This document provides guidance for writing an essay that requires choosing between a rebuttal, causal, or ethical argument. It outlines the key components and approaches for each type of argument. For a rebuttal argument, students can choose to conduct a refutation, focusing on the shortcomings of an opposing viewpoint, or a counterargument, emphasizing the strengths of their own position. Causal arguments demonstrate how one event leads to another through a chain of causes and effects. Ethical arguments examine the morality of an issue from different value systems. The document provides examples and tips for effectively structuring each type of argument.

1. ESSAY # 2 – REBUTTAL /
CAUSAL / ETHICAL PAPER
FINAL DUE DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 3

2. Pick ONE of THREE options:
1. Rebuttal
2. Causal
3. Ethical

3. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
• We have defined our topic/evaluated our topic, now we want to reaffirm our stance and beliefs by
finding (multiple) opposing view points and argue against it.
• Rebuttal Argument
• There are two approaches to rebutting an argument: refutation and counterargument. You may use
either one or a combination of both.

4. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT APPROACHES
• Refutation: The writer must demonstrate the shortcomings of the argument you wish to discredit and
you may/may not offer a positive claim of your own. Refutation takes on a specific article/viewpoint and
focus on that particular structure. (See next slide)
• Counterargument: You focus on the strengthens of the position you support and spend little time on
the counter argument you are opposing.
• The key is to use a strategic mix of both!

5. APPROACH #1: REFUTATION
• Focuses on the shortcomings of the opposition’s argument
• See Scan from Good Reasons pg. 174

6. REFUTATION EXAMPLE
• Many college students think that using technology to “multitask” makes them more productive,
believing that studying, texting a friend and listening to music all at once is an efficient use of their time.
• But research shows that engaging in multiple tasks is distracting, interferes with memory, and makes it
difficult to switch from one task to another: all of which causes multitaskers to be less productive than
focusing on one task at a time.
• POINT BY POINT BASES.

7. REFUTATION ARGUMENT
• Challenges assumptions underlying a claim or question the evidence supporting a claim.
• Is this an accurate point of view? Where is this person coming from when they make this argument (their
background/interest/bias). Dissect the evidence: Is it wrong? Incomplete or not representative (is there a gap
missing in the person’s argument?).
• My advice is to find a few (similar) articles that oppose your point of view and challenge their argument.
• People who are bent on persuading others may leave out information to weaken one’s case/questionable
evidence to boost their claims.

8. COUNTERARGUMENTS > ARGUMENTS
• Counterarguments more often take up ideas the opposing claims have not addressed at all (something
they are not seeing about the issue), or they take a very different approach to the problem. By focusing
less on the specifics of the OTHER argument, they make a claim that their (counterargument) is
superior.
• EXAMPLE:
• Those who argue for tariffs on goods from China claim that the tariffs will protect American
manufacturing jobs, but tariffs are a bad idea because they would increase prices on clothing, furniture,
toys, and other consumer goods for everyone and would cause the loss of retailing jobs as well.

9. COUNTERARGUMENTS:
• Here, you may briefly acknowledge an opposing view point, but don’t consider it point-by-point. The
less time spent on it, the better.
• Put the main effort into your own argument.
• “I hear your argument, but there is more to it than that. Listen while I explain why another position is
stronger.”
• Persuasive at its finest!
• Downside: Students oftentimes avoid addressing opposing view points honestly. If you feel like that may
happen to you, stick with a refutation argument.

10. STRATEGIES FOR REBUTTING ARGUMENTS
• Deny the truth of the data: If you have REASONS to doubt writer’s facts, call them into question.
• Cite counterexamples and counter testimony: Rebut an argument based on examples or testimony.
• Cast doubt on relevance or recency of examples, statistics, testimony
• Question credibility of an authority: If argument is based on testimony, undermine persuasiveness.
Different from ad hominem fallacy because it does not attack personal character of authority, but on
expertise.
• Question accuracy or context of quotes, how statistical data was produced or interpreted.

