Explain the subject, the controversy, and end with your thesis.

Explain the subject, the controversy, and end with your thesis.

  • Use the title to present your point of view. The title is often your thesis statement or perhaps the question you may be attempting to answer.
  • Be concise. You are only introducing your argument, not debating it.
  • Consider carefully your audience??”what aspects of this issue would most interest or convince them?
  • Appeal to your reader’s emotions. Readers tend to be more easily persuaded when they can empathize along with your point of view.
  • Present facts that are undeniable highly regarded sources. This builds lots of trust and generally indicates a argument that is solid.
  • Ensure you have a clear thesis that answers the question. The thesis should state your position and is often the last sentence of your introduction.


The body usually is comprised of three or maybe more paragraphs, each presenting a piece that is separate of that supports your thesis. Those reasons would be the sentences that are topic each paragraph of one’s body. You need to explain why your audience should agree to you. Create your argument even stronger by stating opposing points of view and refuting those points.

1. Reasons and support

  • Usually, you will have three or higher reasons why your reader should accept your role. These will be your topic sentences.
  • Support each of these good reasons with logic, examples, statistics, authorities, or anecdotes.
  • To make your reasons seem plausible, connect them back again to your position through the use of ???if??¦then??? reasoning.

2. Anticipate positions that are opposing arguments.

  • What objections will your readers have? Answer them with evidence or argument.
  • What other positions do people take this subject on? What is your reason for rejecting these positions?


The final outcome in lots of ways mirrors the introduction. It summarizes your thesis statement and main arguments and attempts to convince your reader that your argument is the better. It ties the whole piece together. Avoid presenting facts that are new arguments.

Check out conclusion ideas:

  • Think “big picture.” If you’re arguing for policy changes, exactly what are the implications of adopting (or otherwise not adopting) your ideas? How will they affect the reader (or even the group that is relevant of)?
  • Present hypotheticals. Show exactly what will happen if the reader adopts your thinking. Use real-life samples of how your thinking will be able to work.
  • Include a call to action. Inspire your reader to agree with your argument. Let them know what they need to think, do, feel, or believe.
  • Appeal towards the reader’s emotions, morals, character, or logic.

3 Types of Arguments

1. Classical (Aristotelian)

You are able to choose one of these brilliant or combine them to generate your argument that is own paper.

This is basically the most popular argument strategy and is the main one outlined in this essay. In this strategy, you present the issue, state your solution, and try to convince the reader that the solution is the solution that is best. Your audience could be uninformed, or they could not have a strong opinion. Your task is to make them care about the topic and agree along with your position.

Here is the basic outline of a argument paper that is classical

  1. Introduction: Get readers interest and attention, state the nagging problem, and explain why they ought to care.
  2. Background: Provide some context and key points surrounding the problem.
  3. Thesis: State your position or claim and outline your main arguments.
  4. Argument: Discuss the reasons behind your situation and present evidence to guide it (largest section of paper??”the main body).
  5. Refutation: Convince the reader why opposing arguments are not the case or valid.
  6. Conclusion: Summarize most of your points, discuss their implications, and state why your position is the best position.

Rogerian Argument

Rogerian argument strategy tries to persuade by finding points of agreement. It is an technique that is appropriate use in highly polarized debates??”those debates by which neither side seems to be listening to each other. This strategy tells the reader that you will be listening to ideas that are opposing that those ideas are valid. You will be essentially trying to argue for the ground that is middle.

Here is the outline that is basic of Rogerian argument:

  1. Present the issue. Introduce the nagging problem and explain why it should be addressed.
  2. Summarize the opposing arguments. State their points and discuss situations for which their points may be valid. This shows that you are open-minded that you understand the opposing points of view and. Hopefully, this will make the opposition more willing to hear you out.
  3. State your points. You will not be making an argument for why you are correct??”just that we now have also situations by which your points can be valid.
  4. State some great benefits of adopting your points. Here, you’ll appeal to the opposition’s self-interest by convincing them of how adopting your points may benefit them.
  5. Toulmin is yet another technique to highly use in a charged debate. In place of trying to appeal to commonalities, however, this plan tries to use logic that is clear careful qualifiers to limit the argument to items that could be agreed upon. It uses this format:

    • Claim: The thesis the writer hopes to show. Example: Government should regulate Internet pornography.
    • Evidence: Supports the claim. Example: Pornography on the web is bad for kids.
    • Warrant: Explains how the data backs up the claim. Example: Government regulation works in other instances.
    • Backing: Additional logic and reasoning that supports the warrant. Example: We have plenty of other government regulations on media.
    • Rebuttal: Potential arguments against the claim: Example: Government regulations write my paper would encroach on personal liberties.
    • Exceptions: This further limits the claim by describing situations the writer would exclude. Example: Where children are not involved with pornography, regulation might never be urgent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *