Essays and Arguments: A Handbook

on Writing Argumentative and

Interpretative Essays
(Revised Edition, May 2000)
by
Ian o!nston
Ma"aspina #niversity $o""ege
[This text has been prepared for the use of students in
Liberal Studies and English courses at Malaspina University
College, Nanaio, !C" This text is in the public doain,
released May #$$$, and ay be used, in %hole or in part,
%ithout perission and %ithout charge" & printed version of
this text is available in the Malaspina boo' store" The
content of this e(text is identical to the printed volue but
the foratting is different in places)
*or coents, +uestions, suggestions and so on, please
contact Ian Johnston
For a Spanish edition of this text, please click here.
http://www.maa.bc.ca/-|ohnsto/arguments/argument1.htm
#one
%ab"e o& $ontents
'(0 Introdu)tion and $opyrig!t In&ormation
2(0 Arguments: *ome *imp"e +irst
,rin)ip"es
-(0 *etting up t!e Argument: .e&initions
(')
/(0 .e&ining 0ey %erms: .e&initions (2)
1(0 .edu)tion and Indu)tion (In 2rie&)
3(0 4rgani5ing t!e Main 2ody o& t!e
Argument (')
6(0 4rgani5ing t!e Main 2ody o& t!e
Argument (2)
1
7(0 ,aragrap! *tru)ture
8(0 ,aragrap! +un)tions
'0(0 Written Arguments about 9iterary
Works
''(0 *amp"e 4ut"ines +or Essays and
Resear)! ,apers
'(0 Introdu)tion
One of the snge most mportant nteectua sks centra to
an undergraduate educaton s the abty to dea wth
arguments. In fact, n one way or another, amost everythng
you study as an undergraduate s connected wth ths task.
Whe the sub|ect matter w vary from one course to
another, n amost a dscpnes the ma|or purpose of study
s to deveop students' abty to read, understand, evauate,
and construct arguments, wrtten and ora.
The foowng sectons form a basc ntroducton to some of
the more mportant eements n the anayss and
constructon of arguments. The dscusson begns wth some
very basc deas and moves on qucky to a few ponts
essenta for effectve wrtten or spoken argumentaton. The
sectons are structured so as to encourage students to
deveop sks whch w make ther arguments, especay
ther wrtten presentatons n essays or reports, more
persuasve and whch w mprove ther abty to anayze
arguments.
Because ths handbook s desgned prmary for
undergraduates n Lbera Studes and Engsh courses, t
pays consderabe attenton to what are probaby the most
mportant wrtten assgnments n these areas of coege
study, the argumentatve (or persuasve) essay and research
paper. However, most of the matera appes equay we to
other sub|ects and to spoken presentatons.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion %=o
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
2
2(0 AR>#ME?%*: *4ME *IM,9E +IR*%
,RI?$I,9E*
2(' Initia" $omments
Put most smpy, an argument s an attempt to persuade
someone of somethng. It s prompted usuay by a
dsagreement, confuson, or gnorance about somethng
whch the arguers wsh to resove or umnate n a
convncng way. In the most genera sense, arguments go on
a the tme; they are a stape ngredent of many
conversatons, as we as the heart of any enqury nto the
truth or probabty of somethng (as n, for exampe, the
|udca process, a scentfc research pro|ect, a pocy
anayss, a busness pan, and so forth).
Arguments can aso, of course, be nterna, as, for exampe,
when we are faced wth makng a dffcut choce (Shoud I
marry to ths man? Is t rght for me to oppose capta
punshment? Why do I need to purchase a new home? Whch
canddate shoud I vote for? And so on).
The fna goa of an argument s usuay to reach a
concuson whch s suffcenty persuasve to convnce
someone of somethng (a course of acton, the reasons for
an event, the responsbty for certan acts, the probabe
truth of an anayss, or the vadty of an nterpretaton).
Arguments may aso often have a negatve purpose: to
convnce someone that somethng s not the case.
2(2 %rivia" Arguments over Matters o&
Estab"is!ed +a)t
Some arguments are reatvey trva and easy to resove.
For exampe, f I argue that I am taer than you and f you
dsagree, then we may argue about the fact. However, ths
argument mmedatey suggests a quck resouton: we stand
back to back and et one or more thrd partes observe the
dfference. Smary, f I argue that Bern s the capta of
Germany and you argue that I am wrong, because Bonn s
the capta, then we can resove that argument qucky by
referrng to an acceptabe authorty on the sub|ect.
Arguments ke the ones above are easy to dea wth so ong
as two condtons hod: frst, that there s a quck
authortatve way of resovng the dfference (e.g., by
standng back to back or by consutng a book) and, second,
that a the dsputants agree to acknowedge the authorty
referred to. In the above cases, f I do not trust the
testmony of the thrd partes who are observng our heght
3
dfference or f I do not trust the book we consut, then the
argument s not resoved (because I refuse to be
persuaded)--and t w contnue to be unresoved unt the
dsputants agree or are forced to agree to a sutabe
authorty.
Such arguments are, as mentoned, usuay reatvey trva.
Ther resouton s easy and quck because there s an
mmedate authorty to estabsh the facts (.e., what s true),
and there s genera agreement about that authorty (ke a
dctonary or encycopaeda). Thus, once that authorty rues
on the queston, then the argument s over. Ths exampe
seems ke an obvous pont (and t s), but, as we sha see,
t s reay mportant that, f you are seekng to set up an
argument (especay about terature), you shoud not base
t on a trva cam about whch t s mpossbe to construct
a sgnfcant argument because your cam can be resoved
by a quck appea to the agreed authortes.
Many student essays, for exampe, n whch an argument s
caed for set the essay up as assertng somethng very
obvous (a matter of fact). When that occurs, the essay
ceases to be an argument of any consequence (and
therefore the essay s a poor one) because the wrter s
defendng the obvous. An essay wth a centra cam ke one
of the foowng, for exampe, s assertng somethng trva
or obvous (or both):
1. Hamet s the prnce of Denmark,
and he des at the end of the pay.
2. The French Revouton whch
started n 1789 brought about many
changes.
3. Socrates's argument n the
&pology does not persuade a
suffcent number of |urors to brng
about an acqutta.
4. Chd abuse s very frequent n
modern ndustra socety.
5. There s much dscusson n
Canada today about aborgna
rghts.
These are statements of estabshed fact. We coud dspute
them (I suppose), but a proonged argument woud be very
frutess, snce we smpy have to check an authorty (ke the
4
text of .alet or the &pology or the pages of the
newspaper) to resove the debate.
An mportant nta warnng n your essay wrtng casses s
gong to urge you to avod thess statements ke those
above.
2(- More $omp"e@ and Interesting Arguments
Arguments become more compex when we are not
mmedatey certan about how to resove them. For
exampe, f I argue that I am a faster runner than you and f
you dsagree, we have an argument. It mght seem that ths
dfference of opnon coud be easy resoved by havng a
race. But we w frst have to agree on what form the race
shoud take. In other words, we w have to reach
agreement on what the phrase faster runner means (are we
takng about a sprnt, a mdde dstance, a ong dstance, or
some combnaton of races?). Unt we fnd some agreement
on what consttutes a proper measurement of the key term
n the argument, we w not be abe to resove the ssue.
And obvousy f I make a cam that I am a better athete or
more ntegent than you, the defnton of the key term
(better athlete or ore intelligent) s gong to be
consderaby more dffcut to defne.
Ths form of argument s extremey common n scence and
n soca scence, where the ssue s often the adequacy of a
partcuar research mode or method whch has come up
wth certan concusons. The centra ssue then s whether or
not the test whch has been devsed to resove an argument
s adequate (|ust as I mght argue that a sprnt s not an
adequate test of runnng abty).
Ths pont s even more obvous f we move to a reay
compex argument ke the gut or nnocence of an accused
person. Here we cannot smpy stand the dsputants back to
back; nor can we devse a seres of physca tests or consut
a speca book to resove the queston. To obtan a
concuson, we have to set up an agreed-upon process n
whch the dfferent possbtes are presented, expored,
chaenged, n short, argued, and then fnay ad|udcated by
a dsnterested thrd party (a |udge or a |ury), a wthn the
context of some acknowedged rues of what counts as
evdence or acceptabe presentaton of a case and what
does not. The entre compex process requres from the
partcpants a shared agreement about the approprateness
of the means undertaken to resove t and a ong process of
argument.
Ths exampe brngs out once agan the essenta pont that
arguments cannot proceed to any sort of satsfactory
concuson uness the partes to the dsagreement have a
common understandng of the rue-governed process by
whch the argument can proceed to a resouton. At dfferent
tmes and n dfferent cutures, the processes by whch
5
dsagreements have been deat wth have vared
enormousy, from tras by combat (to |udge the gut or
nnocence of someone accused of treason), to nspectons of
anma entras (to decde on the rght course of mtary
acton), to castng the stones and bones or varous sacred
ob|ects, to consutng scrpture, oraces, desgnated hoy
persons, or the astroogca sgns, to fppng cons, and so
on.
Any of these above methods w effectvey resove the
argument provded a partes to t concur that the process
(whose rues they understand and agree to) s the
approprate way to proceed. One of the ma|or probems
when dfferent cutures code s often that the dfferent
peopes do not understand each other's methods for deang
wth arguments.
It s, of course, essenta for any contnung peacefu order n
socety and n one's persona fe that agreed-upon methods
for resovng arguments be n pace. Wthout them, certan
decsons mght be mpossbe to make wth any hope of
securng agreement, and at tmes the argument may
degenerate nto actve hostty and physca voence
(resovng the dspute by brute force, wthout any rues). The
atter s generay a sgn that whatever s supposed to be
workng to resove dsagreements s no onger effectve. And
when such voence takes over an entre socety, ts cuture
has broken down n the most serous way possbe (.e., n
cv war).
For that reason, we nsst that |udca arguments, egsatve
debates, ndustra dsputes, dvorce medaton, and so on
take pace n specay desgnated paces and accordng to
agreed upon processes and rues, rather than n the back
streets. And for the same reason we agree to abde by the
processes we have set up to resove the argument, even f
the resut s not aways what we had hoped for.
Thus, for exampe, n Canada we agree that the wnner n an
eecton w be the eader of all the peope and that the
verdct of the |ury w decde the matter once and for a n a
murder tra. In any stuaton where we begn to abandon our
agreement that such decsons w resove the ssue (for
exampe, by takng the aw nto our own hands f the resut
does not satsfy us), the fabrc of socety starts to experence
mportant and dangerous tensons.
2(/ %!e Importan)e o& Reason
In our socety, for causes too compex to dscuss here, we
ong ago determned that the approprate way n whch
arguments must be conducted and ad|udcated s through
proper reasonng. We w be ookng more cosey at what
ths means n ater sectons, but for the moment t s
mportant to note that n makng ths decson we, n effect,
re|ected varous other tradtona ways n whch arguments
6
had been deat wth (e.g., by appeas to scrptura authorty
or to tradtona rtuas based on heredtary power and
prvege or to varousy rratona methods, ke astroogy,
augury, the , Ching, sprtua reveaton, dunkng, and so on).
Thus, to construct effectve arguments n the modern
western word, one must, frst and foremost, have an
understandng of the rues of reasonng. The ma|or am of an
undergraduate educaton n a dscpnes s to deveop such
an understandng n students.
Of course, we are a bera socety, and we st aow peope
n ther prvate ves to resove ther arguments or make
ther prvate decsons (whch often amounts to much the
same thng) n any manner they wsh, short of nfctng
physca harm on others. So t s qute permssbe n one's
prvate affars to consut scrpture, toss cons, use
numeroogy, consut sprt medums, or st around a Ou|a
board n order to resove prvate arguments (once agan,
however, a partcpants have to agree f the resouton s to
be persuasve).
In the pubc word of work, potcs, educaton, and the
meda, however, the prmary requrement of an effectve
argument s that t must be ratona (that s, foow the rues
of reason). Of course, n ths pubc word there s often a
great dea of rratonaty (e.g., n potca speeches and n
advertsng). An mportant part of beng an educated ctzen
s possessng the sk to recognze ths rratonaty,
especay when t s posng as a reasonabe argument, snce
manpuatng ctzens through mseadng arguments s a
ma|or feature of modern fe.
What are these rues of reason? We, that s what ths
handbook s argey concerned wth, at east on a fary basc
eve. The sectons whch foow offer some specfc
gudenes about the nature of a reasonabe argument, about
how to produce one n an essay form, and about a number of
the ways your wrtten argument can go astray. There s no
attempt here to offer a comprehensve treatment of what
can be a very compex sub|ect; at the same tme the
dfferent sectons do cover much of what an undergraduate
needs to know n order to anayze and construct arguments.
2(1 An 4vervie= o& %!e Ma<or %oo"s
Amost a reasonabe arguments, even the smpest, requre
the use of three basc toos. We w be dscussng each of
these n more deta ater, but for the tme beng you shoud
make sure you have a frm grasp of the genera meanng of
each of these.
The frst essenta too s )"ear de&inition of the bass of the
argument (e.g., what s under dspute) and of a terms
centra to the argument. Obvousy, f the partes to the
dspute have dfferent notons of what they are argung
about or of what key terms mean, then they w end up
7
argung about dfferent thngs (what s caed arguing at
cross purposes). So an essenta part of most arguments s
carfyng exacty what you mean. For nstance, n the
second exampe above, a key term requrng defnton s
better runner. Unt we defne that term much more
precsey, we cannot proceed ntegenty to dea wth the
argument.
Cear defnton s usuay straghtforward enough, but, as we
sha see, t can present partcuar probems, especay f a
key term has competng defntons (e.g., rva defntons of
a foetus are centra to debates on aborton, |ust as rva
defntons of death and right are centra to debates about
the rght to de). And a ma|or source of confuson n student
essays s often the fact that the wrter does not ntay
defne what the argument s camng. Such a mstake s
often etha to the rest of the essay (more about that ater).
The second essenta too s somethng caed dedu)tive
reasoning or dedu)tion. Ths s a ogca process by whch
we move from somethng we aready a agree to be true to
the appcaton of ths genera truth to a partcuar case (e.g.,
Kng peope s aways wrong; capta punshment nvoves
kng peope; therefore, capta punshment s aways
wrong). We use deducton every tme we begn the
argument wth somethng about whch there s genera
agreement and then nterpret a partcuar exampe n the
ght of that genera truth (as n geometrc proofs, for
nstance, whch aways start wth an appea to what aready
has been proven or agreed to as true).
The genera truth we begn wth n deductve reasonng must
be somethng we a agree on (ts vadty must be
estabshed pror to the argument). If t s not, then the
deductve argument cannot proceed effectvey. In some
deductve arguments, especay n scence, the genera
truth we agree on may be hypothetca; n other words, we
provsonay agree upon somethng n order to make
predctons on the bass of t and then to test the predctons.
Makng correct deductons s not aways easy, for there are a
number of ptfas (we w be ookng at some of them ater).
However, you need at ths pont to recognze that any
argument whch starts from a shared assumpton about the
truth of a genera prncpe s a deductve argument and that
the persuasveness of the argument s gong to depend, n
arge part, on the shared truth of that genera prncpe.
Fnay, the thrd too of reasonng s caed indu)tive
reasoning or indu)tion. Ths s the ogca process n whch
we proceed from partcuar evdence to a concuson whch,
on the bass of that evdence, we agree to be true or
probaby true. Such thnkng s aso often caed empiri)a"
reasoning or empiri)ism. It requres evdence (facts, data,
measurement, observatons, and so on).
8
Inducton s the bass of a great dea of scentfc and
technca arguments, those nvovng the coecton of
nformaton and the creaton of concusons based upon that
nformaton. And t s the bass for most terary
nterpretaton, hstorca anayss and argument, and so on.
Any argument whch rees for the persuasveness of ts
concuson on coectons of data, on measurement, on
nformaton coected somehow (rather than on a genera
prncpe) s an nductve argument.
Most of your undergraduate courses spend a good dea of
tme deang wth nducton, nstructng you what counts as
evdence n a partcuar dscpne, how one sets about
coectng and cassfyng t (aboratory or fed procedures,
methods of readng terature), and what concusons one s
entted to derve from t.
2(3 E@er)ise ': Re)ogni5ing t!e +orm o& *imp"e
Arguments
Here are some short arguments n whch the wrter presents
a concuson (whch s n bod) and provdes some reasons
for that concuson.
Indcate besde each argument whether t s an exampe of
deductve or nductve reasonng (you can use the etters D
and I). If you are not sure, use a queston mark.
Note that ths exercse s not askng you whether you agree
wth the argument or not or whether the argument s a good
one or not. It s askng you ony to ndcate the form of
reasonng used, nductve or deductve. Remember the key
test here: Does the argument rey upon an appea to a
genera prncpe or upon assembed data.
1. Thngs equa to the same thng are equa to
each other. Therefore f A equas B and f B
equas C, t!en A must eAua" $.
2. The doctrne of free speech s the most
mportant eement of our bera democracy.
%!ere&ore t!is student ne=spaper must be
&ree to print opinions o&&ensive to many
peop"e(
3. Sx out of ten test sampes of the water n that
ake, coected and anayzed by unversty
researchers ast week, reveaed unsatsfactory
hgh eves of serous contamnaton. We must
investigate t!is prob"em &urt!er and post
=arning signs on t!e bea)! immediate"y(
4. A human bengs have the rght to de wth
dgnty when they wsh. %!ere&ore t!is
9
termina""y i"" patient !as t!e rig!t to an
assisted sui)ide.
5. In ths essay the wrter frequenty uses words
ke "perhaps," "maybe," and "aternatvey."
%!is &eature o& t!e sty"e )reates doubts in
t!e mind o& t!e reader about t!e =riterBs
)on&iden)e in !is ana"ysis.
