The time has come to actually write it out, and
you want to ensure that your writing has an intellectual and argumentative quality. When it
comes to argumentative writing, novice researchers struggle the most with knowing how to
write in their own voice while using other authors’ ideas, and what kind of language to use
when doing so. This section shows you how to do that.

18
3.1 Writing with you own voice using other authors’ ideas
To learn argumentative writing, it is best to compare it to something you already know how
to do – have a conversation. Argumentative writing is like having a really good conversation.
Good conversations happen when there is interaction between two or more people with
different views all trying to move toward some kind of conclusion. Compare that against bad
conversations: they are usually those where everyone just agrees or just disagrees with each
other, or conversations that don’t go anywhere – your typical boring small talk conversation
or heated argument.
Most people don’t realise it, but when you write you are actually having a conversation: you
are talking, other authors are talking (though your writing), and not only are you and these
authors talking to each other, you are also talking to the readers. If it is a good conversation,
you will all be talking about an issue about which there can be different perspectives, and the
conversation will lead to a point. Every branch in the hierarchical diagram we constructed in
the previous section is a conversation, and all those conversations are smaller parts of the
bigger conversation that lead to the overall argument.
To help you understand how to use the idea of conversation in your writing, I am going to ask
you to think of a particular kind of conversation – the issue-centred panel talk show. This is a
kind of talk show where a talk show host gets together guests with different perspectives to
have a discussion around a particular issue. In such a talk show the talk show host integrates
different voices by means of a guided conversation toward some kind of conclusion. Can you
think of examples of such talk shows? One example is Oravente on Caracol Radio.
Imagine you are a talk show host. You choose an issue to talk about in front of an audience.
Obviously you will select an issue about which you and your audience care, or which you can
convince them to care about. But what kind of issue do you select? Probably one about which
there are different views. What kind of guests do you get to talk? Ideally those who would
have differences amongst themselves, so that you can get a lively conversation going.
You do the same in argumentative writing: you argue a claim, that is a statement around
which different perspectives exist.
How do you get the conversation going? You will identify ‘talking points’ – particular
aspects of the issue where differences exist. If you select good talking points, there will no
boring patches and uncomfortable silent moments in your talk show.
You do the same in argumentative writing: you find talking points around which you can
make arguments. We did this in the previous section when we derived smaller arguments
from the overall thesis. Every branch in that hierarchical structure is a ‘talking point’ and you
will draw in different authors to discuss each point and come to a conclusion.
Do you as the talk show host form an opinion before the show? Most likely yes, because you
would have needed to do some research before the show to help you identify the views.
Similarly, in argumentative writing, you need to know what you want to say – that is you
need to know your thesis. You need to know this before you start writing otherwise your
writing will have no direction, and you won’t be able to derive your talking points. This
means you must have done a lot of reading before you start to write.

19
What do you do with your opinion as the talk show host? Since you care about the issue, you
would obviously steer the conversation between the guests towards making your opinion look
more convincing, but without coming across as biased. Instead of directly disagreeing with
the guests, it looks better if you have the guests criticise each other and then use these
critiques to steer the audience toward your view.
You do the same in argumentative writing. Let’s return to one of the previous examples:
individual characteristics are more important when it comes to determining
employability. While this is true, Jones (2010) showed that universities can change
individual characteristics. This suggests that universities are indeed failing their graduates
because instead of developing them as individuals, they focus mainly on conveying
generic subject knowledge.
Notice that the paragraph makes a clear argument – that universities are not doing enough to
make students employable. You can also see that there are four people involved in making
the argument: the writer, the statistical agency, Smith and Jones. The writer leads them to this
conclusion, but when Smith mentions a counterargument, the writer does not disagree
directly, but uses Jones to refute Smith’s argument.
Now who do you think dominates the conversation during a talk show? The talk show host of
course. And who talks the least during the talk show? The talk show host of course. But how
is it possible that the person who talks the least can dominate the conversation? The talk show
host dominates the conversation because it is the host who decides the topic of the
conversation, the host decides who will be the guests who will participate in the conversation,
the host decides on the talking points, guides these guests by the questions she asks and
switches from one guest to another as necessary to get the argument across.
Similarly, as the ‘talk show host’ of your own piece of writing you will dominate the
conversation without ever directly having to say what you think. This is because you decide
what the thesis is, you decide how it will be broken into smaller arguments, you decide which
authors will participate, you decide what they will say, you use the authors to support or
criticise certain points and you decide when to switch from one author to another and how to
connect their ideas. In this way you control the direction of the conversation and make the
authors say what you want to say.
Let’s take a new example so you can see how similar academic writing is to a talk show.
Malthus (1798) argued that population growth will eventually outstrip the rate at which food
can be produced, thus leading to famines and wars over scarce resources. This pessimistic
view was criticised by many economists for not anticipating the possibility of technological
advances (Friedman, 2002) and birth control (Thomas, 1998). However, in recent times,
Malthus's predictions are becoming true, especially in developing nations. Technological
progress is causing more problems – such as climate change and pollution – that are harming
the quality of resources required for food production. In fact, Dixon (2008) predicts that very
soon major wars will be fought over increasingly scarce resources such as water.

