- Recognize the various methods, types, and aims of argumentation used in academic and professional texts.
- Understand how to adjust your approach to argumentation depending on your rhetorical situation and the findings of your research.
True argumentation is the most important kind of communication in the academic and professional world. Used effectively, it is how ideas are debated and shared in discourse communities. Argumentation holds both writers and readers to the highest standards of responsibility and ethics. It is usually not what you see on cable news shows or, sadly, even in presidential debates. This section will show how rhetoric is used in service of argumentation.
Types of Argumentation
Three common types of argumentation are classical, Toulminian, and Rogerian. You can choose which type to use based on the nature of your argument, the opinions of your audience, and the relationship between your argument and your audience.
The typical format for a classical argument will likely be familiar to you:
- Convince readers that the topic is worthy of their attention.
- Provide background information that sets the stage for the argument.
- Provide details that show you as a credible source.
- End with a thesis statement that takes a position on the issue or problem you have established to be arguable.
Presentation of position
- Give the reasons why the reader should share your opinion.
- Provide support for the reasons.
- Show why the reasons matter to the audience.
Presentation and rebuttal of alternative positions
- Show that you are aware of opposing views.
- Systematically present the advantages and disadvantages of the opposing views.
- Show that you have been thorough and fair but clearly have made the correct choice with the stand you have taken.
- Summarize your argument.
- Make a direct request for audience support.
- Reiterate your credentials.
Toulminian argumentation (named for its creator, Stephen Toulmin) includes three components: aclaim, stated grounds to support the claim, and unstated assumptions called warrants. Here’s an example:
- Claim: All homeowners can benefit from double-pane windows.
- Grounds: Double-pane windows are much more energy efficient than single-pane windows. Also, double-pane windows block distracting outside noise.
- Warrant: Double-pane windows keep houses cooler in summer and warmer in winter, and they qualify for the tax break for energy-efficient home improvements.
The purest version of Rogerian argumentation (named for its creator, Carl Rogers) actually aims for true compromise between two positions. It can be particularly appropriate when the dialectic you are addressing remains truly unresolved. However, the Rogerian method has been put into service as a motivational technique, as in this example:
- Core argument: First-semester college students should be required to attend three writing sessions in the college writing center.
- Common ground: Many first-semester college students struggle with college-level work and the overall transition from high school to college.
- Link between common ground and core argument: We want our students to have every chance to succeed, and students who attend at least three writing sessions in the university writing lab are 90 percent more likely to succeed in college.
Rogerian argumentation can also be an effective standard debating technique when you are arguing for a specific point of view. Begin by stating the opposing view to capture the attention of audience members who hold that position and then show how it shares common ground with your side of the point. Your goal is to persuade your audience to come to accept your point by the time they read to the end of your argument. Applying this variation to the preceding example might mean leading off with your audience’s greatest misgivings about attending the writing center, by opening with something like “First-semester college students are so busy that they should not be asked to do anything they do not really need to do.”
Analytical and Problem-Solving Argumentation
Arguments of any kind are likely to either take a position about an issue or present a solution to a problem. Don’t be surprised, though, if you end up doing both. If your goal is to analyze a text or a body of data and justify your interpretation with evidence, you are writing an analytical argument. Examples include the following:
- Evaluative reviews (of restaurants, films, political candidates, etc.)
- Interpretations of texts (a short story, poem, painting, piece of music, etc.)
- Analyses of the causes and effects of events (9/11, the Civil War, unemployment, etc.)
Problem-solving argumentation is not only the most complicated but also the most important type of all. It involves several thresholds of proof. First, you have to convince readers that a problem exists. Second, you have to give a convincing description of the problem. Third, because problems often have more than one solution, you have to convince readers that your solution is the most feasible and effective. Think about the different opinions people might hold about the severity, causes, and possible solutions to these sample problems:
- Global warming
- Nonrenewable energy consumption
- The federal budget deficit
- Rates of personal saving
Argumentation often requires a combination of analytical and problem-solving approaches. Whether the assignment requires you to analyze, solve a problem, or both, your goal is to present your facts or solution confidently, clearly, and completely. Despite the common root word, when writing an argument, you need to guard against taking a too argumentative tone. You need to support your statements with evidence but do so without being unduly abrasive. Good argumentation allows us to disagree without being disagreeable.
Research and Revision in Argumentation
Your college professors are not interested in having you do in-depth research for its own sake, just to prove that you know how to incorporate a certain number of sources and document them appropriately. It is assumed that extensive research is a core feature of a strong essay. In college-level writing, research is not meant merely to provide additional support for an already fixed idea you have about the topic, or to set up a “straw man” for you to knock down with ease. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to make your research fit your existing argument. Research conducted in good faith will almost certainly lead you to refine your ideas about your topic, leading to multiple revisions of your work. It might cause you even to change your topic entirely.
Revision is part of the design of higher education. If you embrace the “writing to think” and “writing to learn” philosophy, with each draft, you will likely rethink your positions, do additional research, and make other general changes. As you conduct additional research between drafts, you are likely to find new information that will lead you to revise your core argument. Let your research drive your work, and keep in mind that your argument will remain in flux until your final draft. In the end, every final draft you produce should feel like a small piece of a vast and never ending conversation.
- Argumentative reasoning relies on deduction (using multiple pieces of evidence to arrive at a single conclusion) and induction (arriving at a general conclusion from specific facts).
- You must decide which type of argumentation (classical, Toulminian, or Rogerian) is most appropriate for the rhetorical situation (voice, audience, message, tone, attitude, and reception).
- Analytical argumentation looks at a body of evidence and takes a position about it, while problem-solving argumentation tries to present a solution to a problem. These two aims of argumentation lead to very different kinds of evidence and organizational approaches.
- In argumentation, it’s especially important for you to be willing to adjust your approach and even your position in the face of new evidence or new circumstances.
Adapted from Writers Handbook.