6. Gvng mnorty groups the rght to potca
sef-determnaton s fundamenta to berty.
Therefore, f a ma|orty of Ouebec peope vote
for ndependence from Canada, t!ey must be
a""o=ed to separate.
7. A peope n a free socety must be treated
equay under the aw. Homose@ua" )iti5ens in
our so)iety must t!ere&ore be granted &u""
"ega" spousa" bene&its, eAuiva"ent to t!ose
o& !eterose@ua" $anadians.
8. Mode X gets better meage, costs ess to
purchase and to mantan, and has a better a
around ratng n the Consumer Reports than
Mode Y. %!ere&ore, it makes more sense &or
me to pur)!ase Mode" C rat!er t!an Mode"
D.
9. Hamet keeps wonderng about why he s not
carryng out the murder. He frequenty gets
upset wth hmsef for deayng, and yet he st
seems unabe to carry t out. $"ear"y, t!ere is
somet!ing interna" preventing !im &rom
murdering !is un)"e.
2(6 *ome 2rain %easers
Here are three probems to experment wth. The mportant
pont here s not to get the correct answer but to thnk about
the forms of reasonng you are usng to resove the dffcuty.
1. You are a poce offcer on a hghway patro.
You come across an accdent n whch two cars
have coded n an off-hghway rest area. Each
drver cams that he has been at the rest area
for over two hours eatng unch and seepng and
that the other drver drove n from the hghway
and ran nto hs car a few mnutes ago. You
cannot te from the poston of the vehces
whch one s teng the truth. There are no
wtnesses. Can you thnk of how you mght sort
10
out the cams on the spot? What form of
reasonng have you used?
2. Two frends of yours are havng a btter
argument over the queston of whether or not
two women coud have exacty the same number
of hars on ther heads. They want you to
determne the queston. Can you thnk of some
deductve way to resove ther probem? What
woud an nductve resouton of the ssue
requre?
3. A man s wakng to the town of Ipswch. He
comes to a fork n the road, wth the two
branches eadng n two dfferent drectons. He
knows that one of them goes to Ipswch, but he
doesn't know whch one. He aso knows that n
the house rght besde the fork n the road there
are two brothers, dentca twns, both of whom
know the road to Ipswch. He knows that one
brother aways es and the other aways tes the
truth, but he cannot te them apart. What snge
queston can he ask to whoever answers hs
knock on the door whch w ndcate to hm the
correct road to Ipswch?
4. Three men are paced drecty n ne facng a
wa. The man at the back can see the two n
front of hm, the man n the mdde can see the
man mmedatey n front, and the man at the
front can see ony the wa. Each man has a hat
on hs head, taken from a suppy of three back
hats and two whte hats (the men know ths).
They are tod to reman n ne senty unt one
of them can guess the coour of the hat on hs
head. That man gets a arge cash prze. After
fve mnutes of standng n ne, the man facng
the wa (at the front of the ne) correcty
dentfes the coour of the hat on hs head. What
coour must t be? How dd he arrve at the
correct concuson? Note that he dd not guess.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion %!ree
11
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
-(0 *E%%I?> #, %HE AR>#ME?%: .E+I?I%I4? (')
Under the term de&inition, ths secton and the next ncude
two dfferent, but reated concepts: frst, estabshng ceary
what the argument s about (the concern of ths secton)
and, second, defnng any key terms essenta to a cear
understandng of the argument whch s gong to use them
(the concern of the next secton). The man pont here s that
an argument cannot usefuy proceed unt we a know
exacty what the ssue s..
In some arguments, the second requrement (defnng key
terms) may not be necessary because the centra terms are
a cear enough aready (athough, as we sha see, that s
not somethng one shoud assume too ready). In a
arguments, however, especay wrtten essays and ora
presentatons, the frst requrement s absoutey essenta.
-(' .e&ining t!e Argument: *ome >enera"
,oints
The frst essenta requrement of any argument s that t
must estabsh ceary what the precse ssue s. That s, the
openng phase of the argument has to defne very ceary
the sub|ect matter of the argument and the partcuar vew
of that sub|ect whch the arguer s seekng to persuade the
stener or the reader to accept. In amost a cases, you w
need to do ths before you start the man body of the
argument (.e., at the very begnnng n a secton commony
caed the Introdu)tion).
The ntroducton to an argument s so cruca that f t s done
poory then there s vrtuay no recovery. No matter how you
dea wth the rest of your case, f the reader s uncear about
what you are tryng to do, then the reevance of that case
becomes uncear. Ths faut s partcuary common n
student essays and research papers, because students
typcay rush the openng of the essay and fa to defne the
argument wth suffcent carty.
There are a number of dfferent ways to defne an argument
ceary, and we w be gong through some exampes
shorty. However the wrter sets out the ntroducton, t must
cover three mportant components, as foows:
12
1. The ntroducton must aert the reader to the
genera" sub<e)t area beng consdered (e.g., a
fm, a potca ssue, a soca concern, and so
on), n answer to the queston: In genera terms,
what area of experence s ths argument deang
wth?
2. Second, the ntroducton must narrow down
that genera sub|ect so as to defne a very
specfc &o)us for the argument, n answer to the
reader's queston: |ust what very partcuar part
of ths genera sub|ect area s ths argument
focusng on?
3. Thrd, the ntroducton must estabsh an
argumentatve opnon about the focus defned
n Step 2 above. Ths argumentatve opnon,
whch s the centra cam you are makng n the
argument and whch you want the reader to
accept, s caed the t!esis of the argument.
As we sha see ater, some arguments w requre more
ntroductory matera than ths, but a arguments, especay
essays and research papers and taks, requre these three
parts n the ntroducton.
-(2 %=o *imp"e E@amp"es
In a reatvey short essay, you can usuay dea wth the
three requrements of an Introducton n a snge substanta
paragraph (amost nvaraby the openng paragraph). Here
are two typca exampes.
In the ast ten years (at east) the sae of ega
narcotcs n Canada has become an urgent soca
concern, and offca dsapprova of narcotcs
seems to get sterner year by year. Every day
Canadans see n the meda more stores about
the need for ncreased severty and more
strenuous acton aganst drug deaers. However,
as we redoube our efforts to cope wth what we
perceve as a ma|or probem, the dstrbuton
and sae of ega narcotcs contnue to ncrease,
aong wth the enormous crmna profts from
the enterprse. So the queston nevtaby arses:
Is ths war on drugs worth the prce we are
payng? If we thnk about that queston, we
shoud reaze that t's about tme we woke up to
the fact that we are engaged n a fute,
expensve, unnecessary, and counterproductve
batte, one whch s creatng more probems than
t s sovng. Ths beng the case, the ony
13
effectve and reasonabe way of copng wth our
so-caed narcotcs probem n Canada s to
egaze the use of mar|uana, heron, cocane,
and ther dervatves mmedatey. (178 words)
Shakespeare's .alet s, by common consent an
ambguous pay, wth many confctng
nterpretatve possbtes. At the heart of many
dsputes about the pay s the character of the
hero hmsef. |ust what sort of person s Prnce
Hamet? The pay puts a ot of pressure on us to
expore ths queston, smpy because the
motvaton for Hamet's actons and nacton s
by no means cear, and yet t s obvousy
mportant. A comprehensve answer to ths ssue
s beyond the scope of a short essay. However,
whatever Hamet's character adds up to exacty,
one very curous feature about t s hs atttude
to and reatonshps wth women. For there s a
dstnctve pattern n Hamet's anguage and
behavour whenever he s thnkng about or
deang wth Ophea and Gertrude. Ths pattern
s so dstnctve that we can reasonaby assume
t ndcates somethng mportant about the
prnce. In fact, Hamet's pecuary aggressve
and often cynca vew of these two women and,
beyond them, of women n genera, s an
mportant ndcaton of the genera
unheathness of Hamet's character.
Notce carefuy how these ntroductons proceed. The
wrters open by announcng a genera sub|ect (the sae of
ega narcotcs n Canada, Shakespeare's .alet). In the
next few sentences the ntroducton narrows the focus, that
s, restrcts the sub|ect matter to somethng very specfc
(our attempts to contro the sae of narcotcs, and then the
futty of those efforts; the queston of Hamet's character
and then the queston about hs reatonshp to women). And
the ntroducton ends by estabshng a frm opnon about
ths focus (we shoud abandon the war on drugs by egazng
mar|uana, heron, and cocane; Hamet's treatment of
women s an mportant symptom of emotona heath). By
the end of ths ntroducton the reader s fuy aware of what
the wrters are tryng to argue (both the partcuar sub|ect
matter and the opnon about that sub|ect matter).
Ths structure s partcuary usefu f you are uncertan how
to set up the openng to an essay or research paper, so you
mght want to consder the foowng mode for an
ntroducton. Notce the pattern.
1. In the openng sentence, announce the genera sub|ect
(drugs, acoho, a partcuar work of terature, a potca
14
event, a soca ssue, and so on). The genera sub|ect matter
w often be contaned n the topc for the essay whch the
nstructor has set.
2. In the next two or three sentences, narrow the focus down
to one partcuar aspect of that genera sub|ect, so the
reader understands ceary that you are not deang wth any
and a questons arsng from that sub|ect but ony wth one
partcuar queston or area of concern.
3. Fnay at the end of the ntroducton n the ast one or two
sentences, announce the opnon about that focus, the thess
of the essay, so that the reader understands what you are
argung here.
By the end of the ntroducton the reader must have cear
answers to three questons, as foows:
1. What s the genera sub|ect matter of ths
essay?
2. What partcuar part of ths genera sub|ect s
the wrter focusng on? Is there any partcuar
area whch the wrter s ceary not dscussng?
3. What opnon about that focus s the sub|ect
matter of the argument? What does the wrter
want me to beeve about t?
If you cannot answer these three questons ceary by the
end of the ntroducton, f there s any confuson about them,
then there s somethng wrong wth the ntroducton. If you
are concerned about whether or not you have set up a good
ntroducton to your own essay, get someone to read the
ntroducton and to answer the three questons above. If she
cannot answer them correcty or s confused, then you need
to rewrte the openng defnton of the argument.
Notce aso what the ntroductons above are not dong. They
do not ead us nto huge generazatons about socety, a
range of a sorts of soca probems, the bography of
Shakespeare, the nature of a of Shakespeare's works, and
so on. They begn by defnng a specfc sub|ect and then
contnue by narrowng down that sub|ect to a partcuar
focus.
-(- *ome *amp"e 4penings
Here are some sampe openng paragraphs to an
argumentatve essay revewng a fm (I made up the name).
Comment brefy on the quaty of each paragraph as the
ntroducton to an argument. If you thnk t s nadequate,
then ndcate why.
1. The fm To /agoon on a Slave Ship tes the
story of Martn, a teenage runaway on a cargo
15
boat whch sas from London to the Far East. On
board the shp are two other stowaways, Gumby
and San, two frends, who know nothng about
Martn's presence. The shp s caed the Narnia.
The captan s caed Fred |ones. He hates
stowaways and s keen to punsh them whenever
he fnds them. Rangoon s n the Far East. The
story s set n the eary 1900's. Prates chase the
shp at one pont. At another tme, the shp |ons
a group of navy shps sang off to a war n the
Pacfc. Martn s nneteen years od. He s payed
by Adam Bmph. (124 words).
2. The fm To /angoon on a Slave Ship came out
n 1995. It s the best fm I have ever seen.
Everythng about t was spendd. Everybody
shoud see t. (33 words)
3" To /angoon on a Slave Ship, a recent
adventure fm, tes the story of some young
stowaways on a tradng vesse gong to the Far
East n the eary years of ths century. Martn, a
young London boy, and two other teenagers,
Gumby and San, escape from oppressve
stuatons at home by stowng away on the
Narnia, a tradng vesse bound for exotc paces.
The shp and the young stowaways encounter a
sorts of adventures, but utmatey the story
resoves tsef happy. The work contans many
predctabe eements, a wcked captan, some
prates, brave teenagers who hep each other, a
storm at sea, a mutny, and so on. These scenes
are qute famar to anyone who has ever seen
or read many sea yarns amed at a young
audence. However, for a number of reasons,
partcuary the scrpt, the drecton, and the
actng of the ead characters, ths s not |ust
another conventona romantc adventure amed
at the younger set. It s n many ways a mature,
amusng, and nventve reworkng of a tradtona
genre, we worth the prce of admsson, even
for sceptca aduts. (186 words)
4" To /angoon on & Slave Ship s a recent fm
drected by Terry Brght. I reay ke hs fms
because they usuay combne a good scrpt wth
some exceent camera work. Hs frst fm,
Manhattan !y Night, won severa przes at fm
festvas, and n 1987 another work won hm an
Oscar for best screen pay. Mr. Brght s a
Canadan from Ontaro. He attended fm schoo
16
n Toronto and was n the graduatng cass that
produced a number of exceent fm makers,
ncudng Ace |ackson and Sue McPherson. I
reay ke a ther fms. It's a shame that more
Canadans don't support Canadan fm makers
by payng more attenton to ther fms. That's
why so many good drectors go south to the
Unted States. Anyway, Mr. Brght's work s
another exceent exampe of the hgh quaty
work that can be done by Canadans.
-(/ %!e Importan)e o& .e&ining a +o)us
In settng up your own wrtten or spoken arguments, you
need to pay partcuar attenton to defnng the focus very
ceary. Remember that you are n charge of the argument;
you can defne t n any way you ke, ndcatng what you
are ookng at and what you are not ookng at. Dong ths
propery w make constructng the argument very much
easer to do propery. If you fa to defne the focus, then the
reader may egtmatey ask why you have not ooked at
some thngs ncuded n the genera sub|ect.
For exampe, suppose you wsh to wrte an essay on .alet.
Ths s a huge genera sub|ect, and you cannot proceed unt
you have determned what precsey you wsh to examne n
ths arge and dffcut work of terature (and what you wsh
to eave out). So you w need to refect upon what exacty
n the pay you wsh to examne. The process of sortng ths
out may take a number of steps.
Suppose, for nstance, you wsh to ook at the roe of women
n .alet. That narrows down the sub|ect matter
consderaby, snce there are ony two women n the pay.
But you need not stop there. Do you wsh to narrow the
focus any more, for exampe, onto a consderaton of one
femae character, Ophea? And you can proceed from there
to narrow the focus even further onto one aspect of
Ophea's fe, her reatonshp wth her father. If you wsh the
narrowest possbe focus, you can further mt the essay to
an examnaton of Ophea's reatonshp wth her father as t
s reveaed n a snge scene or part of a scene.
By gong through ths process, you have taken a very arge
and compcated sub|ect (whch you woud not be abe to
dea wth satsfactory n a short essay or even a arge
research paper), and seected from t a very specfc part
whch w be much easer to manage n the wrtten
argument. In fact, as a genera rue, the more narrowy and
ceary defned the focus s, the easer the essay w be to
wrte.
Remember to take charge of the argument at ths stage. It s
your case to make, and you can defne t as narrowy as you
17
wsh, provded you are st ookng at somethng mportant
enough to enabe you to make a case.
Students are frequenty reuctant to narrow the focus
because they are worred about not havng enough to say
(especay n research papers). Thus, they set themseves
from the start an mpossbe task by choosng to set up the
argument on a very wde topc. Ths mstake you shoud
avod at a costs.
It s much better to argue n depth and at ength about a
narrowy defned topc than to offer a superfca cursory ook
at somethng much wder. Make sure you understand ths
pont, partcuary n settng up a research paper. For
exampe, a paper whch ooks n deta at, say, the openng
three pages of Descartes argument n the Meditations and
whch confnes tsef to that sma porton of the text w
amost nvaraby produce a more manageabe and
persuasve paper than one whch attempts to dea wth the
entre content of that compex work.
Students who do not defne a cear and narrow focus for the
paper amost aways end up dong rather poory, because
they commt themseves to a sub|ect too arge for detaed
treatment n a short paper.
Here are some more exampes (n pont form) whch
ustrate the transformaton of a very arge genera sub|ect,
through a seres of steps, nto a sharp and partcuar focus.
Essay '
Genera Sub|ect: Pouton
Focus 1: Ar pouton
Focus 2: Acd ran
Focus 3: Acd ran n BC
Focus 4: Acd ran n BC: effects on akes and
rvers
Focus 5: Acd ran n BC: effects on fresh-water
fsh
Focus 6: Acd ran n BC: effects on trout n the
Cowchan Rver.
Essay 2
Genera Sub|ect: Acohosm
Focus 1: Acohosm n the famy
Focus 2: Acohosm n the famy: teenage
drnkng
Focus 3: Acohosm n the famy: teenage
drnkng n Nanamo
Essay -
Genera Sub|ect: Popuar musc
Focus 1: Bob Dyan
Focus 2: Bob Dyan's eary yrcs
Focus 3: Bob Dyan's frst two abums: ther
18
mpact on styes of song wrtng.
Focus 4: Bob Dyan's frst two abums: ther
mpact on styes of wrtng fok songs.
Essay /
Genera Sub|ect: The French Revouton
Focus 1: The causes of the French Revouton
Focus 2: The mmedate causes of the French
Revouton
Focus 3: The mmedate causes of the French
Revouton: the economc probem
Essay 1
Genera Sub|ect: Modern Sports
Focus 1: The excessve saares of top payers
Focus 2: The excessve saares of top payers:
the NBA
Focus 3: The excessve saares of top payers n
the NBA: the New York Kncks
Essay 3
Genera Sub|ect: .alet
Focus 1: The women n the pay
Focus 2: The women n the pay: Ophea
Focus 3: Ophea's reatonshp wth her father
Focus 4: The scene n whch Ophea and
Poonus frst dscuss Hamet.