20
Notice how, through my own words I am putting the authors in conversation, and leading
them to a conclusion. It was easy to get the conversation going because I identified a ‘talking
point’ – an aspect where one group of authors (Friedman and Thomas) can engage another
group (Malthus and Dixon). You can imagine them in a room – Malthus says one thing,
Thomas and Friedman offer a critique, followed by Dixon supporting Malthus by addressing
Thomas and Friedman's critique. Perhaps you can already see that the author (‘you’ in the
picture below) is facilitating a conversation between the four authors, with the aim of
convincing the readers (audience) that we are heading for an environmental crisis.
If you can’t yet see it, then let me translate the text for you into a talk show:
You: Let's talk about whether our planet's resources can continue to support us. What is
your view Reverend Malthus?
Malthus: I have been warning against this for centuries. As early as 1798 I explained that
population growth will eventually outstrip the rate at which food can be produced,
thus leading to famines and wars over scarce resources, because…
Thomas: I really think that is a bit pessimistic Malthus. Come on now, there has been no
ecological crisis since your published your book. In fact, technological advances
helped to significantly and consistently raise food production…
Friedman: And don't forget birth control which reduced population growth – something you did
not anticipate at all Malthus!
You: But wait, just because Malthus' prediction hasn't come true yet, does not mean it
won't happen at all. Are we not seeing this very same technological progress causing
more problems now – for example pollution – which is reducing the quality of our
natural resources?
Dixon: If I may chip in here, I would like to support you in this. Good quality water is
becoming increasingly scarce due to global warming and pollution. I predict that
very soon major wars will be fought over increasingly scarce resources such as water
– and probably other natural resources too.
Notice from this dialogue what the talk show host (you) does. The host raises talking points,
connects different arguments and switches between guests. In the end, the conversation is
guided towards what the host wants to say, but without the host having to say so directly. For
more examples of the translation of an academic text into a talk show (if you want some
practice) see Appendix C.

21
One big difference between a talk show and written argument is that you use different
language. You have to avoid the informal conversational language normally used in actual
talk shows. To help with this, the next section will provide some templates you can use to
express the different moves we make in an academic text.
3.2 Templates for expressing arguments5
What this section tries to do is make you conscious of the basic moves that you should be
making when writing. Being aware of these moves will also help you to better understand the
many books and articles you will be reading for your research. There are really just three
main kinds of moves in academic writing:
 I Say: these are all the moves where you convey your own ideas and thoughts to your
readers, mainly when you warrant your claims, connect arguments or draw conclusions.
 They Say: these are the moves where you convey the ideas of other authors. You do
this mainly when you need authors to respond to each other or want to communicate
their ideas to the readers.
 You See: in real-life conversations it is possible to see what is happening in the
conversation. In writing the conversation is imaginary and invisible so you have to
constantly give signals to the reader about what is happening in the conversation. These
signals are things like references, headings, summaries, transition words etc.
The moves are presented as ‘templates’ accompanied by the explanations of the thinking
behind each template. Initially you may follow these templates closely, but as you start to
understand the thinking behind them, you will eventually develop your own style. Learning
how to write for an academic audience takes lots of practice. At the start, keep this document
nearby, and follow its guidelines closely. Over time, you will gain confidence and will
eventually reach a point where you will make the right moves without realising it.
i) ‘You See’ Move 1: showing who is talking
Since academics don't write their arguments in the exact same dialogue style of an interview
or movie script, you will have to provide signals and markers to show the reader who is
talking. Not only do you have to signal when different authors are talking, but also
distinguish your voice from the voice of other authors.
You can explicitly signal who is talking by using references, like this:
 Smith (2006:12) states that _____.
 According to Smith (2006:46) and Singh (2005:90) _____.
 Government officials should, as Sithole (2014:5) argues, focus on _____.
 Most theoretical economists (Friedman, 1997; Samuelson, 2013) believe that _____.
5
This section draws much from the excellent book "They Say/I Say" by Graff and Birkenstein (2006). In this
text I try to adapt their ideas to economic/business research. I do not cover all their ideas and present them in a
somewhat different order. I recommend buying the book if you want to know more about these ideas.