11. BUILDING A REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
• Break your argument down: Think of what the claims are, the evidence, assumptions, what you agree
with/disagree with/assumptions.
• Knowing where you stand and where you agree helps you with your focus. Having consistent points of
agreement can help build credibility.
• Don’t forget to acknowledge where your opponent makes logical points.
• Consider counterargument if you agree with a claim, but do not think it goes far enough, or if the
argument blatantly proposes the wrong solution to a problem.
• Serious issues with an argument: plan to refute it, start by looking at the differences in your respective
positions. Red flags. Weak points (of theirs). Strong points (of yours)

12. IF NOT REBUTTAL…
• Causal Argument: One cause leads to one or more effects. A series of events forms a chain, where one
event causes another, which then causes a third, and so on. (Reasons, reasons, reasons):
• Ethical Argument: Examining the morality of your subject.
• Shows how one event brings about another. Speculations about possible causes (Effect/Event:
Columbine High School Shootings / Causes: Violent TV/Music, Lack of school discipline, lack of school
counseling, Internet). Also: Arguments for an unexpected or surprising cause and predictions of
consequences. (Chapter 12, Writing Arguments)
• Example: Role of violent video games in Columbine massacre

13. CAUSAL ARGUMENT:
• Casual Argument shows how one event brings about another.
• If we say that something happened that “caused” a person to act in a certain way – what does that mean?
• Forced vs. Motivated
• 3 Types of casual arguments:
• Speculations about possible causes – speculation about possible causes of a phenomenon. [theories]
• Arguments for an unexpected or surprising cause - Persuade readers to see the plausibility of an unexpected
cause. (Considering the role of violent video games as a contributing cause to Columbine).
• Predictions of consequences – Predicting the consequences of current, planned, or proposed actions or
events. These have high stakes because we often judge actions on whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
[Prelude to a policy paper]

14. CAUSAL ARGUMENT FRAMEWORK
• A causal argument can usually be stated as a claim with BECAUSE clauses.
• A BECAUSE clause pinpoints one or two key elements in the causal chain rather than summarizing every
link.
• “Violent video games may have been a contributing cause to the Littleton massacre because playing these
games can make random, sociopathic violence seem pleasurable.” – John Leo
• Use Toulmin’s analysis: [This PDF file is available on Blackboard]

15. CAUSAL ARGUMENT FRAMEWORK / GETTING
STARTED
• See how creating a causal chain shows how cause and effect works…
• High prices of oil (chain of events that ultimately lead to) Redesign of cities
• Invention of the telephone (chain of events that ultimately lead to) the loss of sense of community in
neighborhoods
• Origin of rap in the urban music scene (chain of events that ultimately lead to) the popularity of rap
spreads from urban black audiences to white middle-class youth culture

16. ARGUGING THAT ONE EVENT CAUSES ANOTHER..
• Note exactly what sort of causal relationship you are dealing with – a one time phenomenon, recurring,
or a puzzling trend:
• One time phenomenon: 2007 collapse of a freeway bridge in Minneapolis / Firing of a popular teaching
at a local university
• Recurring phenomenon: Eating disorders / road rage / someone’s tendency to procrastinate
• Puzzling trend: Rising popularity of extreme sports / declining audience for television news / increases
in the diagnosis of autism
• What would be the better phenomena to track?

17. TWO WAYS TO ARGUE HOW ONE EVENT CAUSES
ANOTHER
• #1: CAUSAL MECHANISM – How an initiating cause leads step by step to an observed effect. A causes B,
which causes C, which causes D (chain effect). Sometimes all you have to do is fill in the missing links.
• Spelling out of each step in the causal chain. (Example “The Trouble with Dams” by Robert Devine) –
Will provide handout of Causal example on Thursday 3/24.
• #2: INDUCTIVE REASONING – This is a reasoning strategy. Through an induction we infer a general
conclusion based on specific cases. This is where you would sort through data looking for patterns of
differences and similarities.
• Look for a common element
• Look for a single difference
• Look for correlations