Notce what s happenng n these sts. The openng sub|ect,
whch s very arge and vague, s beng transformed nto a
very specfc narrow sub-topc, whch the essay s gong to
ook at. You shoud aways end up wth a focus whch s
much more narrowy defned but whch s manageabe n a
short argument.
An examnaton of the exampes above ndcates some of the
ways n whch you can narrow down the genera sub|ect. In
deang wth a work of terature, for exampe, you can mt
the focus by ookng at a partcuar character or a partcuar
scene or both. If the genera sub|ect s a soca ssue, you
can restrct the focus geographcay (by ookng, say, ony at
BC or Nanamo) or demographcay (by consderng ony
teenagers)
Ths process of narrowng the focus s absoutey essenta.
The faure to do t propery s a ma|or cause of probems n
student essays and especay research papers. Do not say
you have not been warned.
-(1 %!e Importan)e o& .e&ining a %!esis
Once you have determned a specfc focus for the
argument, then you need to deveop an opnon about that
focus. In other words, you need to present an argumentatve
19
opnon about the narrowy defned sub|ect matter you have
seected.
Ths pont s crtca. You cannot base an argument merey
on the focus you have defned. You must organze an opnon
about that focus, somethng we can argue about. Ths
opnon s caed the t!esis, and t s the snge most
mportant sentence or seres of sentences n the entre
argument.
For exampe, you cannot base an argumentatve essay on
teenage acohosm n BC or on Ophea n .alet or on the
dstrbuton of drugs n schoo. You must base the essay on
an opnon about one of those. And, n genera, the sharper
the opnon and the more energetcay you express t, the
cearer the thess w be, both to you and to the reader or
stener.
The thess shoud answer the queston: What precsey s the
presenter of ths argument tryng to persuade me to
beeve? If that s not cear, then the argument's centra
purpose s fuzzy or mssng. So you need to take partcuar
care to concude the ntroducton wth a precse defnton of
your thess.
When you set out to do ths, remember what we dscussed n
the prevous secton, namey, that certan statements do not
make good arguments, because there s nothng we can
usefuy dspute n them. Make sure your thess does not fa
nto ths category (a great many students weaken ther
argument fatay by presentng a very poor thess).
Notce, for exampe, that the foowng statements woud
make very poor thess statements, because they are not
suffcenty argumentatve; they state matters whch we can
qucky confrm by an appea to the text or to an exstng
authorty:
1. Acd ran hurts fsh.
2. Poonus s Ophea's father, and when he des,
she goes nsane.
3. Teenage drnkng s very common n BC.
4. Bob Dyan started wrtng songs eary n the
1960's.
These sentences are useess as thess statements, because
they present nothng we can usefuy argue about. If that's
a you offer at the end of your ntroducton, then the reader
s gong to be very puzzed about why you are strvng so
hard to argue about somethng obvous. Notce the
dfference between the above statements and the foowng.
20
1. Acd ran s the snge most mportant threat
to our quaty of fe, and thus we must
undertake decsve acton aganst t
mmedatey, no matter what the cost.
2. Poonus's treatment of hs daughter reveas
ceary |ust how posonous the emotona cmate
of Esnore reay s. Hs atttude to fe s the
source of much of the ev n the court.
3. Teenage acohosm n BC s a vasty overrated
probem. If there are dffcutes, these have
been exaggerated n order to scare us nto
thnkng we are facng a new crss.
4. Bob Dyan's eary yrcs ntroduced the most
sgnfcant changes n song wrtng snce the
eary days of Tn Pan Aey. In one way or
another, they have decsvey nfuenced amost
every other ma|or song wrter n North Amerca
ever snce.
These statements put somethng argumentatve on the
tabe. We can easy dsagree (or be reuctant to be
persuaded), and the wrter s gong to have to work to
convnce us. Such statements do not smpy announce a
matter of fact about whch we cannot argue sgnfcanty.
If you don't set the essay up wth a ceary argumentatve
thess, then the ogc of the argument w be defectve,
because the reader w not be cear about what you are
tryng to estabsh. Pease make sure you understand ths
key pont. The faure to estabsh a good thess s the snge
most mportant ogca error n student essays.
-(3 E@er)ises in Re)ogni5ing ,otentia""y #se&u"
%!esis *tatements
Rate each of the foowng statements as a usefu thess, that
s, somethng whch mght form a ceary opnonated bass
for a good argument. Use the foowng scae: 0-reay poor,
nothng to argue about here; 1-okay, there's an opnon, but
t's qute feebe and doesn't reay chaenge the reader; 3-
workabe thess, whch mght be made more specfc and
energetc; 4-reay good thess, cear and energetc.
1. Socrates was a hstorca character, and Pato
s the author of the Socratc daogues.
2. Shakespeare's .alet s a vasty overrated
pay, contradctory n ts presentaton of
characters, ambguous n ts tera detas, and
21
excessvey meodramatc n many cruca
scenes.
3. Modern North Amercans spend a great dea of
money on suppes, veternary medcne, and
food for ther pets.
4. Modern North Amercans spend far too much
money on suppes, veternary medcne, and
food for ther pets.
5. McIntyre and Robnson, two psychoogy
researchers at McG Unversty, conducted fve
separate studes of foeta acoho syndrome.
They concuded that t s a serous probem n
modern socety.
6. The study by McIntyre and Robnson, two
psychoogy researchers at McG Unversty,
whch concuded that foeta acoho syndrome s
a serous probem, s a bady fawed study whch
produced very mseadng concusons.
7. Frost's poem "Mendng Wa" s constructed
around a centra mage of two men reparng a
wa between ther two propertes.
8. In Frost's poem "Mendng Wa" the centra
mage of the two men reparng a wa s reay
effectve n brngng out the paradoxca feengs
of the narrator.
9. In the Counist Manifesto, Marx argues that
captasm s nevtaby doomed, because t
generates nescapaby the very forces whch w
ead to ts overthrow.
10. Are Theatre Company's producton of Main
Street s nterestng.
11. The ma|or Hoywood fm Titanic was
drected by a Canadan, who aso made True
Lies.
12. I qute en|oyed the fm the Titanic.
13. The Titanic s such a sentmenta and poory
scrpted and acted work that one wonders what
on earth our pubc standards are comng to
when t wns a sorts of awards and peope a
22
over the word fock to see t severa tmes. Is
Doomsday near, or have I mssed somethng?
14. One common way of deang wth the
decnng samon stocks s to ncrease samanod
enhancement programs.
15. We shoud be payng more attenton to
deang wth spousa abuse n our socety.
16. Spousa abuse s a common probem n
modern socety.
17. The recent measures used by North
Amercan poce forces to combat the sae of
ega narcotcs are stupd, neffectve, and very
expensve. Ony some deranged bureaucrat or
someone eager to gve the poce added powers
coud have devsed such totay rdcuous
procedures.
18. Homer's 0dyssey s a we known story of
wanderng.
19. New Cadacs are more expensve than new
Honda Cvcs.
20. A new Cadac s, n the ong run, a much
better nvestment than a new Honda Cvc.
21. Hobbes begns hs argument wth an anayss
of human nature on mechanca prncpes.
22. Descartes's argument for the exstence of
God (n the Meditations) s a fascnatng, f
questonabe, part of hs openng argument. It s
we worth a cose ook.
23. What s most effectve about Wordsworth's
magery s the way t so rchy captures the
ambguty n the speaker's feengs, not |ust
about the natura scene but about fe tsef.
24. Wordsworth's poetry s characterzed by
frequent mages of nature or peope n nature.
Evauate the foowng as thess sentences (3 = reay cear
and usefu, 2 = satsfactory but weak, 1 = no use at a):
23
1. The Book of Geness tes the story of the
creaton of the word and thus serves as an
expanaton for how the word s the way t s.
2. There are many smartes whch we can
draw between the Book of Geness and fe
today.
3. In the Book of Geness the centra concern s
the depcton of the nature of God, partcuary
Hs reatonshp to the earth and the peope n t.
What emerges from ths s an overwhemng
sense of the mystery, power, and ambguty of
God's actons among peope.
4. The story of the sacrfce Isaac by hs father
Abraham s the cearest depcton we have of
|ust how ncomprehensby barbarc the god of
the Od Testament reay s. A god who woud
treat Hs peope ths way s qute ceary an ev
god.
5. The sgnfcance of Adam and Eve s that they
dsobey God and are thus expeed from paradse
and have to suffer for the rest of ther ves.
6. I fnd the story of the creaton of Adam and
Eve extremey puzzng for a number of reasons.
It strkes me that ths story s very reveang
about the nature of God, but what t reveas s
beyond any easy ratona expanaton. In that
quaty, perhaps, es the power of the story.
7. The story of Adam and Eve tes why Chrstan
cutures have aways been so harsh on women
and have featured so much patrarcha
domnaton.
8. Human cutures are a reay dfferent. We can
earn a ot about how cutures are dfferent by
readng Geness and comparng t wth our own
word.
9. Of partcuar sgnfcance n the Abraham and
Isaac story s the way n whch the regous
vson of Geness (and Exodus) s so cosey
bound up wth potca questons. In fact, ths
vson of God and Hs peope nextrcaby untes
potcs and regon. Ths feature makes the
story partcuary fascnatng.
24
10. The Book of Geness ceary ndcates that
God made the word and everythng n t n a
week.
11. The story of the creaton of men and women
n Geness s a wonderfu story emphaszng the
tota mora freedom of both genders and the
mportance of ther vng n harmony together
(under the dvne sancton of God). In ths story,
part of God's pan cas for meanngfu reatons
(n a senses of the term) between men and
women as equas.
-(6 *ome Hints on +orming >ood %!esis
*tatements
Gven the cruca mportance of settng up a good thess
whch w defne the argumentatve opnon you are makng
the centra cam of the speech or essay, you shoud not rush
ths part of the argument. Here are some ponts to consder
n seectng and refnng the thess:
1. The thess must present your opnonated engagement
wth the focus you have defned. So t's a good dea to base
t on a persona feeng you have about that focus, especay
f you have strong feengs about t (e.g., "Ths yrc s
extraordnary movng, an exampe of song wrtng at ts
superatve best," "The use of Rtan n schoos s a ma|or
scanda whch must be exposed before we turn one more
generaton of students nto drug-addcted p poppers," "The
hgh saares of NBA stars are runng a fne game. Let's stop
the excessve greed," "Hamet s such a death-nfected
personaty, so afrad of hs own emotons, that there s no
doubt that he, more than anyone ese, s the source of the
rottenness n Esnore"). Notce the energy n these thess
statements; they eave no doubt about what the wrter s
commttng hersef to n the argument.
2. If you have no strong feengs about a partcuar sub|ect
for whch you have to construct an argument, then you w
st have to fnd a frm opnon on whch to base your case.
Ths may requre you to thnk about the sub|ect at ength, to
conduct a certan amount of readng about t, to dscuss the
matter wth others, and, fnay perhaps (f a these fa), to
commt yoursef to a poston whch you may not be sure
about.
3. Remember that statements ndcatng that you fnd a
partcuar sub|ect confusng or dffcut to sort out are
opnons and often make good thess statements: e.g., "The
aborton debate I fnd mpossbe to resove n my mnd;
there are such cogent arguments on both sdes, wthout any
mdde ground, that t s mpossbe to rue out ether the
pro-choce or the pro-fe arguments"; "Hamet s such a
25
confusng personaty that I fnd the pay qute frustratng;
the nconsstences n hs portraya are a serous faw n the
pay"; "The arguments and counter arguments about the
envronmenta crss eave me ncapabe of makng up my
mnd on ths ssue." Such statements are opnons, whch
you w have to argue; as such, they are usefu thess
statement.
4. Smary, a thess statement can be a mxed opnon, n
whch you ca attenton to confctng |udgments of a
partcuar sub|ect: e.g., "The fm has exceent actng and
some superb cnematography. These make t reay good.
Unfortunatey, the scrpt n paces s poor. Hence, the
experence of vewng t s not as enthrang as t mght be."
Such mxed opnons are qute common as thess statements
n arguments about terary and phosophca sub|ects and n
essays whch revew fne and performng arts events.
5. Do not rush the thess. If necessary take two or three
sentences (as n most of the above exampes) to get the
cearest possbe statement of the precse opnon you are
presentng and defendng n the argument. Do not proceed
wth the argument unt you have defned your thess as
precsey as possbe.
6. Try not to be too tmd n presentng the thess. In
partcuar, avod mp words ke interesting, positive, and so
on. Often t's a good dea to overstate the opnon (.e., reay
go out on a mb), so that you know you have a rea |ob to do
n makng the case. At any event, make the thess as bod
and assertve as you dare. If t ooks too aggressve once you
have wrtten the essay, then you can moderate t.
7. A partcuar sub|ect area that causes troube for those
settng up the argument s one whch s, at frst gance,
argey factua (e.g., a dscusson of a nucear reactor, or
treatments for AIDS, or Gaeo's astronomca observatons).
If you are gong to dscuss these, you must make sure that
you cast the dscusson n the form of an argument. You can
do ths by settng up the thess as a statement about the
sgnfcance of the focus: e.g., "Gaeo's astronomca
observatons were a breakthrough n the hstory of scence;
they effectvey chaenged the tradtona vews of the
unverse and ntroduced a bod new method of
understandng the heavens." In the course of the argument
whch foows, you w, of course, be dscussng the detas of
Gaeo's work, but the centra pont of the essay s an
argument that ths work was sgnfcant (whch s an opnon
about the focus).
8. If a ese fas, then you can try appyng the foowng
formua. Wrte out a sentence of the foowng form: ,n this
essay , a going to argue the single opinion that X (the
partcuar focus of the essay) s very sgnfcant because
(gve your reasons for thnkng the focus mportant). Then
get rd of the words n tacs.
26
-(7 %!e *tart o& an 4ut"ine &or t!e Argument
A rght, et's put a the above matera together nto the
form of an outne. The nta preparatons for the argument
(whch may take consderabe tme to deveop) shoud resut
n somethng wrtten down under the foowng headngs:
Genera Sub|ect:
Focus 1:
Focus 2:
(Focus 3, f necessary):
Thess.
Here are some exampes of the start of an essay outne:
>enera" *ub<e)t A: Aborigina" Rig!ts
Focus 1: Aborgna Land Cams n BC
Focus 2: The Nshga'a Treaty
Thess: (,n this essay , a going to argue the
single opinion that) Ratfyng the Nshga'a treaty
s essenta for the potca stabty and potca
prosperty n Brtsh Coumba. Whe the
proposed treaty may not satsfy everyone (or
even a ma|orty), we smpy cannot afford not to
proceed n good fath wth what has been
proposed.
>enera" *ub<e)t 2: %!e Ministry o& Hea"t!
and We"&are
Focus 1: The wefare system n BC
Focus 2: The dstrbuton of wefare n BC
Focus 3: The dstrbuton of wefare n BC:
probems wth the present system.
Thess: (,n this essay , a going to argue the
single opinion that) Our system of dstrbutng
wefare n BC s gravey nadequate. It s creatng
a great many serous probems and fang
propery to address those concerns t s meant to
aevate.
>enera" *ub<e)t $: War&are and %e)!no"ogy
Focus 1: The machne gun
Focus 2: The machne gun: ts mpact on forms
of combat
Thess: No modern weapon has had such a
revoutonary mpact on the conduct of warfare
as the machne gun. It has transformed not ony
27
nature of combat but the way we thnk about
batte.
>enera" *ub<e)t .: %!e s!ort story E%!e
$!rysant!emumsE
Focus 1: The man character, Esa.
Focus 2: Esa's dssatsfacton wth fe
Focus 3: Esa's dssatsfacton wth fe: the
causes
Thess: The centra pont of ths story s Esa's
nabty to dea wth what s frustratng her
because of her ack of sef-confdence and
courage.
Such outnes ook easy enough, but you may have to take
tme wth them. And the tme s worth spendng, because f
you do not ceary sort out for yoursef and the reader |ust
what you are argung about (the sub|ect, focus, and thess),
then t s not gong to matter very much what you do n the
argument tsef. If the openng does not defne the argument
propery, then there s usuay no recovery.
Every fve mnutes you devote to makng ths nta outne
defnng the essay w save you at east an hour when you
come to wrte the ntroducton out n fu.
-(8 *ome ,rob"ems =it! Introdu)tory
,aragrap!s
The ntroducton, whch defnes the man argument, shoud,
as we have seen, move from a menton of the genera
sub|ect, through a narrowng of the focus, to a cear and
energetc thess statement. Ths sounds smpe enough, but
there are a few common probems whch you shoud take
care to avod.
1. Do not make the thess too abrupt and awkward. Take the
tme to go through the steps outned above. If you are dong
that propery, then the ntroducton shoud be a fary
substanta paragraph of between 150 and 200 words (at
east). Never offer as an ntroducton a one-sentence
paragraph somethng ke the foowng: "In ths essay I am
gong to dscuss how Odysseus s a fascnatng character."
That s much too abrupt and awkward. As a genera rue,
keep the expressons , or this essay out of your stye.
2. Do not stuff the ntroducton wth rreevant deta (e.g.,
about the bography of the wrter or the hstorca detas of
the book). Keep drectng the reader to the partcuar focus
and thess you wsh to concentrate upon. Stay drecty on
the contents of the dscusson you want to present.
3. Make sure that the argument s ceary estabshed by the
end of the ntroducton. By that pont the reader must be
abe to answer the foowng two questons accuratey: What
28
s ths argument focusng on? What specfc opnon about
that does the arguer wsh me to beeve by the end?
4. Do not make the thess a promssory note whch acks an
argumentatve edge: for exampe, don't make the thess
statement somethng ke the foowng: "Ths essay w
dscuss the women n Hamet's fe." Estabsh ceary the
opnon about the women n Hamet's fe whch you wsh the
reader to accept as persuasve. "Ths essay seeks to show
how Hamet's atttude to women, especay hs verba and
physca aggresson aganst them, es at the heart of what s
rotten n Denmark."