22
In some disciplines it is not acceptable to explicitly signal your own voice. However, in the
arts and natural sciences, it has become more common to use signals like:
 My own view, however, is that _____.
 After testing for autocorrelation, I found _____.
 I agree with Jones (2006:45), but he may not have taken into account that _____.
But in many other disciplines it is more acceptable to signal your own voice simply by not
referencing the statement, or by signalling it clearly as responding to another author:
 _____ is real and arguably the most significant factor in _____.
 However, it is not true that _____ as is evident from _____.
 It is much more likely that _____.
 It seems as though Welch (2016:99) is right when he observes that _____.
 Yet, a simple correlation analysis reveals that _____.
 Gardner (1987:17) is both right and wrong that _____.
There are specific messages you, as author, may try to convey, such as:
 To signal your commitment to your claim, use phrases like: "It is possible that…",
"Perhaps…" or "… might show…" to show that you are not certain and phrases like:
"Clearly,…", "It is evident that…", or "… demonstrates that…".
 To bring your own values into the text, use phrases like: "Surprisingly,…",
"Unfortunately, …" or "Smith (2012) makes the important point that…"
 You can also signal your own voice when you criticise another argument, for example
by stating: "Rogers (2009) overlooks the aspect of ….", "Recent research has shown that
Venter's (2014) claims are no longer credible, because…", or "One can challenge the
view that …, on the grounds that…".
 You can signal that a particular view is different from yours by labelling them as such,
so that your view becomes clear by implication, for example by writing: "Proponents
of… suggest that…", "Socialists claim that…" or "A free-market capitalist perspective
on the problem would be that…".
Always make it clear when you shift from one author's voice (be it your own or someone
else) to another author's voice, by including the right signals. Sometimes a single paragraph
may have many voices, and not signalling can be very confusing. And sometimes a single
paragraph may have just one voice, in which case it would be acceptable to reference in the
first sentence, and at the end of the paragraph (rather than referencing every single sentence).
ii) ‘They Say’ Move 1: interpretive summarising
When writing, you will most often introduce the views of others first, before you respond and
state your own position. The best way to introduce another author’s view is to summarise it
briefly so that readers can see what motivated your response.
Summarise others' views fairly, even if you disagree with them. To summarise another view
fairly, you have to suspend your own beliefs temporarily so that your reader is not misled by
your own prejudices. You also need to give the reader sufficient supporting details so that
they can assess the merits of the other views on their own. Your summary is fair if the reader
is not able to detect whether you agree or disagree from the summary alone.

23
The summary should be designed to move your argument further. You will not summarise
everything the other author said, only that aspect which contributes to your own argument. In
other words, writers trying to make different claims will focus on different parts of an article
when summarising. This was described in the Basic Research Skills workshop in detail and
was called ‘interpretive’ summarizing.
Once you have presented the summary, then you respond. Ensure that your response clearly
follows from the summary and shows how the other view fits with your overall argument.
Your response then puts a "spin" on the summary, showing how it supports your claim or
how your claim somehow makes a better contribution.
Here is an example drawn from an author whose overall argument is that global and local
institutions are not designed to ensure that globalisation serves the interests of the poor:
The most widely cited case for openness has been set out by ____. Briefly summarised, their
case rests on _____. [first he fairly summarises only the argument of the other authors for why
free trade serves the interests of the poor – this is appropriate since this is the specific issue he
is concerned with in his essay ]. Some of the problems with this approach stem from ____. [now
he criticises the methods used to generate supporting data]. The more serious problem concerns
_____. [then he criticises the underlying assumptions]. (taken from Watkins, 2002).
iii) ‘They Say’ Move 2: describing authors’ actions
Instead of only using words like "X states", "X discusses", "X says", "X believes" or "X
argues", you should try to use words that fit the action of the author. One can often see from
authors' writing that they are not simply saying things, they are taking action. For example,
Watkins (2002) does not simply say that globalisation harms the poor, he refutes the view the
globalisation works for the poor, he demonstrates that other authors misinterpret their results,
claims that evidence proves otherwise and urges a rethink of global institutions.
When summarising, try to understand not only the content, but also the spirit in which
authors are conveying their views. Here are some verbs (not the only ones) that you can use
to signal authorial action:
Verbs signalling that the author is making a claim
argue assert believe Claim
emphasise insist observe remind us
report suggest demonstrate Declare
stress allege maintain Demonstrate
Verbs signalling that the author is agreeing
acknowledge endorse admire Extol
agree praise reaffirm Corroborate
support verify approve Consent
concede

