The document discusses the key elements and structure of an effective argumentative essay. It states that the goal of an argumentative essay is to persuade readers to adopt the writer's point of view on a given issue. A good argumentative essay presents a clear thesis, supporting evidence incorporated from thorough research, consideration of alternative perspectives, and a reasonable conclusion. The document provides guidance on developing logical reasoning, avoiding fallacies, and establishing an organized argument through outlining.

1. The Argumentative Essay
“. . .a writer tries to persuade readers
to adopt his or her point of view
about a given issue.”
“. . .the underlying aim of
argumentative essays is to use words
to make a difference.”
drawn from Section 7 of Scribner

2. A good persuasive argument. . .
. . .conveys a reasonable conclusion--often
called a thesis or a claim--about a
controversial topic.
. . .presents supporting evidence that is
always incorporated, explained and
documented clearly and precisely..

3. Furthermore, a good
Argumentative Essay. . .
. . .considers and often presents the
conflicting point of view about the
controversy.
. . .reflects thorough research

5. Things to consider:
Your audience
Why is this subject important?
Answer the position of the other side
refute
concede
Build your own position.

6. Think of your audience; you
do not want to invite your
readers' opposition or hostility.
you need to show a real concern about how
your readers might think about a given
subject
Also you need to consider how they might
react to the way you think about that
subject.
All audiences within our western academic
culture respond to logic and reasonableness.

7. Logical Thinking
Using
inductive and deductive
reasoning

8. Inductive Reasoning
. . .used to attribute causes to events or
circumstances rather than to determine the
truth about them with absolute certainty.
Your generalizations about causes may be
right or wrong, but you cannot be certain
because inductive thinking depends on
probability.
Probability refers to the likelihood, rather
than to an absolute conviction, that
something is true.
Errors in inductive reasoning typically
involve oversimplification.

9. An example of inductive
reasoning
If you break out in hives every time you eat
chocolate, you most likely will generalize
from those specific instances and reason that
eating chocolate caused the hives in you .
Be aware that observations need to be accurate:
You may consider whether you are allergic to
other things besides chocolate. (Did the pizza
with anchovies you ate before the chocolate
dessert have something to do with your
reaction?)

10. Elements of Inductive Reasoning
begins with a specific observation
continues with additional specific
observations
arrives at a general claim or a reasonable
conclusion that is based on available
evidence
attributes causes to events or circumstances,
resulting in a hypothesis that can be tested
further (an educated guess).
offers probability rather than certainty

11. Deductive Reasoning
occurs when you take a general principle or
truth and apply it to a more specific
instance.
Deductive thinking is syllogistic reasoning.
A syllogism is an argument arranged in
three parts:
a major premise,
a minor premise, and
a conclusion.

12. MAJOR PREMISE When Gabriele drinks
coffee she alwaysgets a headache. [Fact]
MINOR PREMISE Gabriele is drinking
coffee. [Fact]
CONCLUSION Gabriele will get a
headache.
The premises can be facts or
assumptions.
A major premise stipulates a general principle
(e.g., that all spiders have eight legs),
and a minor premise reflects a specific instance
(e.g., that the creature on your desk has six
legs).

13. A syllogism is valid when the conclusion
follows logically from the premises. When
the conclusion does not follow logically
from the premises, a syllogism (along with
the argument it states) is invalid, even if the
premises are facts, as in the following
example.
MAJOR PREMISE: When Gabriele drinks
coffee she always gets a headache. [Fact]
MINOR PREMISE: Gabriele has a headache.
[Fact]
CONCLUSION: Gabriele must have been
drinking coffee.

14. When a premise is an assumption
rather than a fact, you must be able
to support the premise with
evidence.
MAJOR PREMISE If you wear Gap clothes to
school, you will be accepted by the school's most
popular group. [Assumption]
MINOR PREMISE Jose wears Gap clothes to
school. [Fact]
CONCLUSION Jose will be accepted by the
school's most popular group.

15. Since the major premise of this
example rests on a shaky
assumption (it cannot be
supported with evidence), the
argument is not true. But the
structure is valid.
In most instances, wearing Gap clothes (or
any other brand or type of clothing) does not
ensure automatic popularity. Other factors,
such as academic or athletic ability, sense of
humor, physical characteristics, friends, and
others, influence acceptance.