-('0 E@er)ise Wit! *amp"e 4pening ,aragrap!s
Beow are two pars of openng paragraphs, the frst par on
the 0dyssey and the second par on the Book of Geness.
Compare the two members of each par. Whch do you thnk
s the more effectve openng? Why? If you were n a poston
to recommend revsons to the wrters of these paragraphs
(especay the ones you fnd ess effectve) what woud you
say?
,aragrap! A
Homer's 0dyssey recounts the adventures of the
Greek hero Odysseus, n hs return home from
the Tro|an War. In fact, most of the book s taken
up wth varous tests of ths epc hero,
encounters n whch he has to demonstrate hs
abty to overcome obstaces of varous knds. In
the process of foowng Odysseus through these
adventures, we, as readers, come to recognze
many mportant quates of the centra
character. We aso earn a great a dea about
what he vaues and about the nature of the
word he ves n. There are many epsodes n
ths exctng story whch mght serve to
ntroduce us to these ssues, for n vrtuay
every adventure we earn somethng mportant
about the hero and hs vaues. One obvous and
famous exampe s the story of hs encounter
wth Poyphemos, the kykops. A cose nspecton
of ths ncdent tes us a great dea about what
s most mportant n the poem. In fact, f we
attend carefuy to what s gong on here, we
come to understand some centra features of
Odysseus' character: hs nsatabe curosty, hs
darng, hs cunnng, hs ruthessness, and hs
very strong, even egotstca, sense of hmsef.
(198 words)
,aragrap! 2
29
Homer's 0dyssey recounts the adventures of the
Greek hero Odysseus, n hs return home from
the Tro|an War. Ths s a very od story,
composed by the poet Homer at some pont n
the eght century BC and handed down form
many years before t was wrtten down. At frst
the poem exsted ony as an ora composton; t
was rected by bards. Ony ater was t put nto
the form n whch we have t today. No one reay
knows whether or not a poet named Homer
actuay exsted or not. Homer aso composed
the ,liad, the story of Aches. Both of these
books payed a centra roe n Greek regon and
educaton, and they have been mportant parts
of the tradton n Western terature ever snce.
The 0dyssey was probaby wrtten after the ,liad.
The 0dyssey s a much easer poem to read than
the ,liad. The story moves much more qucky,
and there are a ot more adventures. One
adventure that s partcuary we known and
mportant s the encounter wth Poyphemos.
Ths essay w dscuss ths epsode, focusng on
ts mportance. (194 words)
,aragrap! $
The Bbe s one of the most mportant texts n
Western socety. Chrstanty has heped ay
many of our mora foundatons, and these are
st an mportant part of modern socety. For
nstance, many peope st foow the ten
commandments. However, not a of Chrstan
beefs st ft nto our modern word. So the
Bbe s a source of oppresson. There are many
exampes of ths. For exampe the creaton story
ceary s oppressve to women. The domnon of
peope over nature aso endorses oppresson of
anmas. And there s ots of kng of peope by
the Israetes n the name of the Lord. Ths aso s
oppressve. And the story of Abraham and Isaac
s oppressve as we. (110 words)
,aragrap! .
One of the centra ssues of the book of Geness
s the reatonshp between partcuar characters
and the Lord. Repeatedy n the narratve, God
seects an ndvdua for speca favours, and that
ndvdua becomes, n effect, an exampe of the
approprate reatonshp between God and
humanty, a roe mode for the fathfu. One
30
obvous exampe of ths pont s Abraham, one of
the most mportant of the patrarchs. He dspays
compete fath n God, and God rewards hm wth
the Covenant. But Abraham's fath makes arge
demands on hm, and we are forced to recognze
n hm |ust what a truy fathfu reatonshp to
the Lord demands. Many paces n the Abraham
story brng out ths pont, but we can best
apprecate t by exporng the famous account of
Abraham's sacrfce of Isaac. No other secton
Geness so expcty and compengy offers us
an nsght nto the regous fe defned and
ustrated n the Od Testament, an apparenty
harsh but passonate and compeng beef. (164
words)
Here are two more pars of openng paragraphs, ths tme
not on terary topcs.
,aragrap! E
There's a ot of tak these days about how we
|ust have to do somethng about guns. Guns
have aways been a part of cvzaton. Human
bengs have used guns for huntng and for sport
for centures. A gun s aso an expresson of
human creatvty. Many guns are fne ob|ects of
art. And anyway f we don't have guns the
government w contro us even more than they
do now. Besdes the rght to protect ourseves s
obvousy mportant. And guns don't k peope;
peope k peope. If we cannot have guns then
how are we gong to be fend off the poce when
they start attackng our homes? Are we
supposed to use ktchen utenss? So I say we
shoud forget about any further gun contro
egsaton. That's what ths essay w argue.
(135 words)
,aragrap! +
The queston of ncreased governmenta contro
over guns rases a number of mportant ssues.
Of course, every story about someone
(especay a chd) runnng amok wth a gun has
a ot of peope cryng out for more reguatons
and restrctons on the sae of guns. In some
quarters to oppose such egsaton s seen at
once as a sgn of one's rght-wng, red-neck
credentas. So anyone who proposes to argue
reasonaby that those opposng more gun
31
egsaton may have a good case, or at east a
case worth payng attenton to, s unkey to get
a proper hearng n many forums. However, the
attempt to present such a case must be made,
because brngng down more restrctve
egsaton on guns w not merey do nothng to
dea wth our concerns about etha weapons n
the wrong hands, but t w aso threaten a
number of other mportant persona rghts whch
we take for granted. (154 words)
,aragrap! >
For the past ffty years, Canada's domestc
potca agenda has been to a arge extent
drven by the queston of Ouebec's reatonshp
to the rest of the country. Who on earth can
keep track of the number of conferences
devoted to the ssue of Ouebec separaton or the
money spent deang wth t? And yet we never
seem to get any coser to a souton. Why s
that? We, one answer may very we be that no
one n power n Ouebec or n Ottawa has ever
reay wanted t soved. The Ouebec ssue s, to a
arge extent, a fase crss kept ave by federa
and provnca governments n order to make
sure Ouebec gets a dsproportonate share of
governmenta handouts n exchange for
supportng the Lbera Party as the ony possbe
federa opton and for persuadng the rest of the
country that ony the Lberas can dea propery
wth Ouebec. It's tme we saw through ths
boondogge and moved our concerns for
Ouebec's consttutona pace n Canada onto a
dstant back burner. Let them eat cake, whe we
concentrate on more mportant matters.
,aragrap! H
In Canada there s a ma|or potca probem wth
Ouebec and the matter of separaton. Ths essay
w dscuss ths ssue. It w tak about Rene
Levesque and the orgns of the Part Ouebecos.
The vst of De Gaue to Ouebec w aso be
consdered, as we as the Emergency War
Measures Act nvoked by Prme Mnster
Trudeau. Then the essay w consder the
queston of the referendum over soveregnty.
And fnay t w make suggestons about what
es ahead n the foreseeabe future.
32
Look very carefuy now at the varous reasons you found
one member of each par better as an ntroducton to an
argument. Then ook at those reasons agan. Remember
these crtera when you have to evauate your own
ntroductory paragraphs.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion +our
[This text, which has been prepared by Ian Johnston
of Malaspina University!olle"e, #anai$o, %!, is in
the p&blic do$ain and $ay be &sed, in whole or in
part, witho&t per$ission and witho&t char"e,
released May '((()
/(0 .E+I?I%I4? (2): .E+I?I?> 0ED %ERM*
/(' %!e Importan)e o& $ertain 0ey %erms in t!e
Argument
One key to settng up and conductng an effectve argument
s often the estabshment of cear, precse, and effectve
defntons for key terms n the argument, so that everyone
agrees from the start what exacty s under dscusson. And
the anayss of an argument requres you to pay the cosest
attenton to any defntons, smpy because a devous or
nadequate or mseadng defnton can produce somethng
that ooks pausbe but whch s, n fact, probematc
because the nta defnton s sef-servng or ambguous.
Let's take an obvous exampe. Suppose I wsh to construct
an argument that we must do somethng at once to aevate
the growng poverty n Canadan socety. An essenta
prerequste here w be defnng |ust what I mean by
poverty. That s, I sha have to make sure that everyone
foowng my argument shares the same defnton. If I smpy
et each reader brng to bear her own understandng of that
term, then I am nvtng confuson. And the pausbty of my
argument s gong to depend, n arge part, upon the
adequacy of that defnton. If, for exampe, I set a hgher
ncome eve than normay recognzed as the defnng ne,
then I can easy show poverty s much worse than others
have camed; f I set a ow ncome eve, then I can show
poverty s decreasng or s not so bad as other wrters state.
/(2 4rgani5ing .e&initions
33
Where does one fnd defntons whch satsfy the crtera
mentoned above? We, the most obvousy paces are those
texts recognzed as authortatve n a partcuar area, that s,
dctonares or specazed handbooks. An mportant part of
study n an academc dscpne (e.g., Crmnoogy, Socoogy,
Hstory, Psychoogy, Chemstry, Engsh, and so on) s
earnng where one fnds the most current and acceptabe
defntons. In many cases, you can fnd an acceptabe
defnton n such a book.
However, sometmes you are gong to have to adapt such
defntons or ese come up wth one of your own. When you
are defnng somethng, there are some mportant prncpes
to keep n mnd:
1. Ft the descrptve deta n the defnton to
the knowedge of the peope who w be
attendng to your argument. The defnton of,
say, AIDS for a genera readershp w be
dfferent from the defnton for a group of
doctors (the atter w be much more technca).
2. Make sure n the defnton you focus on what
somethng is, not |ust on what ts effects are or
what t s used for (that may come ater). For
nstance, a defnton of, say, foetal alcohol
syndroe whch says ony that t s "a condton
whch affects many pregnant mothers and whch
can have very harmfu effects on the chdren,
ncudng acohosm, bran damage, behavoura
probems, and stunted growth" s not
mmedatey very usefu snce t has not sad
exacty what the condton s.
3. Extend the defnton so that t exacty covers
what you want the reader to understand. Ths
may mean that you w want to expand on the
dctonary defnton (most defntons from
standard anguage dctonares are too short to
serve by themseves). Make sure defntons are
fu and compete; do not rush them unduy. And
do not assume that |ust because the term s
qute common that everyone knows |ust what t
means (e.g., alcoholis). If you are usng the
term n a very specfc sense, then et the reader
know what that s. The amount of deta you
ncude n a defnton shoud cover what s
essenta for the reader to know, n order to
foow the argument. By the same token, do not
overoad the defnton, provdng too much
34
deta or usng far too technca a anguage for
those who w be readng the essay.
4. It s often a good dea to suppement a
defnton, where approprate, wth what t does
not ncude, so as to prevent any confuson n
the reader's mnd. For exampe,
By poverty here I mean an urban
famy vng on a combned ncome
from a sources of 32,000 doars a
year or ess. Ths defnton does not
ncude fames vng outsde of
urban centres or those whch have
some means of supportng
themseves outsde the cash
economy (e.g., by huntng, fshng,
or farmng). The term aso excudes
a snge peope and coupes wthout
chdren at home.
5. Normay, you shoud not nvent a defnton
for anythng whch aready has a cear and
accepted defnton n pace (but see the
paragraphs beow on dsputed defntons). Ths
s partcuary mportant when there s a specfc
defnton n pace whch deas wth a term n the
context you are dscussng t. For nstance, f you
are wrtng an essay about the aw on, say,
murder, then you w have to brng nto pay the
ega defnton of the term (rather than usng
one of your own).
6. Defntons shoud normay be presented n a
dsnterested way. That s, you shoud not oad
them up wth words whch ndcate to the reader
your |udgement about what you are defnng
(even f the purpose of the essay s to evauate
some aspect of that term). Keep the defnton
neutra. Do not, for exampe, wrte somethng
ke the foowng:
The Goods and Servces Tax (GST) s
a reay unfar nventon of the
Muroney government. It arbtrary
mposed a grevous burden on a
hard-workng Canadans by makng
them pay a 7 percent surcharge on
every artce and on every servce
they purchased, from books and toys
to meas n restaurants and rea
estate. Whe a few thngs were
35
exempt, amost every tem on a
consumer's sender budget was
sub|ect to ths nasty provson to
send more money to that snk- hoe
bureaucracy n Ottawa.
You may want the reader to share ths very
unfavourabe vew of ths tax, but don't mpose
that vew on the defnton. It makes you sound
hopeessy based from the start. Instead gve an
mparta defnton of the GST and et your
emotona atttude to t emerge ater.
7. Fnay, once you estabsh a defnton, do not
change ts meanng n the mdde of the
argument (another very common and mseadng
faacy). So make sure, when you estabsh the
defnton ntay t states exacty what you
mean for the purposes of the entre argument,
and then stck to that meanng of the term.
.isputed .e&initions
Sometmes you w have to dea wth a disputed
de&inition, that s, a term for whch there are dfferent and
confctng defntons. In such a case, t s often usefu to
revew the exstng defntons and then to stpuate the
defnton you are gong to use n the argument.
For nstance, suppose you are constructng an argument
about how we shoud dea wth the probem of aborgna
rghts for Natve Canadans. You w have to defne precsey
what you mean by the term Natve Canadan. Does ths term
ncude a peope who ca themseves Natve Canadans? Is
the term restrcted to those whom the governng bands or
the federa government or the census desgnate as Natve
Canadans? Is a Natve Canadan anyone who s marred to
or descended from a Natve Canadan? Is there a ega
defnton of the term? And so on. In such a case, t s a good
dea to ndcate that the term s dsputatous and brefy to
revew some of the optons. Then for the purpose of your
argument you stpuate the partcuar defnton whch you
are gong to use.
Many of the most contentous arguments today hnge on
dsputed defntons, for exampe, the aborton debate
(where the defnton of a foetus s centra), the potcs of
Israe (where the defnton of the term -e% s centra),
pornography (where the defnton of what pornography
means s centra) and some femnst arguments (where
defnng the smarty or dfference between men and
women s centra), and so on. Such arguments are often
partcuary dffcut to resove, because the dsputants
cannot agree on how to set up the argument.
A number of arguments do not requre defnton of key
terms because they do not nvove any whch the genera
36
reader cannot ready understand. Such s the case usuay
wth essays on terary sub|ects, especay those whch focus
on character anayss or pot structure. Even here, however,
f the argument nvoves as a centra pont some specazed
term, ke, say, /oantic irony, the wrter s we advsed to
defne the term ceary before proceedng, especay f there
s some chance that a few readers w not understand or w
msunderstand t.
/(- *e"&F*erving .e&initions
When you construct an argument and especay when you
anayze someone ese's argument, be very carefu about
defntons whch are ntentonay twsted to support a
partcuar argument, a very common tactc n mseadng
arguments. Often, the entre ogc of an argument depends
upon a partcuar defnton, so f you accept t too casuay,
then you may fnd t dffcut ater to avod concusons whch
do not sound pausbe but whch do seem to arse ogcay
from the ponts made.
In anayzng an argument, n fact, you shoud mmedatey
sow down when the wrter s defnng somethng and ask
yoursef whether or not ths defnton s adequate. Gettng
readers qucky to accept a oaded defnton s one of the
commonest methods of soundng reasonabe and yet payng
a devous ogca trck.
Here s an exampe of a two-paragraph argument, whch
begns wth a defnton and moves from that to a concuson.
What s scence? We, we a agree that scence
s an actvty n whch we observe and measure a
natura occurrence. We carry out ths process
repeatedy unt we have a sense of how ths
process mght work mechancay. On the bass
of ths sense, we construct a theory and a
mechanca mode, and ths theory w enabe us
then to predct varous thngs about the process
under observaton. Once ths theory s n pace,
we proceed to test t by further observaton and
experment nvovng the process we are
expanng. At the heart of the scentfc
endeavour s ths constant return to detaed
observaton of the natura process under
nvestgaton. Uness the process s observed
drecty, the study of t s not scentfc.
Now evouton s obvousy somethng we cannot
observe. By the evoutonsts' own admsson,
the tme spans nvove mons of years--far
beyond the capacty of any snge human beng
or of any coecton of human bengs to
nvestgate accordng to the very processes
37
whch scence tsef requres. Thus, whe
evouton s ceary a theory, an dea, t cannot
be scentfc. It cannot be tested because t
cannot be observed. Thus evouton, no matter
what ts supporters mght cam, has no scentfc
vadty.
Ths argument, you w notce, s deductve n structure. It
begns by settng up a defnton of scence whch, t cams,
s shared by everyone. Then, n the second paragraph the
wrter appes ths defnton to the theory of evouton, n
order to concude that evouton does not ft the defnton
and s, therefore, not scentfc.
Is ths argument persuasve? We, f we accept the defnton
of scence n the frst paragraph, then the concuson gven
at the end of the second paragraph woud seem nescapabe.
So the key queston here s ths: How adequate s that
defnton of scence?
/(1 E@er)ise /: .e&initions
Provde fu defntons for two of the foowng. Each
defnton shoud be at east as ong as the exampes
provded after the st:
fy fshng
basketba (the game)
a shove
Nanamo
the Second Word War
bank verse
aerobc exercse
Romantc rony
foeta acoho syndrome
murder
a sonnet
E@amp"e ': A fu-tme student n the unversty
program at Maaspna Unversty-Coege s any
student, mae or femae, n any year of any
undergraduate program concurrenty takng
three or more 3-credt courses at Maaspna
Unversty-Coege (that s, the student must
have a course oad of 9 or more approved
credts at ths nsttuton). Ths defnton does
not ncude any courses whch do not have
unversty credt (e.g., contnung educaton
offerngs or preparatory courses) or whch are
offered by other nsttutons (e.g. the Unversty
of Vctora or the Open Unversty), nor does t
ncude any courses whch a student may be
38
takng on an audt bass or from whch a student
may have recenty wthdrawn. (112 words)
E@amp"e 2: Before dscussng the noton of a
rght to de, we need to carfy precsey what the
term legal right means. In common anguage,
the term right tends often to mean somethng
good, somethng peope ought to have (e.g., a
rght to a good home, a rght to a meanngfu
|ob, and so on). In aw, however, the term has a
much more specfc meanng. It refers to
somethng to whch peope are egay entted.