24
Verbs signalling that the author disagrees
complain complicate contend Contradict
deny deplore disavow Question
refute reject renounce Repudiate
dispute doubt challenge Contest
disprove
Verbs signalling that the author is making recommendations
advocate encourage plead warn
call for exhort recommend suggest
demand implore urge propose
advise put forward
iv) ‘They Say’ Move 3: standard views
Sometimes you may want to introduce views that are generally accepted. But be careful,
unless it is a genuinely common view, you will need to provide a reference. Too many
beginning researchers use phrases like "most researchers believe…" without any reference
because they are too lazy to actually read the literature. Some templates for dealing with
standard views:
 Most poor and low-skilled South Africans today believe that immigrants ____.
 Conventional wisdom amongst economists are ______ (Sen, 2009:28-30).
 The standard way of thinking about _____ is that _____ (Keynes, 1936:163-164).
 Many researchers assume that _____ (Mzwakhe, 2004:33; Zwicky, 2008:14).
Though there are exceptions, a simple rule is that you don't need to provide a reference if it is
a view common amongst non-scientist groups, but to provide a reference for the view
whenever you are expressing a view common amongst researchers and scientists. Even so,
sometimes it may not be so obvious that a view is actually common among non-scientist
groups, and then you would need to provide a reference. In cases where you need to discuss
the view of non-scientist groups, it may be acceptable to use non-scientific publications.
v) ‘They Say’ Move 4: when authors don’t say something explicitly
Sometimes an author might not state a point explicitly terms, but there is something
important that is implied or assumed. In such a case, you need to make it clear that you are
identifying an assumption or implication, and that it is not precisely what the author argues.
 One implication of Stiglitz's (1991) treatment of _____ is that _____.
 Although Krugman (1979:51) does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that
_____.
 While neoclassical economists rarely admit it, they often take it for granted that _____ as
is evident from Arrow (1988:69) and Hahn (1964:32).
Use these kind of templates with care. If you identify an implication or underlying
assumption, you need to argue why you think it to be the case, otherwise you lay yourself
open to the charge that you are misinterpreting others.

25
vi) ‘They Say’ Move 5: quoting authors
Sometimes we need to directly quote phrases, sentences or even passages from an author.
This is acceptable on condition that: (1) you need the exact words of the author in support of
your argument; (2) you don't quote very often; (3) you frame the quotation with your own
words and explanations; and (4) you ensure you provide the reference and exact page number
from whence the quote comes.
Herewith some ways in which people introduce quotations. Again make sure that the action
words reflect the spirit of the quoted part:
 Krugman (1979:33) insists that "_____."
 As Popper (1939:912) puts it, "_____."
 It seems that Ade (2012:215) agrees when he concedes, "_____."
 In the view of Ramachandran (2011:95), "_____."
 Rassool (2009:68) complicates matters further when she states, "_____."
Do not quote phrases that say the obvious, commonly accepted or mundane. For example,
quoting something like “Economic growth in 2015 showed a decline of -1.5%” from an
author is useless. Those exact words would not be necessary to your argument and could
easily be said in your own words without taking anything away from your argument.
Just as important as quoting correctly, is the way you treat the quotation in your text. When
quoting, you are taking a part of an article where it was integrated with the argument, and
placing it into your text, where it will be out of place. To integrate the quote with your text,
you have to put the quote in what Graff and Birkenstein (2006:42) call a ‘quotation
sandwich.’
To make a quotation sandwich, you put something above the quote and something below the
quote. Before you quote, you set up your claim to lead into the quotation and you state who is
speaking. Then you quote. Thereafter you explain why the quotation is important to your
argument and what the quotation is saying.
As with a summary, your discussion before and after the quotation help to put a spin on the
quotation so that it contributes to your argument. This is especially crucial in your follow-up
sentences after the quotation. Echo the words and ideas of the quotation and use it in your
argument.
Here are some templates for explaining quotations after you introduced the quotation:
 What Jones (1978) is trying to say is _____.
 In other words, Augustine (2014) believes _____.
 In drawing these conclusions, Mbeki (2010) is assuming that _____.
 Apparently, Dibakwane's (2009) point is that _____.
 The essence of Monroe's (2011) argument is that _____.
 Nyembezi (1994) is insisting that _____.

26
Notice how Gilland (2002:48) treats a quotation:
Food production has outpaced population, chiefly as a result of …. A half-century ago few,
if any, would have considered this possible. Roberts (1951) concluded that “within a
century or so, the world’s population will almost certainly be stabilized at something like
three thousand million, which is the utmost that the earth is likely to be able to feed”.
Roberts did not believe that mineral fertilizers could significantly increase crop production
for more than a few years.
By making quotation sandwiches you ensure that you think carefully how every quotation
supports your argument. As you can see, this is an attempt to integrate the quotation with
your own argument by first introducing it as part of your argument and then explaining how it
fits with your argument. If you cannot make a convincing quotation sandwich, it means the
quotation does not belong in your text.
vii) ‘They Say’ Move 6: introducing a debate between authors
If you are writing about an issue that is contested, then you are likely to come across debates.
Now, instead of opening with a summary of someone else's argument, you should rather start
with a summary of a debate.
Again, be fair in summarising all sides of a debate. Here are some templates:
 In discussions of _____, one controversial issue has been _____. On the one hand,
neoclassicals (like Rostow, 1967:142) argue _____. On the other hand, Marxists contend
_____ (see Sweezy, 1958:64). It seems that both sides neglect _____.
 When it comes to the topic of _____, most economists agree that _____ (Romer,
1995:89; Kabundi, 2011:38). Where this argument usually ends, is on the question of
_____. Whereas some (Gorman, 2009:552) are convinced that _____, others maintain
that _____ (Fudau, 2007:82).
A debate calls for you to take a position, and therefore often overlaps with ‘I Say’ moves.
This leads us to your own side of the conversation.
viii) ‘I Say’ Move 1: taking a position
What ‘I say’ is only meaningful to the extent that it responds to what ‘they say’ (other
authors) so these two moves cannot exist separately. If you are writing about what others say
without it ever leading into your own response, then what you are writing is probably
irrelevant.
Whenever taking a position, don't make strong statements unless you have sufficient support.
Even then you should qualify their claims, as explained in the first section. Qualification is
necessary because in social sciences, it is never possible to prove something. Words like
‘always’, ‘never’ or ‘prove’ are therefore avoided. Without perfect proof, the best we can do
is be confidently uncertain.
When stating your position, it would be as part of a conversation, in response to other
positions. You should try to state your position as quickly as possible when engaging in an