18. CAUSAL PAPERS ARE GREAT.. BUT BEWARE OF
LOGICAL FALLACIES
• Because of its power, informal inductions can often lead to the wrong conclusions. Be aware of two common
fallacies in inductive reasoning approaches: Post hoc and hasty generalization:
• 1. Post Hoc: “After this, therefore because of this” – Occurs when a related relationship is mistaken for a
causal relationship. An argument that falsely assumes that because one thing happens after another, the first
event was the cause of the second event.
• “Cramming for a test really helps because last week I crammed for my psych test and got an A”/ “I drank green
tea and my headache went away” – How do we know that the headache didn’t go away for another reason?
When two events occur frequently in conjunction with each other, you have a good case for a casual
(consequence) relationship, but until we can show one causes the other, we can not be certain this is
occurring.
• 2. Hasty Generalization: This occurs when someone makes a broad generalization on the basis of too little
evidence. A conclusion based on inadequate evidence. Sweeping: Overly broad statement made in absolute
terms. Stereotypes.

19. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS - PURPOSES
• Ethical papers allows us to focus on moral or ethical issues (which can overlap with categorical
evaluations).
• Disagreements about an ethical issue can often stem from different systems of value.
• The problem: the lack of shared assumptions about value – that makes it so important to confront
issues of ethics with rational deliberation (your goal!).
• Your argument may not persuade others to your view, but consider your side seriously
• Writing ethical issues makes you see your topic more clearly on what you believe and why you believe it
– take a STANCE.

20. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS – GOOD/BAD/RIGHT/WRONG
Good and bad – “effective” (meets purposes of class – “This is a good laptop”), “ineffective” (fails to meet
purposes of class (“This is a bad cookbook”).
Right and wrong – Moral use of the terms good and bad. This is where your focus needs to be in ethical
papers.
Example: If we want to condemn terrorism on ethical grounds, we have to say that terrorism is wrong. The
ethical question is not whether a person fulfills the purposes of the class “terrorist,” but whether it is
wrong for such a class to exist.

21. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS: FROM PRINCIPLES
• Framework for Principles-Based Argument: An act is right/wrong because it follows/violates principles
A/B/C.
• This type of argument appeals to certain guiding maxims or rules
• Example (opposing capital punishment): The death penalty is wrong because It violates the principle of
human life. (ETHICAL CONSIDERATION)

22. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS: FROM CONSEQUENCE
• Framework for Consequences-Based Ethical Argument: An act is right (or wrong) because it will lead to
consequences (EX. A/B/C) which are good/bad.
• Unlike a principal-based argument, this type looks at the consequences of a decision and measures the
positive benefits against the negative costs.
• Example: Capital punishment is wrong because it leads to negative consequences:
• The possibility of executing an innocent person
• The possibility that a murderer who may repent and be redeemed is denied that chance
• The excessive legal and political cost of trials and appeals
• Must provide facts, statistics, and other evidence to support your stated reasons.

23. EXAMPLES IN “GOOD REASONS” (WILL BE ON
BLACKBOARD)
• Causal papers: “Why Should I Be Nice to You? Coffee Shops and the Politics of Good Service” – p. 127
• “Modern Warfare: Video Games’ Link to Real-World Violence” (student example) – p. 134
• Rebuttal papers: “Oversimplifying the Locavore Ethic” (student example) – p. 188
• Ethical paper: “Would Legalization of Gay Marriage Be Good for the Gay Community?” – Blackboard on
PDF.
• *These will be on Blackboard by March 25*

24. ESSAY #2: FINAL NOTES
• If you feel that you’ve spent a substantial amount of time refuting arguments, perhaps this choice isn’t
for you. Think about what you haven’t said about your topic you WANT to say and what needs to be
included in your portfolio.
• Causal arguments are good essays to write if you want to talk about the effects of something related to
your topic. Sometimes it all depends on your topic.
• Case by case basis.

25. ESSAY #2: DUE DATES
• Workshop / Blog Post #5: Wednesday, March 22
• Workshop: Monday, March 27
• Peer Review / Rough Copy due (I will check): Wednesday, March 29
• Final copy due to instructor: Monday, April 4
• Can be put into your final portfolio as one of your two essays. If it is not in your portfolio, it will count
for 10% of your final grade. Without all 3 essays completed, there is a possibility you will lose a letter
grade.
• Open Conference Week: Wednesday April 6 (Regular class canceled; if you would like to meet with me
this week regarding your progress in the class. Recommended, not required).