Thus, a ega rght aso confers a ega obgaton
on someone or some nsttuton to make sure the
rght s conferred. For nstance, n Canada,
chdren of a certan age have a rght to a free
pubc educaton. Ths rght confers on socety
the obgaton to provde that educaton, and
socety cannot refuse wthout breakng the aw.
Hence, when we use the term right to die n a
ega sense, we are descrbng somethng to
whch a ctzen s egay entted, and we are
nsstng that someone n socety has an
obgaton to provde the servces whch w
confer that rght on anyone who wants t. (181
words)
Notce that these defntons are extensve, makng use of
exampes to carfy precsey a pont and ndcatng n paces
what the defnton does not ncude. Such defntons are
much more hepfu than a one or two sentence quotaton
from a dctonary.
/(3 .es)riptive and ?arrative .e&initions
The need to defne the terms centra to an argument may
aso sometmes ncude a requrement to provde a
des)riptive or narrative de&inition, often of some ength,
of a term whch refers to a partcuar pace, nsttuton, aw,
person, or event. In other words, you may need, as a
premnary step n an argument, to provde the reader an
accurate descrptve or narratve defnton.
For exampe, f you are wrtng an argument about oggng n
Cayoquot Sound or about the Gustafson Lake confct, t s
mportant that the readers fuy understand what you mean
by the Cayoquot Sound or the Gustafson Lake confct. So
you w need to provde a descrptve defnton of the key
term. In the frst case, ths w normay requre a bref
geographca descrpton (ocatng the Cayoquot and
descrbng t suffcenty so that the reader has an
understandng of the area you are takng about); n the
second case, ths descrptve defnton w requre a short
39
narratve defnton n whch you brefy gve the ocaton,
dates, man events, and concuson of the Gustafson Lake
confct. Snce you cannot assume that a readers w have
accurate nformaton about these matters, you w need to
defne them.
In such defntons you shoud keep your tone as neutra as
possbe (the argument has not yet started). A you are
dong at ths pont s makng sure that every reader ceary
understands and shares a common factua understandng of
somethng essenta to the argument. Do not, by ntroducng
an evauatve tone (.e., takng sdes), suggest to the reader
that ths defnton s beng set up to prove a contested
ssue. A you are dong s settng the stage for the argument
you are about to start.
The pont s (and we w be returnng to ths ater) that, f
there s a chance that your readers may have a ambguous
or uncertan sense of somethng centra to what you are
presentng, then you must cear that up (usuay very eary
n the presentaton), so that they a share a common
meanng. In decdng what you need to defne n ths way,
keep n mnd the knowedge of the audence you are
addressng. Your expectatons from a genera readershp
(e.g., your cassmates) w be qute dfferent from your
expectatons from a very specazed audence (e.g., the
Wams Lake cty counc or Greenpeace).
/(6 E@tended .e&initions
Defntons can sometmes be qute extensve, when you
need to make sure that the readers have a fu grasp of a
the necessary detas of a partcuar topc. So n some cases
you may need to take more than one paragraph to ncude
a the necessary facts you want readers to know. Whe such
extended defntons are not reay common n a short essay,
they are often a key part of the ntroducton to a onger
research paper.
Suppose, for nstance, that you are wrtng a ong argument
(n the form of a research paper) about the dangers of the
new conng technoogy. Before gong nto the argument,
you want peope to have a very cear understandng of the
factua background to ths topc. In other words, you have to
defne a few ssues. You mght want to ncude a number of
paragraphs defnng and descrbng the ssue of conng n
varous ways, as foows:
Paragraph 1: Introductory Paragraph, settng up
the sub|ect, focus, and thess of the research
paper (an argument that we need to mpose
some strct reguatons on research nto conng
technques).
40
Paragraph 2: Forma defnton of conng (what
does the term mean, what are key eements n
the process). From ths the reader shoud derve
an accurate sense of what conng s and what
you mean by the term and what you do not
mean by the term n the rest of the essay.
Paragraph 3: Descrptve defnton of the
deveopment of conng, n the form of a
narratve: When dd t start? What were the key
experments n the hstory of the process? Where
are we now? From ths the reader shoud derve
a precse dea of the deveopng hstory of the
process.
Paragraph 4: Descrptve-defnton of the
present aws on conng: What s the ega status
of the process rght now? From ths the reader
shoud understand exacty what the present aw
does or does not say about the procedures.
Paragraph 5: Start of the man part of the
argument.
The frst four paragraphs, you w notce, are not argung
anythng (ths s an mportant pont). After the ntroducton,
whch sets up the argument, the next three paragraphs are
provdng the key factua background upon whch your
argument w draw once you aunch t. Ther purpose s to
gve a readers a shared sense of the necessary facts,
wthout whch they may become confused once the
argument begns.
The process of settng up an extended defnton n ths way
s essenta n many research papers. But there s one
mportant danger: you must not overoad these paragraphs,
ettng the extended defnton run away wth the paper. If
the purpose of the paper s an argument, then the
ntroducton to t must focus brefy and succncty ony on
those matters essenta for an understandng of the
argument. You have to be carefu not to et ths ntroductory
matera grow so ong that t takes over the paper.
So you have observe three prncpes n such extensve
defntons: (1) ony ncude matters reevant to what you are
gong to say ater, (2) provde that factua descrpton qucky
and ceary, and (3) keep the tone neutra (don't aunch nto
the argument n ths secton of the ntroducton).
We w be comng back to ths mportant matter n the ater
dscusson of the structure of the research paper.
/(7 *ome *ummary ,oints on .e&inition
41
To concude the ast two sectons of ths handbook, et us
revew brefy the man ponts about defntons.
The frst task n any argument s to set t up propery, so that
the stener or the reader ceary understands what s beng
put nto debate, what s not beng ncuded, and what
essenta nformaton s requred to foow the argument.
In most cases, the argument w be defned n the openng
paragraph (the Introducton) and the defntons (f
necessary) w foow n one or two subsequent paragraphs.
Here, for exampe, are some sampe outnes for the openng
paragraphs of a onger argument n whch some defnton s
necessary before the man argument commences.
E@amp"e '
Genera Sub|ect: Unnecessary drugs
Focus 1: Rtan and Attenton Defct Dsorder
Focus 2: Rtan and Attenton Defct Dsorder n
the Pubc Schoos
Thess: The present use of Rtan the pubc
schoos s a ma|or scanda whch s enrchng the
drug companes and perhaps makng the ves of
eementary schoo teachers ess troubesome but
whch s turnng thousands of chdren
unnecessary nto addcts.
Paragraph 1: What exacty s Rtan (paragraph
goes on to defne what Rtan s chemcay,
gvng an dea of what t s and how t works, but
brefy).
Paragraph 2: Rtan s routney prescrbed for a
condton known as Attenton Defct Dsorder
(ADD). The standard defnton of ths condton s
as foows. (Paragraph goes on to defne ADD).
Paragraph 3: What's wrong wth ths? We, for a
start. . . . (the argument starts here wth the frst
pont n support of the thess).
E@amp"e 2
Genera Sub|ect: Modern poetry
Focus 1: The Imagst Movement
Focus 2: The Imagst Movement: Stystc
Innovatons
Thess: The Imagst Movement, n fact, marked a
decsve break wth tradtona way of wrtng
poetry and ceary ntated the ma|or features
42
whch have domnated the wrtng of poetry,
especay yrc poetry, ever snce. As such, t s
the most mportant deveopment n Engsh
poetry n the past century.
Paragraph 1: The Imagst Movement began wth
a sma meetng of a few young wrters n
London n 1914. . . (Paragraph goes on to gve a
narratve descrpton of the facts surroundng the
begnnng of the Imagst Movement).
Paragraph 2: The basc prncpes of ths new
movement were few and easy to understand.
(Paragraph goes on to defne n further deta
|ust what the Imagst Movement conssted of).
Paragraph 3: These prncpes marked a decsve
break wth tradton. (Argument starts here wth
attenton to the frst pont n support of the
thess).
E@amp"e -
Genera Sub|ect: Natura Scence
Focus 1: Evouton and Creatonsm
Focus 2: The faws n the Creatonst argument.
Thess: The standard arguments from Creatonst
thnkers who nsst on the scentfc vadty of
ther theores are so bascay fawed that t s
dffcut to understand how any ratona person
can take serousy anythng they say about
evouton.
Paragraph 1: What exacty does the term
Creatonsm mean? (Paragraph goes on to defne
ths key term).
Paragraph 2: Before exporng the argument, we
must aso estabsh ceary what modern scence
means by evouton and by Natura Seecton,
snce these terms are commony confused.
(Paragraph goes on to defne these two key
terms)
Paragraph 3: The frst probem wth the ogc of
the Creatonst s cear enough. (Paragraph starts
the argument here wth the frst pont n support
of the thess).
43
To repeat a pont made more than once n ths secton: not
a essays w need defntons of ths sort, and the arguer
can aunch the argument mmedatey after the ntroductory
paragraph. Ths w normay be the case n short essays,
especay those on terature. But n a onger research
paper, such defnton s frequenty essenta, especay
when you are wrtng for a genera audence whch has no
expert knowedge of the sub|ect matter you are ookng at.
/(8 .e&ining t!e *)ope o& t!e Essay
An mportant part of defnng the argument s often an
ndcaton of the scope of the argument, that s, a cear
ndcaton of what t does not ncude. If the precse extent of
the cam you are makng s not cear to the reader or
stener, then she may brng to the argument expectatons
whch you have no ntenton of fufng. Thus, t s usuay
very hepfu to provde some nformaton about how far your
argument reaches. Notce how the foowng sentences,
nserted n the openng paragraph before the statement of
the thess, hep to resove ths ssue.
1. By ookng cosey at ths scene (and ony at
ths scene), we come to understand some reay
mportant features of Hamet's personaty.
2. A fu examnaton of the soca probems of
acohosm woud requre severa books.
However, even a cursory ook at the probems of
teenage drnkng n Nanamo reveas some
mportant ponts about our perceptons of the
probems.
3. The Natve and cams ssue n BC s fu of
ega, mora, hstorca, and economc
compextes, and t s beyond the scope of ths
paper to expore these concerns. What s
reevant here s the partcuar response of the
federa government to the crss at Oka.
4. The causes of the French Revouton have
been much dscussed and dsputed. Ceary
there were many factors nvoved over a ong
perod of tme. What s of partcuar concern here
s the mmedate economc crss faced by the
government. If we set asde a the other
mportant factors and focus on that, we can see
how the revouton was amost nevtabe.
Notce how these sentences aert the reader to the
mportant pont that you are not dscussng a the ssues
rased by the sub|ect you are deang wth. You are
44
dentfyng somethng very specfc and ndcatng at the
same tme what you w not be consderng.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion +ive
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
1(0 .E.#$%I4? A?. I?.#$%I4?
1(' >enera" $omments
We have aready revewed the most genera characterstcs
of deducton and nducton. You shoud therefore remember
that, smpy put, deducton begns wth a genera prncpe
upon whch we a agree and appes that to a specfc case;
nducton, by contrast, starts wth a coecton of
observatons, measurements, research resuts (n short,
coectons of facts) and moves to a genera concuson from
that coecton of data.
1(2 .edu)tion: *ome ,oints to 4bserve
The strength and vadty of a deductve argument depend
upon three thngs: frst, there must be agreement about the
genera prncpe wth whch the argument begns; second,
the speca appcaton must be correct and cear, wth no
dsputes about ts vadty; and, thrd, the concuson must be
derved propery from puttng these two together. Here s a
smpe exampe:
A human bengs must eventuay
de.
Mr. |ones s a human beng.
Therefore, Mr. |ones w eventuay
de.
We a accept the truth of the openng statement, based on
our educaton and experence. We accept the truth of the
second statement through our percepton of Mr. |ones. And
the concuson (the thrd statement) seems to foow ogcay
45
from the frst two (.e., the prncpe has been apped to the
specfc case correcty).
Now, what s mportant to notce about such a deductve
argument s that the truth of the concuson s compeng. If
we are ratona, then we have to agree. To accept the truth
of the frst and second statements and to agree that they
have been combned reasonaby, and then to decne to
accept the truth of the thrd woud be to voate a basc
prncpe of reason. I am free n a modern bera socety to
re|ect that concuson, but I cannot do so and cam that I am
actng ratonay, uness I can prove that there s somethng
wrong wth ether of the frst two statements or wth the way
they have been put together.
If I fnd, for some reason, that the concuson s not true (.e.,
Mr. |ones contnues to ve apparenty for ever), then
somethng must be wrong wth my openng statements (see
Secton 5.5 beow on fasfcaton for a bref dscusson of ths
pont).
The power of deductve arguments comes from ths
compeng ratonaty. That s, as you may know, one of the
great attractons of mathematcs, especay geometry,
whch s entrey deductve n nature. Hence, someone who
can frame an argument n a deductve structure has the
most powerfu ratona means of persuason avaabe.
That s one reason why we are aways searchng for
mathematca ways to quantfy and resove reay dffcut
arguments, the ones we have troube agreeng about, ke
those nvovng mora ssues or the gut or nnocence of an
accused person, somethng we have so far been unabe to
do after amost three hundred years of tryng. If we coud
fnd a convncng way to frame these probems n
mathematca terms, then the decsons we have to make
(e.g., the queston whether ths person s guty or not) woud
be ratonay compeng for everybody (as compeng as,
say, a geometrc proof). The sub|ect known as Rsk Anayss
seeks to do ths, so that we can evauate what we ought to
do n a partcuar stuaton n a quas-mathematca (and
thus, peope beeve, more certan) manner.
1(- %!e 4pening >enera" ,rin)ip"e
Where do we fnd the genera prncpes upon whch we base
a deductve argument? We, these can come from a number
of paces. The mportant thng s that we a acknowedge
them as true or as thngs whch we ought to do or to thnk or
thngs whch hod true n nature.
1. Some truths are sef-evdent and requre no
proof. Mathematcs, for exampe, starts wth
some genera prncpes whch are sef-evdenty
true, that s, everyone agrees that they must be
true (e.g., The whoe of a fgure s made up of
46
the sum of ts parts and s greater than any
snge one of ts parts; thngs equa to the same
thng are equa to each other; f I subtract the
same amount from two thngs whch are
perfecty equa, the remanders w be equa;
and so on). We cannot prove these, but we
agree that they are true, and we woud tend to
beeve that anyone who dened ther truth was
rratona.
2. We share certan basc mora prncpes
(through our cuture or our tranng or as human
bengs); for exampe, torturng nnocent vctms
for peasure s wrong; socety has a duty to hep
the mentay , crmna acts aganst socety
ought to be punshed, and so on. Agan, these
are not capabe of ron-cad proof, but we (or
most of us) agree wth most of them wthout
further dscusson. Members of a partcuar soca
or regous group w often share a very cear
set of prncpes whch enabes them to construct
and concude arguments among themseves on
these prncpes (athough often n the
mutcutura word beyond the meetng house
the pubc w not accept the prncpes that work
nsde t). That, ndeed, s one of the attractons
of a sma group: decson makng s much easer
among peope who share a common set of
prncpes (t s, of course, aso a potenta
danger to cear thnkng, snce members mght
not be tempted to examne the truth of those
shared prncpes).
3. Certan documents enshrne prncpes upon
whch we, as ctzens of Canada or of the word,
are expected to share. These are the documents
whch form decaratons of varous human rghts
(consttutons of varous countres, the Unted
Natons charter, Magna Carta, and so on). The
decsons of the Supreme Court are constanty
nformng us about what these prncpes amount
to n partcuar cases.
4. Even where we do not agree on certan mora
prncpes, we (or most of us) agree on the
genera prncpes that n a bera democracy the
eected government has the rght to make the
aws and that the ctzens under norma
crcumstances have an obgaton to foow the
aws. Thus, the statement of a ega requrement
(.e., a aw as defned by present egsaton) can
47
be the openng to a deductve argument. If we
a agree that we ought to obey the aw, and f
we agree that a certan aw prohbts certan
thngs, then we shoud a agree that we ought
not to do that thng.
5. An openng genera prncpe may be a
hypothess whch we wsh to test by constructng
an argument upon t and then testng the
concuson. Ths procedure s centra to the
process of thnkng we ca scientific reasoning.
We may not know that ths genera prncpe s
true, but we agree to t provsonay n order to
produce a concuson whch we can test.
6. Many (perhaps most) startng genera
prncpes n a deductve argument w be we-
known truths or probabtes whose reabty
has been estabshed through experment and
observaton (.e., nductvey). The proofs have
been so reabe that we now take the genera
prncpe as unversay agreed upon and can
construct a deductve argument upon t (e.g.,
Peope who drve whe ntoxcated pose a great
danger to other drvers; many peope who
practce unprotected sexua actvty contract
serous venerea dseases; at hgher attudes
there s ess oxygen n the atmosphere than
ower down; and so on). Many scentfc
arguments rest on a deductve structure whch
starts wth a prncpe of ths sort, a shared truth
whch has been estabshed beyond a
reasonabe doubt.