27
argument. If you don't state your position quickly, your readers will not know how to make
sense of the information you are presenting.
In response to other positions, you have a range of possibilities:
Let’s take each possible position and provide some templates.
When you want to disagree with some authors, don't simply disagree – offer an argument
with evidence and reasons to support why you disagree. This ensures that you move the
conversation forward and contribute something to the conversation. Without a contribution,
you have no place. Here are some ways to disagree:
 Rogoff (1995:729) is mistaken because he overlooks _____.
 Dorfman's (2004:884) claim that _____ rests upon the questionable assumption that
_____.
 There is sufficient reason to disagree with O'Leary (1998:28) because, as recent research
has shown, _____ [provide references to this research].
 On the one hand Smith (2013:45-46) argues _____. But on the other hand he argues
_____. This is contradictory since _____.
 By focusing on _____, Makhubela (2008:34) neglects the deeper problem of _____.
Argument is not simply about disagreeing and criticising, it is also about agreeing and
building on the work of others. But even when you agree and build on the work of someone,
you have to make your own contribution to the conversation. Your contribution may be
small, but it has to be sufficient to show that there is a difference between what you
contribute and what the other author argued. Perhaps you have come across additional
supporting evidence or simply found a way to ‘translate’ the argument of the author in a way
that is easier to understand. The point is not simply to ‘parrot’ what others say. You need to
show you do something more with others' ideas in a way that is valuable to the conversation.
For example:
 The argument of Ndlovu (2012:9) that _____, is confirmed by the experience of
Malaysia with _____.
 Dube (2005:57-60) appears to be correct, because as subsequent studies showed _____
[provide references to these studies].
 Ricardo's (1821) theory of _____ is very useful because it sheds light of the difficult
problem of _____.
 The point of Mwamba (2006:44) needs to be emphasised, especially given that the belief
that ____ is rarely questioned.
 Those not familiar with the post-Keynesian monetary theory simply need to understand
that in essence it argues _____ [provide references].
 If Keynes (1936:256) is right, we need to reassess our theories of _____, because _____.
You may think that you are not disagreeing when you agree with others, but that is wrong.
Nothing is ever one-sided in research. Whenever you agree with one view, you are most
Agree with
a difference
Disagree
with reasons
Agree with
objections
Disagree with
concessions
Undecided
with reasons

28
likely disagreeing with another view. Be aware of this, and let this awareness show in your
writing.
Sometimes you will agree up to a point, or disagree but still see some merit in the opposing
argument. It needs to be clear from your writing where you lie on the spectrum – if you lie
closer to disagreement, stress the disagreement; the closer you are to agreeing, the more you
should stress the agreement. Look at the following two sentences – notice how they have a
different emphasis:
 Although Mantso (2007:49) is correct in arguing _____, his overall conclusion that
_____ seems questionable.
 Although Mantso (2007:49) is misguided in arguing _____, his overall conclusion that
_____ is quite plausible.
Some other possibilities are:
 Though it should be conceded that _____, the evidence still suggests that _____ [provide
references].
 While Jones (2005:99) is right when she claims _____, she is on dubious ground when
she argues that _____.
 Botha (2010:23) is probably wrong in supposing that _____, he is closer to the truth in
reasoning that _____.
 Whereas Mbele (2004:61) offers sufficient evidence that _____, Vilakazi's (2005:541)
refutations are more convincing since _____.
There may be some cases where you are not convinced by either side, or believe that both
sides have equally strong arguments. You may then express ambivalence. But do not see this
as an easy way out from having to think hard about the issue. If you express ambivalence you
need to indicate what will be needed to clear up the ambivalence, or under what conditions
the argument will sway you one way or another. For example:
 The claim that _____ is not convincing even though it is not disproven. On the one hand,
____. Yet, on the other hand, _____. To make a final judgement, one would need to
know whether _____.
 There is no clear evidence for either view. Econometric studies (provide references)
support _____, but the contradictory claims derived from simulations (provide
references) are equally convincing. It seems that under conditions of _____ the theory
that _____ is applicable, while under conditions of _____.
ix) ‘I Say’ Move 2: anticipating and dealing with counterarguments
Just as you are responding to others' work, your writing will be responded to once it is
available to read. If your work is going to make a valuable contribution, you need to
anticipate those responses.
People will always find reasons to object to any argument, so if you address these objections
before or while your readers are considering such objections, you come across as a broad-
minded independent thinker who really understands the issue. If you neglect to raise an
important objection, and your reader will object anyway, but you will not have been able to
answer it. You are then shut out of the conversation, and your credibility damaged. So, look

29
for problems, try to understand them and discuss them fairly and then respond. Your writing
will become a lot more interesting, and you are likely to learn more.
You should not simply dismiss objections. Rather entertain the objection – stay with it,
understand it, give it space and summarise it fairly while ensuring that it eventually enhances
your own argument. Deal with it in two steps: (1) raise the objection yourself or name those
who would object to your argument; then (2) answer those objections.
Sometimes you can see a possible objection to your own argument, without anyone having
raised it in another text. This is a good sign – a sign that you have a good grasp of the topic.
Raise the objections that you see, for example:
 Some may challenge this conclusion that _____ on the basis of _____. After all, many
politicians believe that _____. Indeed, this conclusion seems to ignore _____ and _____.
 Many will probably disagree with this assertion that _____.
 At this point, I would like to raise some objections that may have come to mind to
skeptic readers. They may think that _____ has been ignored, and that _____.
However, more often objections would exist prior to your work. If you can name those who
would disagree (with references) then you add further impact and precision to your writing.
For example:
 Here many monetarists would probably object that _____ (Friedman, 1968:12-13).
 However, new growth theorists like Romer (1995:6) would take issue with the argument
that _____.
 Debreu (1956), like most of the neoclassical school, would dispute the claim that _____.
 Nevertheless, critics of the post-Keynesians (like Schoeman, 2005:87) will probably
suggest otherwise and argue that _____.
Once you have raised the objections, be sure to answer it persuasively with a strong
argument. Simply dismissing an objection without overcoming it makes your argument
appear weaker.
You will often find that in trying to answer an objection, that you don't disagree with
everything, but still want to stand your ground. Opposing views usually have some good
points. In such a case you would make concessions (agreeing) to the opposing view while
still challenging those parts you dispute. Again, this creates a favourable impression of you as
writer, and shows that you are not taking an extreme position. Here are some ways to make
concessions:
 Although it has to be granted that _____, the overall conclusion still holds because
_____.
 Proponents of inflation targeting are right to argue that _____. However, they
misinterpret their critics when they claim that _____ [provide references].
 While it is true that _____, it does not necessarily follow that _____.
 On the one hand, one has to agree with Bonga-Bonga (1995:37) that _____. On the other
hand, his argument still does not refute the claim that _____.
 Norman's (2015:31) claim holds under conditions of _____. But he goes too far in
maintaining that _____.

30
When making concessions, you still have to present an argument for why you are maintaining
your view. The argument must contain convincing reasons and evidence.
If you find that you are not able to overcome an objection or maintain your view with a
convincing argument, you should not hold on. Change your mind – this is what science is all
about. Research aims to change the world for the better, and this implies changing the minds
of people, including our own.
x) Some more ‘You See’ Moves
As explained before, the reader cannot see the conversation happening in a piece of academic
writing unless you make it clear. I call them ‘you see’ moves, because it is like turn to the
readers and saying: “you see what is happening now is…” or “you see…?”
You are already familiar with one such move: referencing. Referencing is an important ‘you
see’ move because it signals to the reader who is talking, and so helps the reader to make
sense of the conversation.
A powerful and underestimated ‘you see’ move is headings for sections and sub-sections. The
titles of such sections tell the reader what the section is about and makes it easier to read. The
headings of figures and tables play a similar role. That is why it is so important that all
headings clearly describe what the section, figure or table is about. For this reason longer
headings are better than short ones, because they are more descriptive.
Another common ‘you see’ move is providing a roadmap for the reader to the text or part of
the text so they can orient themselves, for example:
 This chapter explores _____, while the following chapter examines _____.
 Having just argued that _____, it logically leads to _____.
Use ‘you see’ moves when you want to guide readers to what is more important and what is
less important, for example:
 Even more important _____.
 What really matters for the debate on _____ is _____.
 Incidentally, _____.
 By the way, _____.
There are many more ‘you see’ moves that Graff and Birkenstein (2006) discuss, but these
are the main ones. Much of what we discussed even in the previous sections are ‘you see’
moves. Such moves may seem redundant to you at the time of writing because you know
what you are trying to say. But bear in mind that the reader cannot see into your mind, and
unless you guide the reader all the way, you run a real risk of being misunderstood, and being
shut out of the conversation.
4 Wrapping up
Argumentative writing is a complex skill, but it is the only kind of writing that is acceptable
in academic research. You can now evaluate your own arguments using the Toulmin model
and check that nothing is missing. Using the ‘imaginary conversation’ technique you can

31
generate smaller arguments that will make up sections and paragraphs and connect them so
they flow towards your overall thesis. And finally, the metaphor of a talk-show will help you
maintain the right mindset while using the templates provided.