16. Elements of Deductive
Reasoning
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
begins with a general idea or major
premise
continues with an additional minor
premise applied to a particular case
concludes with a specific statement
derived from the premise

17. Further Elements of Deductive
Reasoning
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
can be true or false, depending on how
true or false the premise is
can be valid or invalid, depending on the
structureof their syllogisms
when true, provides certainty rather than
probability

18. Checklist of Common Logical
Fallacies
Non sequitor: A statement that does not
follow logically from another.
Hasty generalization: A conclusion based
on insufficient evidence.
Stereotyping: Assuming without sufficient
evidence that members of a group think or
behave alike.
Either-or thinking: Limiting possible
explanations to two.

19. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Assuming that
an event is caused by another simply
because one event occurs after the other.
Begging the question: Assuming as true
what needs to be proven.
Circular reasoning: Asserting the same
point in different words.
Special pleading: Arguing without
considering opposing viewpoints.
Red herring: Introducing an irrelevant or
distracting consideration into an argument.

20. Appeal to ignorance: Assuming something
is true because the contrary cannot be
proven.
Ad populum: Appealing to the prejudices of
an audience.
Ad hominem: Attacking a person's
character rather than addressing the issue at
hand.
False analogy: Making an illogical
connection based on irrelevant similarities.

21. Audiences respond if you adopt a
fair-minded and reasonable tone in
your arguments. Therefore avoid. . .
. . .exaggeration and anger
For example, never use name-calling as a tactic
(you should not refer to your opposition as
stupid or ludicrous).
. . .wording that sounds pompous or
borrowed.
. . .wording that overstates your case and
thereby distorts the truth.

22. Be thorough. . .
Look at the whole controversy so that you
do not overlook important evidence.
Jumping to conclusions tends to lead to
using evidence that supports preliminary
and, perhaps, unfounded bias for a
particular solution.
Ignoring other points of view can only
weaken your argument by suggesting to
readers that you have considered no other
position except your own.

23. A thesis should reflect
thoughtfulness:
The topic, in this example, is how best to use a high
school's library budget. One special interest group
in the community wants to build new storage space
for books that few people consult; the other group
wants to weed out the older books and spend most
of the money for new books. These two groups are
locked in a standoff, recognizing no middle ground.
The library must create additional space so
that its collection can be supplemented .

24. Although our local library has a significant
problem with dwindling storage space, gaps in
the social studies, science, and fiction
collections make it imperative that additional
books be purchased. Placing low-circulation
books into secondary storage at an alternative
location and a concerted effort by the librarian
to replace bulky periodicals with microfilm can
create sufficient space for supplementing the
collection for five more years.

25. Guidelines for Developing an
Argumentative Essay
Select a controversial subject that interests
you.
Consider other points of view. Be fair to all
sides of the argument during research by
doing the following:
As your evidence begins to lead you to a
particular conclusion, search for contradictory
evidence.
Question your own evidence just as you
question other investigators' conclusions.

26. Avoid jumping to conclusions, and never be
satisfied d if your evidence leads to only one
way of seeing your topic.
Try to imagine how your audience will interpret
your evidence.
Let the principles of logic guide your effort.
Write a short account explaining what you
have discovered about your controversy .
Sketch out the various points of view.
Based on the evidence you have gathered
formulate a tentative thesis, one that you
will reconsider and modify as you do more
reading, writing, and analysis.

27. Make a tentative outline of how you think
you will develop your argument, listing the
major and support ideas, or premises, and
the order in which you will present them.
Keep in mind that the way you organize
your evidence will help determine just how
convincing your argument will be.
Write a draft beginning, and then develop
the middle of your essay. Write an ending.
Present your argument to your work group
or to another classmate. Ask your readers to
resist your argument and to indicate weak
spots

28. A Review of the main
Features of the Argumentative Essay
It presents supporting evidence that is
always incorporated, explained, and
documented clearly and precisely.
It presents the conflicting points of view.
It reflects thorough research.
It conveys a reasonable conclusion.