1(/ %!e Importan)e o& *tep 2 in a .edu)tive
Argument
Even when we agree about the openng genera prncpe, a
deductve argument may run nto dffcuty n the specfc
appcaton, because we may have troube agreeng on the
defnton of the specfc appcaton.
Here s an exampe contanng two very powerfu and
persuasve deductve arguments whch reach opposte
concusons about a common modern experence, even
though few peope woud have troube agreeng wth the
openng prncpes of each one.
Argument '
Genera Prncpe: Kng an nnocent person s aways
wrong.
48
Specfc Appcaton: A foetus s an nnocent person.
Concuson: Therefore, kng a foetus s aways wrong.
Argument 2
Genera Prncpe: Every woman must have the rght to fu
contro over her own body at a tmes.
Specfc Appcaton: The foetus s a part of a woman's body.
Concuson: Therefore every woman has the rght to fu
contro over her own foetus at a tmes.
Most peope have no troube acceptng the openng genera
statements of both of these arguments. And t s cear that
they are both put together propery (that s, the appcaton
of the partcuar case to the genera prncpe s vad). The
dfference of opnon concerns the cams made n the two
Specfc Appcaton statements, whch concern the defnton
of the foetus. If one accepts the defnton gven n Argument
1, then one must accept the concuson; f one accepts the
defnton gven n Argument 2, then one must accept the
concuson of the second argument.
How s one to ad|udcate between these two defntons of a
foetus? That s the heart of the aborton argument. Attempts
to resove t nvove a number of dfferent strateges
ncudng appeas to regous authortes (ke the Pope or
fundamentast doctrnes), appeas to scentfc studes of
concepton and embryonc deveopment, or appeas to the
aw or human rghts. Because there s no agreement about
who has fna authorty n defnng the foetus, the deductve
structures, whe very persuasve to some peope, fa to
resove the ssue.
Many of our most nterestng arguments are of ths sort,
where we are tryng to nsst that a partcuar exampe fts
under a specfc appcaton of a genera prncpe. That s the
bass for most murder tras, for exampe, whose overa ogc
goes somethng ke ths:
Genera Prncpe: A person who has a strong
motve, a convenent opportunty, and a drect
nk to the murder weapon s a very strong
suspect n a murder tra.
Specfc Appcaton: Mr. X had a strong motve,
many convenent opportuntes, and a drect nk
to the murder weapon.
Concuson: Therefore Mr. X s a strong suspect.
The genera prncpe s gven to us by experence. Most of
the tra focuses on the second step, one sde argung that t
s a true statement, the other argung that t s not (or that
there s some doubt about t). That argument aways
nvoves nducton (facts ke DNA sampes, fngerprnts, shoe
patterns, teephone records, and so on).
49
1(1 %!e Importan)e o& .edu)tion in +a"si&i)ation
%!eories o& *)ien)e
Many scentsts cam that the essence of scence s the
constructon of deductve arguments whose concusons are
then tested to see f they fa to meet a test of truth. If they
do fa, then the argument s wrong and thus the nta
startng prncpe must be fase.
Here s an exampe from the hstory of scence of how ths
mght work n scentfc practce.
Genera Prncpe: A panets n our soar system
move n crcuar orbts around the sun.
Specfc Appcaton: Mars s a panet n our soar
system.
Concuson: Therefore, Mars moves n a crcuar
orbt around the sun.
The ogc of ths argument s compeng f we accept the
Genera Prncpe and the Specfc Appcaton. For many
years, the Genera Prncpe was accepted wthout queston,
snce crcuarty was seen to be a dvne property
approprate to heaveny creaton. However, once peope
started rgorous and repeatedy testng the concuson to ths
argument by observng Mars (.e., by nducton) wth
mproved nstruments, they qucky earned that the
concuson s fase. Mars's orbt s not crcuar. Therefore
there s somethng wrong wth ths argument: ether Mars s
not a panet (and thus the defnton n the Specfc
Appcaton s ncorrect) or the Genera Prncpe must be
wrong.
Astronomers had to go back and come up wth another
argument, and Keper posted the hypothess that panets n
our soar system move n epses, wth the sun at one foca
pont. The concuson to the new argument (.e., that
therefore Mars moves n an eptca orbt around the sun)
then became sub|ect to rgorous testng.
Accordng to ths vew of scence (whch has ts crtcs)
scence never asserts what s true; rather, t s constanty
testng cams by drawng deductve concusons from those
cams and sub|ectng the concusons to nductve testng.
What remans s not necessary somethng true, but
somethng whch has not yet been proved fase. Ths, such
fasfcatonsts say, accounts for the fact that scence s
progressve, that s, ts knowedge gets ncreasngy more
secure (.e., ess fase).
We shoud stress here the mportance of ths method of
argung n scence (and scence students especay shoud
take note). Scence s not smpy the coecton of evdence n
50
order to construct a theory. It s better characterzed as the
constructon of a theoretca genera prncpe (a hypothess)
on the bass of whch certan concusons are derved n the
form of predctons. The predctons are then ndependenty
tested by experment and observaton (Does what s
predcted occur as the hypothess ndcates?). In ths
process, the number of experments may be qute sma, but
they w be cruca tests of a theory.
1(3 %!e .edu)tive *tru)ture o& 9isting t!e
A"ternatives
A very powerfu and common deductve structure for an
argument nvoves stng a the aternatves and then by
negatve proofs showng that a but one of the aternatves
are mpossbe or entrey mpractca. Ths then eads
naturay to the concuson that the one remanng opton
must be advsabe or true or hghy probabe. In other words,
you estabsh the truth of the concuson, not so much by
focusng on t drecty, but by emnatng a other
possbtes. Notce the foowng typca exampes:
Argument '
Ony two peope's fngerprnts were
found on the murder weapon, those
of Ms Smth and of Mr. Wesson.
Thus, one of the two must have fred
the fata buet.
At the tme of the murder, Ms Smth
was on an extended hoday n
Europe; she dd not return unt three
days after the kng.
Therefore, Ms Smth coud not have
fred the fata shot, and Mr Wesson
must have.
Argument 2
We have three optons for deang
wth ths crss: we can gnore t and
hope t w sove tsef, dea wth t
mmedatey ourseves, or work co-
operatvey wth the provnca
government to resove t.
The ssue s too serous to gnore,
and we smpy do not have the
money necessary to dea wth t
mmedatey ourseves.
51
Therefore we must work co-
operatvey wth the provnca
government to resove t.
Argument -
Hamet deays kng Caudus ether
because he s a coward, because he
never has a sutabe opportunty,
because he s sufferng from some
nner probem, or because he does
not beeve the ghost.
We know that Hamet s not a
coward, and he repeatedy states
that he beeves the ghost.
Moreover, he has frequent and easy
access to Caudus, so there s no
ack of opportunty.
Thus, he must be sufferng from
some nner probem.
Notce that the overa structure of each of these arguments
s deductve. That s, f the frst and second statements are
true then the concuson s ratonay compeng (.e., we
must agree). However, the truth of the second stage of each
argument w usuay requre an nductve argument (facts,
experments, specfc detas of the text, and so on). Most of
the argument w be taken up wth ths task.
Ths form of argument s extremey mportant and common
n busness, potca and soca pocy, terary nterpretaton,
and scence, anywhere where one has to ad|udcate between
competng optons and does so by showng that a of them
except one are mpossbe or very nadvsabe or that a of
them are ess persuasve than a partcuar one. It s aso
common n many peope's methods for resovng ther own
persona decsons.
The structure dscussed here (stng aternatves and
resovng the argument by dsmssng a optons but one) s
a common one n rsk anayss, where we st a the dfferent
possbe outcomes of a decson or event and then, f we can,
emnate a but one by anayzng what each opton nvoves.
Ths s an mportant prncpe n busness decsons, for
exampe, about the eve of envronmenta protecton and
contro a company w undertake.
Ths form of deductve reasonng s the bass for one of the
most famous arguments for why we shoud beeve n God
(the argument s known as ,as)a"Bs Wager). It goes
somethng ke ths:
52
1. Ether there s a God who eternay rewards
those who beeve n Hm and eternay punshes
those who do not, or there s no such God.
2. If I do not beeve n God and He does exst,
then I sha be eternay punshed.
3. If I do not beeve n God and He does not
exst, then nothng bad or good w happen to
me.
4. If I do beeve n God and He does exst, then I
sha be eternay rewarded.
5. If I do beeve n God and He does not exst,
nothng good or bad w happen to me.
6. Concuson: I have a great dea more to ose
and to fear from not beevng and beng wrong
than I do from beevng and beng wrong.
Therefore, t s prudent to beeve.
Notce how ths argument depends upon stng aternatves,
evauatng the consequences of each one, and decdng on
the bass of the possbe outcomes.
A smar form of reasonng used to be caed n the press the
Ma@imin *trategy. It nvoves, as a start to resovng a
dffcut persona decson, stng a the worst possbe
consequences of a the varous optons you face. You seect
that opton, the worst possbe outcome of whch s
preferabe to the worst possbe outcome of any of the
others. Ths form of thnkng s hghy recommended for
conservatve pessmsts.
1(6 %!e ,rob"em o& Hidden or Mis"eading
Assumptions
The fu study of the ways n whch deductve arguments can
go astray s compex and dffcut. However, here t s
mportant to note a few basc ways n whch the ogc of a
deductve argument can create probems.
The frst thng to be carefu of n anayzng a deductve
argument or n constructng one of your own s any
assumpton hdden n the argument, that s, a genera
prncpe whch s necessary to the argument but whch s
mped rather than stated openy.
For exampe, here s a deductve argument:
Canadan fshermen have the excusve rght to
harvest those fsh, because the fsh are comng
to Canadan rvers to spawn.
53
There's a hdden assumpton here on whch the concuson
depends. The assumpton s a genera prncpe somethng
ke the foowng: "The fshermen of the country where fsh
come to spawn have the excusve rght to harvest those
fsh." The assumpton, whch may or may not be true or
agreed upon, s not stated.
Hdden assumptons can be very mseadng because, snce
they are not ceary stated, the reader may not focus upon
them the crtca attenton they mert. Notce that a hdden
assumpton s not necessary wrong; t mght be qute
acceptabe. But uness you as reader are aware that t s
there, you cannot evauate t.
1(7 E@er)ise in Hidden Assumptions
Notce the foowng exampes of short arguments n whch
dervng the concuson has requred a genera prncpe
whch s not stated. Identfy the hdden assumpton and
state whether, n your vew, the assumpton s a genera
prncpe about whch we agree or not.
1. You shoud not vote for that canddate for the
federa parament. He has been marred twce.
2. We must provde more money and tme for
the facuty to conduct schoary research. We a
want to mprove the quaty of the student's
earnng at ths nsttuton.
3. Hamet s much gven to moody specuaton.
Ceary he s not ft to be the kng of Denmark.
4. Whch woud you rather have, a heathy
envronment or unempoyment? Wthout the
cear-cuttng of od growth forests, we w have
unacceptaby hgh unempoyment eves.
5. The person shoud not be admtted to the
course on combat fght tranng. After a, she s
a woman.
6. The government shoud not permt the peope
of Ouebec to separate because the break-up of
the country w hurt the Canadan economy.
7. Esa and Henry do not tak to each other very
much. Ceary, ther marrage s not gong very
we.
8. Peope who smoke nfct damage on
themseves. Therefore, Medcare shoud not pay
54
ther medca expenses for treatng condtons
reated to ther smokng.
9. Podunk Coege s a much better unversty
than Fosom Unversty. At Podunk Coege 89
percent of the facuty have PhD degrees;
whereas, at Fosom Unversty ony 75 percent of
the facuty have PhD degrees.
10. The Canadan mtary must pay for that
soder's sex change operaton, because outsde
the mtary Medcare covers such medca
procedures.
1(8 +a"se .i"emma
A partcuary common and often persuasve mstake n
deductve arguments s the one caed the +a"se .i"emma.
Ths occurs when the arguer gves the argument a deductve
structure by stng the optons or aternatves at the start
and then goes on to dsprove a the possbtes but one
(see Secton 5.6 above). However, the st of aternatves s
not compete but s, deberatey or not, mseadng because
t does not ncude a the optons.
Here are some smpe exampes of the Fase Demma
mstake n deductve structure:
Argument '
We have ony two choces n deang wth a
worker who s drnkng on the |ob: we can gnore
the probem or we can fre the worker for cause.
We cannot afford to gnore the probem, because
the drnkng creates dangers for the other
workers and hurts productvty.
Therefore we have to fre any worker who s
drnkng on the |ob.
Argument 2
Everyone agrees that there are ony two
probabe accounts for the creaton of anma and
pant speces, the one n Geness and the one
provded by Darwn.
Ceary, there are nconsstences, naccuraces,
and errors n Darwn's account.
55
Therefore, the ony probabe account for the
creaton of anma and pant speces s the one n
Geness.
Argument -
Ether we gve back a our and to the Natve
communtes, as they are demandng, or we
requre them to become fuy fedged and equa
ctzens, |ust ke everyone ese.
We cannot afford to gve back a the and.
Therefore, we have to requre them to become
fuy fedged and equa ctzens |ust ke
everyone ese.
Each of these arguments begns wth a st of optons or
aternatves, and each st s ncompete and mseadng. If
you accept the st, however, as a genune and compete
statement of a the optons, then you may be easy msed
by the rest of the argument.
In any argument, therefore, where you are consderng a
range of optons, make sure the st s compete. If you are
excudng somethng, make sure you expan why that s not
an opton. Ths s aso a very mportant anaytca too n
evauatng arguments, especay from potcans and pocy
makers.
1('0 4verstating or #nderstating t!e
$on)"usion
One common probem n deductve arguments s a tendency
to overstate or understate the concuson. You need to be
carefu that the degree of certanty n your concuson
matches the degree of certanty n your genera prncpe
and specfc appcaton. Here s an exampe of ths pont:
Genera Prncpe: Teenage drvers are often
more reckess than mature drvers.
Specfc Appcaton: |ack s a teenage drver.
Concuson: Therefore, |ack must be more
reckess reckess than mature drvers.
The concuson here s overstated, because the genera
prncpe does not ncude all teenage drvers. You are not
entted to make such a quck concuson about |ack's
drvng. A better concuson woud be somethng ke
"Therefore |ack may be a reckess drver."
Here s another exampe:
56
Genera Prncpe: Many natve and cams are
perfecty |ustfed by Canadan aw.
Specfc Appcaton: Ths petton represents a
natve and cam.
Concuson: Therefore, ths petton s perfecty
|ustfed by Canadan aw.
The concuson here s very frm (is perfectly 1ustified), but
the nta prncpe doesn't entte you to such a frm
concuson, snce the openng cam does not say all.
A common source of troube here are words ke never,
al%ays, none, all, and so on, words whch are a ncusve of
a group. Do not use these words when your openng
assumptons entte you ony to say soe, a fe%, any, and
so on. For exampe:
Genera Prncpe: Many coege students n
Canada requre fnanca ad n order to contnue
ther schoong.
Specfc Appcaton: Ths group of students at
Maaspna are Canadan coege students.
Concuson: Therefore, they a need fnanca ad
n order to contnue ther schoong.
Agan the concuson here s overstated, showng a degree of
certanty not warranted n the Genera Prncpe. Your
concuson shoud thus be more tentatve: "Therefore some
them may we need fnanca ad. . . . "
1('' Ana"ogies
Deductve arguments often make use of an anaogy, that s,
a comparson wth some other exampe of a smar case.
Here s an exampe:
Genera Prncpe: The attempts to prohbt the
manufacture and sae of acoho n the US durng
Prohbton were a massve faure.
Specfc Appcaton: The present attempts to
dea wth ega narcotcs are |ust ke that
earer stuaton wth acoho.
Concuson: Therefore, the present attempts to
dea wth ega narcotcs are a massve faure.
Notce very carefuy ths form of argument (whch s
common). To persuade the reader or stener of the
57
concuson, the arguer has ntroduced an anaogy (or
comparson) between attempts to emnate acoho and
attempts to emnate narcotcs. The strength of the
argument here s gong to depend on the extent to whch the
arguer can persuade the reader that the anaogy s a good
one.
Now, anaoges are dangerous thngs, smpy because no two
stuatons are exacty the same, and one can aways fnd
some dfferences whch work aganst the arguer's purpose n
ntroducng t. So they need to be used wth extreme care,
wth fu attenton to the foowng ponts:
1. Never ntroduce an anaogy uness you are
we nformed about the detas of the exampe
you are cang attenton to and are prepared to
defend the smarty between the two thngs
beng compared. The argument w suffer from a
Fase Anaogy f the reader fas to see the
smarty or sees ony dfferences. Ths s
partcuary true f you are gong to use hstorca
anaoges (e.g., What s gong on n Ouebec
today s |ust ke the student unrest of the md-
1960's).
2. Be very carefu of extreme anaoges, that s,
brngng nto the argument an exampe of
somethng so extraordnary that the comparson
s suspect. For exampe, be very cautous about
comparng anythng wth Naz Germany's
treatment of the |ews. That may be rhetorcay
effectve, but uness the stuaton you are
descrbng s as horrfc as the orgna event, the
anaogy smpy ndcates to the reader that you
do not understand what you are takng about or
are exaggeratng wdy for the sake of t.
3. In genera, stck to anaoges whch brng
together thngs whch are, ndeed, very smar.
For exampe, f you are argung that the hgh
saares of NBA payers are spong the game,
you mght want to make an anaogy wth what s
happenng wth hgh saares n the NFL. Those
stuatons are cose enough to make the
comparson carry some persuasve weght.
Smary, f you are argung about an
educatona ssue n BC, you mght want to draw
an anaogy wth what s happenng n the same
area n, say, Aberta or Washngton State.
4. If you are not sure whether to ntroduce an
anaogy or not, you probaby shoud eave t out.
58
Anaoges are not a that persuasve most of the
tme, and f they are stretched or napproprate
they weaken the argument. If there's any doubt
that the reader mght not see the smarty
between the two cases, then you mght have to
argue t. For exampe, f you wanted to make the
argument that the prohbton of acoho was
very ke the prohbton of narcotcs, then you
mght have to make that pont n deta, rather
than |ust assumng that the reader sees t
ceary.
5. Anaoges, n genera, shoud not carry the
weght of the argument. They are often very
usefu for ustratng and emphaszng ponts
you have aready made n other ways, but n
themseves, unsupported by other arguments,
they are qute weak (athough frequenty
popuar, especay among potcans).
1('2 Indu)tion
As mentoned prevousy, a second manner of conductng
arguments s caed indu)tion or indu)tive reasoning.
Inducton or nductve reasonng nvoves, as we have
remarked aready, facts, observatons, expermenta data,
perceptons, and so on, n other words, ndvdua acts of
sense experence. The nductve process starts wth a snge
percepton: e.g., "That pne tree has cones," "When t frst
appears, the Ghost n .alet s dressed n armour," "The
patent has red spots on her arms," and so on.
The bass of a nducton s repeated observaton, so that the
facts about smar experences accumuate to the pont
where one sees a repettve pattern and can draw a
concuson about t. Havng repeatedy observed n smar
crcumstances the same event or one very smar, you draw
a concuson about the pattern you have seen.
Suppose, for exampe, you observe a crow and notce that t
s back. You contnue to observe crows repeatedy, and
every tme you notce that the coour s back. After a certan
number of smar experences, you w draw a concuson:
"A crows are back." And, on the bass of ths
generazaton, you can now make a predcton: "My cousn
|ane has wrtten to te me she has a pet crow. It must be
back, because a crows are back."
Notce the nature of ths concuson. You have not observed
a crows n the word (that woud be mpossbe). You have
seen ony a sampe, but you fee confdent that the
concuson s a good one. You woud, of course, be forced to
change t, shoud you ever perceve a purpe, whte, yeow,
59
or poka-dotted crow (n scentfc terms, you woud have
fasfed the hypothess that a crows are back).
Ths fna pont ntroduces a vtay mportant pont about
nducton: t s never fnay certan. Snce the process
nvoves makng a arge generazaton on the bass of a
mted number of observatons, the concuson s ony more
or ess probabe, rather than ron cad. Inducton can,
however, provde mportant and concusve negatve resuts;
that s, a partcuar observaton or set of expermenta
resuts can serve to prove a genera cam wrong (e.g.,
seeng a yeow crow woud prove the asserton "A crows
are back" fase).
1('- Making Indu)tive >enera"i5ations
The snge most chaengng part of nductve reasonng s
deang wth these questons: How many repettve
observatons do I have to make before I draw a concuson?
What sort of concuson am I entted to draw? How confdent
can I be that ths concuson s vad? Much of your study at
coege w be deang wth these questons, partcuary f
you are a student of soca scence, where the statstca
anayss of nductve evdence s a cruca (and for some
students a very dffcut) part of the currcuum.
There s not tme here to go nto the detas of what can be a
very compex sub|ect, but at a very basc eve we can
suggest the foowng ponts to watch n nductve
arguments:
1. The strength of the concuson s gong to
depend upon the quaty and the quantty of the
observatons (evdence) you ntroduce. No
nductve argument based on a snge pece of
unreabe evdence s very persuasve.
2. The evdence you put nto an nductve
argument must be good evdence. Agan, you
w be earnng what that phrase means n
dfferent sub|ects, but, n genera, the evdence
shoud meet the foowng crtera: t shoud be
accurate, up-to-date, based on a reabe source,
and easy to verfy or repcate. It shoud not be
sub|ectve, fabrcated, or based on a ceary
based or suspcous source. In terary
arguments, the evdence normay w come
drecty from the text under dscusson or from
secondary sources (.e., books or artces wrtten
about that text). It w not come from somethng
not drecty provded by the text (e.g., what you
thnk the chdhood experences of the herone
mght have been ke). And t s mportant to
note that the quaty of the evdence s aways
60
more mportant than the quantty: a few
exceent exampes are much more persuasve
than a much arger quantty of nferor matera.
3. Part of the prevous pont requres you to
dentfy ceary any speca authortes to whch
you appea for evdence. You shoud never |ust
refer vaguey to experts (n phrases ke
"Scentfc studes have shown . . . ," "Many
crtcs mantan that . . . ," "It has been verfed
that. . . ." and so on). If you want to use phrases
ke that, then you are gong to have to provde
specfc references.
4. Most mportanty, the anguage n the
concuson must match the degree of certanty n
the evdence. An nductve argument, especay
one about terature, w normay entte you
ony to tak about what s probaby the case
rather than to use a vocabuary ndcatng
certanty (so words ke prove, deonstrate, and
so on--whch ndcate a frm certanty--are
generay ess advsabe than words ke suggest,
raise the possibility, perhaps indicate, and so
on), uness the probabty s so hgh as to be
amost certan (e.g., I can be certan that f I
throw some heavy ob|ect out of the wndow t
w fa to earth).
Note very carefuy that a tendency to overstate the
concuson, that s, to make the concuson much more
defnte than the evdence suggests or to offer nsuffcent or
poor evdence s a quck way to make nductve arguments
ook suspect.
1('/ E@er)ise in *imp"e Indu)tive Argument
Beow are some smpe nductve arguments, wth some
evdence presented and a concuson (whch s n bod).
Score each argument out of 4, as foows: 0-very poor; 1-
some probabty perhaps, but not very convncng; 2-
partay true perhaps, but the evdence s not as good as t
coud be to support the concuson; 3-good; 4-exceent, wth
a concuson arsng naturay out of the evdence. If you
thnk the concuson mght be mproved, then provde an
mproved verson.
1. The ghost n Hamet spends more tme
companng about hs ex-wfe's remarrage than
the fact that hs brother murdered hm. $"ear"y
t!is demonstrates !e is obsessed =it! !is
inadeAuate se@ua"ity.
61
2. The ghost n Hamet comes nto Gertrude's
bedroom to confront Hamet, but hs ex-wfe
cannot see hm. %!is suggests somet!ing
interesting, t!at Ham"et *enior, reno=ned
as a =arrior king, may not &ee" Auite so
)ommanding and )ompetent in t!e bed
room(
3. The drver's bood acoho eve was three
tmes the ega mt. Three separate wtnesses
ndcate that he was drvng on the wrong sde of
the road wthout ghts on, and the premnary
anayss ndcates that he was speedng we
above the mt. And the brakes on the car are
defectve. He mig!t be to b"ame in t!e
a))ident(
4. We have conducted an experment ten tmes
under standard condtons n whch we added a
sma pece of znc to hydrochorc acd. Every
tme hydrogen gas was produced. %!us, t!e
intera)tion o& 5in) and !ydro)!"ori) a)id
under simi"ar )onditions =i"" a"=ays
produ)e !ydrogen gas(
1( %!e peop"e o& Guebe) )"ear"y do not
=ant to separate &rom $anada. In the ast
referendum on separaton, the peope of Ouebec
re|ected the referendum queston by a margn of
51 to 49 percent.
6. In ths poem, nature s aways descrbed as
"green," "verdant," "rpe," "boomng," and
"ferte." %!e =riter is !ere suggesting t!at
nature is a ri)! sour)e o& "i&e(
6( 4dysseus obvious"y !as a very )rue"
streak. We see ths when he grnds out the eye
of Poyphemos, the Cycops, wth a sharpened
and burnng poe and at the end when he
saughters the sutors and punshes the
servants, some of them very brutay.
8. The Lbera canddates promsed that they
woud repea the GST. Once n offce, they
refused to carry out that egsaton. %!ey are
a"" "iars.
9. Some reeased sex offenders have commtted
new offences. We s!ou"d never re"ease any
62
se@ o&&enders, sin)e t!ey =i"" a"=ays
reo&&end(
10. Severa scentsts have sad that greenhouse
gases are ncreasng. We must urge
governments to pass stri)t "egis"ation
)ontro""ing industria" and automobi"e
emissions(
11. My astrooger and the Ou|a board have tod
me repeatedy me that t w ran on Frday. I
t!ink =e s!ou"d )a"" o&& t!e pi)ni)(
1('1 *ome ,otentia" ,rob"ems in Indu)tive
Arguments
We have aready mentoned three very common ways n
whch nductve arguments can go astray: frst, generazng
on the bass of nsuffcent evdence, second, statng the
concuson wth an napproprate eve of confdence, and,
thrd, usng poor evdence (naccurate, unreabe).
There are some other probem areas, as foows (ths st s
not ntended to be exhaustve).
1. Don't end up begging t!e Auestion, that s,
assumng the truth of what you have set out to
prove. For exampe, consder the argument:
"The government must reduce spendng because
the government s spendng too much money."
Ths argument s usng as evdence what t set
out to prove or recommend. Here are other
exampes: "Peope shoud not break the aw
because breakng the aw s bad," "Odysseus
spends tte tme at home because he s aways
away," "I faed the course because my marks
were too ow."
2. Be carefu not to brng n a non seAuitur,
that s, some evdence whch s apparenty
rreevant to the pont you are tryng to argue
(e.g., "Hamet s ceary nsane because Poonus
doesn't want hs daughter assocatng wth
hm"). Here the evdence doesn't seem, as
stated, to have anythng to do wth the cam.
Another exampe s as foows: "I faed the
course because my teacher was overweght" or
"I won't vote for Canddate |ones because her
father s a communst." If there s a connecton
between the teacher's weght and your faure or
the potca beefs of Canddate |ones's father
and your votng decson, you w have to ay
63
that out n deta. As t stands, the teacher's
weght and the father's potca beefs here
seem ke a non sequtur, somethng rreevant to
your concusons (the connecton s not apparent
to the reader).
3. Remember that )oin)iden)e is not )ause.
That s, |ust because B happens after A, that
does not necessary mean that A causes B. For
exampe: "That gr s a bad nfuence; my |mmy
ddn't drnk unt he met her." She mght be the
cause, but smpy assertng the fact as stated s
no proof. Of course, f there s repeated evdence
(.e., every ad she ever has gone out wth has
deveoped a drnkng probem), then the
argument woud be more persuasve; t woud
not, however, be ar tght. Ths error, as you may
earn f you study correaton n statstcs, s a
ma|or source of mstakes n certan areas of
soca scence.
4. Do not smpy appea" to t!e aut!ority of
someone we known, even f that person s an
expert, uness you can pont to a specfc study
or facts assocated wth the name: e.g., "Henry
Kssnger says we are rght to be fghtng the
communsts. So we shoud be." Henry Kssnger
mght be rght, but smpy mentonng hs name
doesn't provde any meat to the argument.
Appeas to authorty may be usefu n
suppementng an argument, but n themseves
they are not very usefu.
5. Concentrate on the facts and prncpes of an
argument. Don't try to make a case smpy by
attackng the motves, the appearance, or the
other beefs of those who do not support the
poston you are advancng.
1('3 E@er)ise in Eva"uating *!ort Arguments
Comment on each of the foowng arguments. Note that
some are deductve and others nductve. If you can perceve
a specfc probem, then dentfy t. If you thnk the argument
s qute persuasve, then ndcate that.
1. Of course, hs argument s hopeessy wrong.
After a, he's a Roman Cathoc prest. What do
you expect?
64
2. The survey questonnare on pagarsm was
competed by 85 percent of the facuty. Three-
quarters of the respondents sad they defntey
fet that pagarsm n frst-year papers was on
the ncrease. I thnk we have a probem here
whch we shoud nvestgate further.
3. I've had ten cats at dfferent tmes; they a
ran away. Obvousy, cats make bad house pets.
4. In the openng of the 0dyssey the gods
repeatedy state that anyone who voates
someone ese's home must be punshed. Ths
strongy suggests that there s some dvne
mora order n the word of ths book.
5. The economy started to go downh rght after
the NDP government was eected. Ceary, they
don't know how to run a provnca economy.
6. The peope who oppose my reforms a have
vested nterests n keepng thngs the way they
are. As far as I am concerned, ther snouts are so
deepy mmersed n the trough, they are
ncapabe of any ntegent dscusson more than
grunts to each other whe they chow down on
the pubc purse.
7. Ths s a reay good poem because t has a
sonnet structure, wth a basc bank verse
rhythm, and a strong repettve rhyme scheme.
8. Look, ths payer for the entre season ed the
team n scorng, n reboundng, n asssts, and n
bocked shots, and he payed n every game
durng the season. He s ceary a strong
canddate for the most vauabe payer on the
team.
9. Students shoud a have to study frst-year
Engsh at coege because they a need at east
two semesters of Engsh. And my mother s a
n favour of the reguaton, too.
10. Women are obvousy dfferent from men n
some mportant ways, but ther smartes are
much more sgnfcant than ther dfferences.
And thus they must receve equa treatment, f
we beeve n equaty under the aw.
65
11. That fm s pornographc; two or three
scenes feature fu mae and femae nudty.
12. Macbeth gets very keen on becomng kng
after he meets the wtches. Ths proves that they
are the cause of hs ambton.
1('6 Indu)tion in Arguments on 9iterary %opi)s
Many essays on terary topcs are prncpay nductve
arguments. In them the arguer s examnng the text of a
work of terature, ocatng patterns (e.g., patterns of
magery, or behavour, descrpton, and so on), and drawng
concusons on the bass of those patterns.
The most ceary argumentatve essay on a work of terature
s a revew n whch the arguer evauates the text or
somethng n t by focusng on very partcuar features n the
work tsef and expanng how these facts affect the quaty
of the work for better or worse. For exampe, n a fm
revew, the crtc w usuay refer to patterns n the
characterzaton, the camera work, the speca effects, and
the daogue (or n some of these) to argue for a certan
|udgement (two thumbs up or down or one up and one
down).
When you wrte an argumentatve essay on a work of fcton
(poem, pay, fm) or on a pantng or pece of musc, the
quaty of the argument s gong to depend upon the way n
whch you can pont to drect evdence n the work and
persuade the reader of your revew that your assessment of
those detas s persuasve. Uness the argument s very
frmy anchored on the specfc detas of the work (.e., has a
frm nductve bass), t w not be very persuasve.
We w be addressng ths matter agan, but for the moment
t s mportant to remember that any evauatve argument
about a terary work whch does not dea wth the facts of
the text s not gong to be effectve. Thus, you shoud not
turn an evauatve argument about a work nto a dgressve
study of the bography of the author, a summary of her other
works, a psychoogca sef-assessment of your mood at the
tme, or a weghty dscusson of matters outsde the work
you are consderng.
1('7 .edu)tion and Indu)tion in $ombination
Most arguments combne both deducton and nducton.
Deducton suppes the shape of the argument and nducton
estabshes agreement about one or more stages n the
argument. Notce the foowng exampes:
Argument '
66
Genera Prncpe: Many forms of bactera
nfectons can be successfuy treated wth
antbotcs.
Specfc Appcaton: Many cases of ucers are
bactera nfectons.
Concuson: Therefore, many cases of ucers may
be capabe of beng treated successfuy wth
antbotcs.
Argument 2
Genera Prncpe: In a democracy, a canddates
for pubc offce who accept donatons from
foregn governments must be forced to resgn.
Specfc Appcaton: Canddate |ones, who has
|ust been eected n a democratc process, has
accepted cash donatons from the governments
of severa foregn countres.
Concuson: Therefore, Canddate |ones must be
forced to resgn.
In these two arguments, t s easy enough to agree to the
Genera Prncpe. But before acceptng the concuson, we
w need to know f the statement n the Specfc Appcaton
s true. To estabsh the truth of that n each case, the arguer
w have to provde some nductve reasonng (e.g., facts,
expermenta resuts, nvestgatve data, and so on). Here's
another exampe of deducton and nducton used n
combnaton:
Genera Prncpe: A choestero s damagng to
the human crcuatory system.
Specfc Appcaton: Brand X contans a
sgnfcant amount of choestero.
Concuson: Therefore, Brand X s damagng to
the human crcuatory system.
In ths deductve argument, the openng Genera Prncpe s
not somethng we a agree on; most of us probaby don't
know one way or the other. So, before gong any further, the
arguer w have to estabsh the truth or hgh probabty of
that cam. Ths w requre an nductve argument. Once,
the arguer has persuaded the readers that the openng
statement s correct, then the argument can proceed to the
67
next step, whch woud be to estabsh the truth of the
Specfc Appcaton (agan by nducton).
Here's another combnaton argument, one whch begns
wth two Genera Prncpes:
Genera Prncpe 1: A anmas must come from
at east one vng anma parent.
Genera Prncpe 2: Some anmas speces were
on earth before others.
Specfc Appcaton: Invertebrate anmas were
ave on earth ong before vertebrate anmas
appeared.
Concuson: Therefore, vertebrate anmas must
have come orgnay from nvertebrate anmas.
Before acceptng the concuson, we w want to confrm the
vadty of the Genera Prncpe 2 and of the Specfc
Appcaton. Estabshng these w requre nductve
evdence. If these prncpes are correct (and they both have
been estabshed beyond reasonabe doubt for many years),
then the concuson s ratonay compeng. The above
argument s the best snge proof for the truth of evouton.
The pont of these exampes s to show that deducton and
nducton are commony combned, wth deducton provdng
the overa structure and the basc ogc eadng to a
concuson and nducton confrmng the truth of the
statement n the genera prncpe or the specfc appcaton.
The nductve part of the argument w normay take up
most of the space, snce the presentaton and nterpretaton
of evdence s more tme consumng than the deductve
process.