32
Appendix A: Article Be arrogant
If people knew what the word ‘arrogant’ really means, they wouldn’t use it to try to insult
others. Whenever someone describes me as arrogant, I regard it as a compliment. In fact, I
actively work to attain the label as quickly as possible from as many people as possible.
What is arrogance?
Like many words, its true meaning has been lost through years of abuse. Arrogance means to
presume on one’s rank or to take upon oneself without authority. This kind of language harks
back to the age of class systems, when society was divided into peasants, merchants, nobility
and royalty. For example, a peasant who aspired to become a merchant or had dreams of
becoming a nobleman, would have been regarded as arrogant.
However, if it weren’t for arrogant peasants, society would never have progressed, because
progress is only possible if people are unhappy with the status quo. Peasants who weren’t
arrogant, accepted the class system and their lowly rank and therefore didn’t do anything to
bring about change. All change depended on those who thought and acted 'above their class' -
the arrogant ones who presumed on their rank. One could thus speculate that progress in any
society is directly proportional to the degree of arrogance present among its members.
To see whether this is still relevant today, consider what the opposite of arrogance is. It is to
accept one's position in society and not to ask for anything from people who place themselves
at higher ranks than us. In short, not to be arrogant is to display an ignorant contentment that
reinforces the view that some people are better than others. Not to be arrogant is to be
stagnant.
A society of stagnant people is motionless; a cesspool of classes, ranks and inequality.
Arrogance challenges perceived rules and accepted authority, and by doing so it brings about
greater equality. A truly democratic and fair society cannot be anything except supremely
arrogant.
Given that the word ‘arrogance’ has its origin in the outdated class system, it is surprising
that people still use the word in universities today. Lecturers will often call their peers or
students arrogant, but one will rarely hear them describing their superiors similarly. I have
always liked arrogant students, but not all of them. This is because I don't think all arrogance
is good. There is constructive and destructive arrogance.
Types of arrogance
Destructive arrogance is not much better than the stagnation it fights against. It is destructive
because it fights. It fights against the perceived class system (e.g. status, authority, intellect),
and therefore acknowledges its existence, or may even accept it.
A person with destructive arrogance tries to break through to the higher ranks, or at the very
least tries to show the people at the higher ranks that he does not accept their authority. In the
process, such an arrogant person will destroy many relationships even if he still contributes to
progress. Once the destructively arrogant person reaches the higher ranks, he will treat the
people he perceives to be below him in the same way he was treated when he was a member

33
of the lower ranks. This is because this person implicitly accepted the existence of a class
system by contesting it. The purpose of such destructive arrogance is not really to fight the
class system, but to fight the people in the class system that prevents him from being as
important as he thinks he ought to be.
When people frown on arrogance they think of destructive arrogance, without realizing that
arrogance can also be constructive. Constructive arrogance, may on the surface appear to be
like destructive arrogance, because it will still infuriate people. However, at their root they
are different. Where destructive arrogance acknowledges and accepts the class system,
constructive arrogance does not even acknowledge the existence of any class. The only class
that exists for a person with constructive arrogance, is the individual; every person is in a
class of his own.
While destructive arrogance cannot continue without perceived rankings, constructive
arrogance can. A destructively arrogant person seems to direct all his attention towards the
classes he perceives to be above him. A person with constructive arrogance will appear to
direct his attention to people of all classes, but in reality such a person does much more
because constructive arrogance is indifferent to hierarchies of any nature.
If someone hasn’t called you arrogant lately, it means that you are perceived as accepting the
system and its rules. Unfortunately for you, there are so many arrogant people around that the
rules are bound to change soon. In a world of constant change, you either make things happen
or you wonder what happened. You are either arrogant or stagnant.

34
Appendix B: Some transition words
Por una lista en español refiere a
http://hyperpolyglotte.com/aprende_espanol/voca_conectores.php
Signal that you are going to present a list
Firstly… secondly… To begin with… Next… Finally…
Lastly…
Try to avoid lists if you can – they are often an excuse not to think through the connections
between ideas.
Signal that you are adding to something in the previous idea
also and besides furthermore
in addition indeed in fact moreover
so too as well as above all what is more
Signal that you are elaborating on the previous idea
actually by extension in short that is
in other words to put it another way ultimately namely
after all
Signal that you going to give examples
for example for instance specifically as an illustration
such as to take a case in point
Signal that ideas are alike
likewise similarly equally correspondingly
along the same lines in the same way
Signal that you are contrasting ideas or changing direction
however but by contrast conversely
despite the fact that even though although in contrast
nevertheless nonetheless on the contrary on the other hand
regardless whereas while yet
instead besides
Signal that you are conceding a point
admittedly granted of course although it is true
Signal cause and effect or expressing a result
as a result consequently hence since
accordingly then so because
Signal that your argument is strong enough to reach a conclusion
therefore thus in conclusion hence
consequently in brief to summarise in short

35
Appendix C: More examples of talk show translations
C1 Text to talk show
Original text 1
Introduced in April 1998, the CSG (child support grant) has been lauded as one of government’s most
successful anti-poverty interventions (see e.g. the recent report by UNICEF, 2009). This praise seems
to be justified in light of the high take-up of the grant, with 10,446,939 beneficiary children and
5,761,332 recipient caregivers at the end of April 2011 (South African Social Security Agency
(SASSA), 2011:8-9). Furthermore, commentators have argued that the post-2000 decline in poverty
levels is largely attributable to the introduction of this grant (Leibbrandt et al., 2010:65; Van der Berg
et al., 2010). In line with the positive feedback on the effectiveness of the grant in reducing poverty,
the South African government has increased its annual budgetary spending on the CSG from
approximately R19.6 billion in the 2007/2008 financial year to approximately R35.5 billion for the
2011/2012 period (National Treasury, Republic of South Africa, 2011:403). This increased spending
has primarily been driven by the expansion of the original eligibility criteria of the CSG so as to
include an increasing number of beneficiary children and recipient caregivers.
The rapid expansion of the CSG raises questions regarding its effectiveness in improving the lives of
the children at whom the grant is aimed. Questions regarding the effect of the grant on the welfare
(more specifically, the education, nutrition and health) of beneficiary children have been researched
from various angles in the past decade. Case et al. (2005) estimate the effects of the CSG on
children’s school enrolment… they find evidence of increased school enrolment for children in receipt
of the CSG compared with their older siblings who were not receiving the CSG. The paper suggests
that higher enrolment rates could be a result of an increase in children’s health and nutrition,
improving school readiness. In addition, it is plausible that the CSG income is used to pay tuition fees
and other school-related expenses.
(Extract from: Coetzee, Marisa. "Finding the benefits: Estimating the impact of the South African child support
grant." South African Journal of Economics 81.3 (2013): 427-450.)
Talk show 1
You: In 1998 the SA government implemented the CSG, but what was its impact?
UNICEF 2009: We believe that it was one of government’s most successful anti-poverty
interventions
SASSA 2011: Well the facts speak for themselves. The high take-up of the grant – more than
10 million children and almost 6 million caregivers by 2011 shows how well it
worked.
Leibbrandt 2010: I think just the take-up isn’t enough – one should look at its impact on poverty. I
found that much of the decline in poverty after 2000 is due to the grant.
Treasury 2011: Thanks guys. This is exactly why we increased our spending on the CSG to over
R35 billion in 2012, and we have done so by making more people eligible for the
grant.
You: But surely such a rapid expansion cannot be maintained? Eventually its
effectiveness must be diluted…
Case 2005: Well so far that hasn't been the case. We have seen a rise in school enrolment
rates in households receiving the CSG…
You: …quite possibly because the CSG is used to pay school-related fees.

36
C2 Talk show to text
Talk show 2
You: Why do we have unethical behaviour in organisations?
Hannah 2011: I think it is the effect of a few individuals, whom I call "bad apples".
Brown 2005: Individuals will act unethically only if their leaders condone it, so I think it is
better explained by their leaders.
Trevino 1990: All of you take a too narrow view – it is due to the low levels of ethical culture in
some organisations – what I "bad barrels"
You: I think it is safe to say that explaining unethical behaviour in organisations is quite
complex, so we need to pay attention to how all of these factors interact. We
really need to study how ethical behaviours of individuals reflect their responses to
a web of direct and indirect influences of ethical leadership and culture at all levels
of an organisation.
Original text 2
Unethical organizational behaviors have been attributed to the effects of individual "bad apples" (e.g.,
Hannah, Avolio, & May, 2011), their leaders (e.g.. Brown, Harrison, & Treviño, 2005), aspects of
organizational context, such as low levels of "ethical culture" ("bad barrels" [e.g., Treviño &
Youngblood, 1990])… In this study, we extend previous research and theory to examine how ethical
cognitions and behaviors of organization members reflect their responses to a web of direct and
indirect influences of ethical leadership and unit-level norms, standards, and sanctions pertaining to
ethical behavior transmitted across multiple levels of an organizational hierarchy.
(Extract from: Schaubroeck, J.M., et al. "Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels."
Academy of Management Journal 55.5 (2012): 1053-1078.)

2. Intermediate Research Skills Workshop 2 Argumentative Writing (2016)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2. Intermediate Research Skills Workshop 2 Argumentative Writing (2016)

Similar to 2. Intermediate Research Skills Workshop 2 Argumentative Writing (2016) (8)

More from Andrew Parish

More from Andrew Parish (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2. Intermediate Research Skills Workshop 2 Argumentative Writing (2016)