Ths ast pont can be summed up n the famous exampe
from Francs Bacon about the three sorts of scentsts: ants,
spders, and bees. Ants spend a ther tme coectng facts
(they are purey nductve); spders spend a ther tme
spnnng amazng desgns out of ther own abdomens (they
are purey deductve). But bees coect matera from the
natura word and transform t nto compex organzed
structures (.e., they combne nducton and deducton).
Bacon encouraged woud-be scentsts to become ke bees.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion *i@
68
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
3(0 4R>A?IHI?> %HE MAI? 24.D 4+ A?
AR>#ME?% (I)
3(' >enera" Remarks
Once an argument has been defned n the openng
paragraph(s), so that the reader fuy understands what s at
ssue, then the argument can proceed wth what s caed
here the Main 2ody. Ths secton conssts of a seres of
ponts the arguer makes n support of the poston advanced
n the thess. An mportant quaty of ths part of the
argument s that t must be cear. The reader must aways
understand precsey where she s n the context of the tota
argument.
Whe there are a number of ways you can organze the
presentaton of the argument (and we w be revewng
some of these) n order to make t as cear as possbe, here
are a few basc prncpes whch appy to a arguments. We
w start wth some smpe prncpes and, n ater sectons,
move to more sophstcated structures for wrtten
arguments.
1. The Man Body of an argument must proceed
one pont at a tme. The wrter ntroduces the
pont, dscusses t so as to brng out ts
reatonshp to the thess, and then moves onto
the next pont. Normay ths w take at east
one paragraph, sometmes more. The mportant
thngs to remember here are that you shoud
never try to dea wth more than one pont at a
tme and that you shoud say what you have to
say about a snge pont and then move on. Do
not |ump back and forth to and from the same
pont.
2. In most arguments you can never ncude
everythng that you mght want to ncude. You
have to seect the best ponts you can muster n
support of your thess and present those
thoroughy, eavng the others out of the essay.
A few ponts thoroughy dscussed are amost
aways more persuasve than a great many more
69
ponts deat wth casuay (see further detas
beow on ths pont).
3. Once the Man Body of the argument starts,
you shoud not dgress off the ne estabshed n
the thess. Everythng n the argument from ths
pont on must be drecty reevant to what you
have set up as the argument.
We w be ookng at these ponts n more deta beow.
3(2 %!e 9engt! o& t!e Argument: Appro@imate
,aragrap! $ount
The frst step n organzng how you are gong to set out the
Man Body of the argument s to decde how ong the
argument s gong to be. In most coege essays ths ength
w be estabshed by some gudenes wth the assgnment,
normay a recommended number of words or pages.
The most mportant structura feature of a wrtten argument,
however, s not the page or the word, but the paragraph,
whch s the budng bock of the essay (for reasons whch
we w be gong nto ater). And you cannot organze the
essay unt you have sorted out how many of these budng
bocks you have at your dsposa (snce that w determne
|ust how many ponts you can estabsh n the argument).
You shoud never thnk of a wrtten argument prmary as
havng to be a certan number of pages or words. The key
dea s that t has to be wthn a certan number of
paragraphs. A typca short essay, for exampe, cas for an
argument of about 750 to 1000 words; a research paper
tends to be onger, up to 2000 or 3000 words. These fgures
are not very usefu unt you can sort out |ust how many
paragraphs ths amounts to.
How do you do that? We, agan for reasons we w be gong
nto ater, paragraphs shoud be substanta sectons of
prose, n most cases about 200 to 300 words ong. Hence, to
get a rough sense of how many paragraphs the wrtten
argument shoud contan, dvde the recommended word
ength by (at the east) 150 or 200. Thus, a 750-word
assgnment s cang for an argument of about 4 or 5
paragraphs; a 2000 word assgnment s cang for an
argument of about 10 to 12 paragraphs. Obvousy these
fgures are approxmate, but they w provde an nta dea
of how you shoud organze the Man Body of the argument.
Why does ths matter? We, f you foow the prncpe whch
we w be stressng ater that one paragraph can dea wth
ony one man pont n the argument, then a cacuaton of
the approxmate number of paragraphs tes you how many
ponts you w be brngng to bear n support of the thess. In
a short essay, for exampe, where you have, say, fve
paragraphs to dea wth, the frst w present the
70
ntroducton, the ast w offer a concuson; that w eave
three paragraphs for the man body of the argument. In
organzng the paper you can use as a gude the dea that
you have to present three man deas n support of your
thess (you may want to ad|ust ths ater, but as an nta
gudene you need to have ths sense of how the argument
s gong to be structured).
In a onger research paper, where you have, say, ten
paragraphs to organze, you may be usng the openng three
for defnng the argument, the fna two for estabshng
concusons and recommendatons; that eaves you fve
paragraphs to make your case (.e., fve separate ponts).
You cannot proceed to organze the argument wthout
knowng how many paragraphs you have at your dsposa. If
you try smpy to wrte the argument wthout any
organzaton, there s a great danger that you w end up
confusng the reader and probaby yoursef as we.
3(- *e"e)ting t!e %opi)s &or t!e Argument
Once you have estmated how many paragraphs you have at
your dsposa for the man body of the argument, you then
have to seect the ponts you are gong to ncude and
excude. Remember the key pont: you cannot ncude
everythng you mght want or be abe to say on the thess;
you have to reduce the argument to the few best ponts and
argue each of them thoroughy.
Let's take a partcuar exampe. You wsh to wrte a short
revew of a fm (up to 1000 words). Ths means you w be
constructng a fve paragraph essay, wth an ntroducton
(Paragraph 1) and a concuson (Paragraph 5). The man
body of the argument w thus be three paragraphs ong.
You need to seect the three most mportant and persuasve
thngs that shaped your opnon of the fm. Do not be too
quck to determne those three ponts; pause to refect on
what you mght ncude.
The frst stage n the seecton s usuay a branstormng
sesson n whch you |ot down a the thngs you mght say.
Such a st woud cover a wde range of dfferent topcs: the
actng of the prncpa characters, the actng of the
supportng actors, the cnematography, the speca effects,
the musc, the daogue, the story, the drecton, n short, a
the eements of the work whch had an effect on you and
whch are wthn the mts you have set for the essay.
Then, by a process of emnaton, you seect the most
mportant of those eements, the ones whch were, n your
vew, the most mportant n determnng your vew of the
fm. The best way by far to go through ths process s a
dscusson wth other peope who aso saw the fm. They
may not share your vew, but the conversaton w carfy for
you more qucky than anythng ese what you most need to
say n order to support your pont of vew (and the other
71
peope w aso be the source of some nterestng arguments
you mght wsh to ncorporate).
The resut of ths process must be a st of the three tems
whch w form the core of your argument, the key eements
that made you ke or dske or have a mxed vew of the fm
you are revewng. By offerng a detaed dscusson of each
of these n turn, you w be tryng to persuade the reader
that your opnon of ths work s worth attendng to.
The process s the same for a research paper, except that
you have more paragraphs to dea wth. Ths enabes you
not ony to ncude more ponts n the argument but, as we
sha see, to offer a more compex structure to the
argument.
3(/ Ret!inking t!e +o)us and %!esis o& t!e
Argument
Organzng the man body of the argument n ths manner
works ony f you have a very specfc dea of what you are
settng up as the man argument and f that s manageabe
wthn the space avaabe. It s amost mpossbe to deveop
a sense of the structure of the argument f you do not have a
very specfc focus and a cear thess or f these are too
unwedy for the space avaabe.. Thus, f you fnd you
smpy cannot decde what to eave out and that there s |ust
too much you mght say on the topc, then you shoud go
back to the defnton of the argument and restrct the focus
further.
For nstance, suppose you decde you want to wrte an essay
on, say, the mportance of nature n .uc'leberry *inn or the
abuses of the present system of wefare n BC. In the
pannng stages you get hopeessy bogged down because
there seems to be far too much matera for you to cover
and you smpy cannot decde. In such a case, you shoud
rethnk the defnton of the essay. Instead of wrtng
somethng on the mportance of nature n .uc'leberry *inn,
restrct that to an argument about the mportance of the
rver (.e., narrow the meanng of nature); smary, nstead
of wrtng about wefare abuse n genera, restrct the
meanng of that wde topc to somethng much more
specfc: wefare abuse n rents.
Snce students very commony seect sub|ects far arger than
they can possby dea wth adequatey n a short paper, ths
probem s partcuary common. It s perhaps a resut of the
fear many students have that f they restrct the focus too
much they w not have enough to say. But ths s often a
serous mstake whch creates nsoube probems for the
wrter and the reader. As a prevous secton stressed,
organzng the argument s very dffcut and often
mpossbe f you set yoursef a focus that s much too wde
for the space avaabe. I cannot emphasze ths pont
enough.
72
3(1 .eve"oping an 4ut"ine: %opi) *enten)es
Once you have a sense of the three or four man ponts you
woud ke to make (assumng we are st deang wth a
reatvey short argument), you need to frame those ponts n
the form of %opi) *enten)es. A topc sentence, as the
name suggests, announces to the reader a partcuar topc
(or stage) n the argument, a new pont whch you are now
gong to present. As such, they are key sgnas to the reader,
ndcatng the drecton of the argument.
The Topc Sentences you draw up w ntroduce each
paragraph n the man body of the argument. They w
announce to the reader the argumentatve pont you are
now startng to make n support of your thess. The carty of
the argument n the man body of the essay s gong to
depend, more than anythng ese, on the carty and energy
of these topc sentences.
In framng a good topc sentence, you shoud strve to
answer the questons: What exacty am I argung n ths
paragraph? What argumentatve pont do I want the reader
to accept? A sentence n answer to those questons w
usuay provde a hepfu and energetc openng to a new
stage of the argument. Here are some exampes:
E@amp"e A
(In an essay exporng the defcences n the
present system of wefare n BC)
The present system by whch wefare deas wth
renta payments to andords nvtes dshonesty
on the part of the wefare recpent and has
created wdespread abuse of the system. In fact,
the present system encourages such fraud.
E@amp"e 2
(From an essay argung that the ghost n Hamet
s a ma|or cause of what s rotten n the state of
Denmark)
In ths conversaton between Hamet and the
ghost of hs father we get a cear mpresson of
the harsh, egotstca, sexst, and bruta
sensbtes of the od warror kng. He comes
across as a very unpeasant character.
E@amp"e $
(From an essay evauatng a partcuar poem)
The mages n the poem are very unsatsfactory.
They constanty rey on vague, mprecse
anguage appeang to a warm sentmentaty
73
rather than to cear vson, rather ke a
commerca for some product for ntmate
hygene.
E@amp"e .
(From a fm revew)
Another feature of the fm whch contrbutes to
ts quaty s the exceent speca effects. Agan
and agan these provde unexpected exctement
and, at tmes, rea humour to the fm.
E@amp"e E
(From an essay argung that the use of Rtan s
a dangerous trend that shoud be stopped)
The wdespread use of Rtan n the schoos aso
ndcates a massve faure on the part of our
educaton system to dea propery wth the basc
stuaton n the typca cassroom. It ustrates
yet agan the way n whch we woud much
sooner reach for the chemca answer to a
probem, rather than use our ntegence to
reorganze a conventona way of dong busness.
There are some mportant thngs to notce about these topc
sentences, as foows:
1. Frst, and most mportant, they a express
argumentatve opnons. They put on the tabe
some specfc ponts reated to the thess and
thus advance the argumentatve stance of the
essay. They are not statng matters of fact (more
about ths ater). Ths, as we sha see, s cruca.
2. Second, the wrter takes tme to estabsh the
topc frmy, f necessary takng two (or perhaps
three) sentences to get the argumentatve pont
on the tabe.
3. Thrdy, they a announce snge, specfc
ponts. There s no doubt about the one pont
that ths paragraph s now gong to dea wth.
4. Fnay, they are not puttng partcuar
evdence nto the argument (that s about to
come). They are settng up a new pont,
ndcatng to the reader what ths paragraph s
now gong to dea wth.
74
3(3 %!e $ommonest Error in %opi) *enten)es
It s partcuary mportant to notce what the topcs
sentences sted n the prevous secton are not dong: they
are not statng matters of fact. That s, they are not smpy
statng somethng obvous about whch there s no
dsagreement, but they are advancng an argumentatve
case.
Ths s a cruca pont, because the most frequent way n
whch student arguments n essay form weaken themseves
and become confusng occurs when the topc sentence s not
an argumentatve opnon but a statement of the obvous.
Notce the dfference between the above sentences and the
foowng:
(From an essay on the abuses n the wefare
system n BC): Under the present scheme of
wefare, the monthy cheque pays for renta
expenses.
(From an essay argung that ghost of Hamet's
father s a ma|or source of what s rotten n the
state of Denmark): In the next scene of the pay,
Hamet and hs father meet on the battements
of the caste. They have a ong conversaton
about Gertrude and Caudus. And Hamet Senor
reveas some thngs about hs present resdence
n Purgatory.
(From an essay evauatng a partcuar poem):
Ths poem contans a ot of mages. Some of
these are mages of natura scenes, and others
are dream mages.
(From a fm revew): The fm contans many
speca effects. These ncude a tran bowng up,
aens destroyng Maaspna Unversty-Coege
wth a stcky goo, and massve exposons whch
knock the earth off ts axs.
(From an essay argung that the use of Rtan s
a dangerous trend that shoud be stopped):
Rtan s prescrbed by doctors for many young
schoo chdren. The parents agree wth the
prescrpton. Ths has been gong on for many
years.
These sentences do not express argumentatve opnons.
They express facts. There s nothng to argue about here.
Hence, as topc sentences they are nherenty
unsatsfactory, because they do not ndcate to the reader
75
where the argument s gong. And, what s partcuary
mportant, they nvte the wrter to abandon the argument
and to devote the paragraph to a ot of obvous facts,
somethng whch s a ma|or faw n many arguments.
Ths s partcuary the case wth essays on terary sub|ects.
A topc sentence ke the second one above (about .alet)
whch smpy ponts to a partcuar scene and mentons what
goes on there (wthout offerng an argumentatve opnon
about t) w amost certany ead to a paragraph whch
smpy summarzes what goes on n that scene (.e., whch
offers a rehash of the obvous events of that scene). Ths
feature obvousy contrbutes nothng to the argument; t
tes the reader ony what he aready knows f he has read or
seen the pay (the obvous detas of the story). Summarzng
the pot n ths way s one of the commonest mstakes n
essays on terary sub|ects, and t stems from the wrter's
refusa to take an argumentatve stance n the topc
sentence.
At any pont n the man body of an argument, f you fnd
yoursef smpy provdng a cataogue of obvous facts (ke
the detas of the pot n a terary fcton, the events n a
hstorca narratve, or statstca detas of a soca probem),
then you are not advancng the argument. You may be usng
up a ot of words, but you w not be dong what the essay
requres.
3(6 E@er)ise in %opi) *enten)es
In the ght of the remarks gven n Sectons 6.5 and 6.6
above, ndcate whch of the foowng seres of statements
woud make a good topc sentence or sentences and whch
woud not. Remember the key pont: the topc sentence
shoud announce an argumentatve pont and not a
statement of fact about whch there s no dspute.
1. Robert de Nro has appeared n many dfferent
fms. He has been a eadng actor for many
years. He has receved a number of prestgous
awards for actng.
2. Later n the nove Huck meets up wth two
confdence men. Together they pan a number of
trcks on the ctzens of sma towns aong the
rver.
3. Some of the saares pad to average
professona athetes are very hgh. It s not
uncommon to read about a reguar payer
recevng a saary of over a mon doars a year.
4. The descrptve anguage n ths poem s
partcuary effectve at brngng out a feeng of
76
extreme anger tnged wth regret. Agan and
agan, the wrter focuses our attenton on ths
mood wth evocatve anguage.
5. What sort of person s Ophea anyway? She
seems throughout most of the pay to be passve
and confused, as f she s aways havng to guess
what s gong on around her.
6. The potca actons of the Muroney
government durng the Meech Lake debate
created a seres of probems from whch we are
st tryng to recover. The faure of that process
and ts posonous egacy were the drect resuts
of the cynca potca tactcs of the government.
7. Wat Dsney's fm The Lion 2ing was very
popuar a few years ago. Recenty t has been
transformed nto a Broadway show whch has
been nomnated for some ma|or awards.
8. AIDS affects a number of peope n Canada,
and the number s ncreasng. Most of the
vctms frst deveop HIV nfecton. The man
sources of nfecton are drty hypodermc
needes among drug users and unprotected sex.
Make sure you understand ths pont how about topc
sentences must advance an argumentatve opnon reevant
to the thess and not |ust offer a statement of fact. If you
have troube formuatng a proper topc sentence, then try to
set t up by competng the foowng sentence: ,n this
paragraph , %ish to argue in support of y thesis the single
point that. . . If you compete the sentence wth somethng
we can argue about and then get rd of the above
ntroductory cause, you shoud have a workabe openng to
an argumentatve paragraph.
3(7 .ra=ing #p a *imp"e 4ut"ine (&or a *!ort
Essay)
The resut of your premnary organzaton for an
argumentatve essay shoud be a reatvey detaed outne
whch does two thngs: frst, t defnes the argument (wth a
cear focus and thess) and, second, t sets down the seres
of topc sentences whch you ntend to foow n deveopng
the argument. These you may (perhaps) wsh to ad|ust n
the course of wrtng the essay, but you shoud not start on
that pro|ect unt you have an outne n pace, so that you
know where you are gong n the tota argument.
The foowng are two sampe outnes for a short essay
(about 1000 words). At ths pont there s no need to worry
77
about the concuson (we w be deang wth that ater). The
abbrevaton TS ndcates Topc Sentence (the openng of
each paragraph).
Essay ': 4n *a$let
Genera Sub|ect: .alet
Focus 1: Poonus
Focus 2: Poonus's treatment of hs famy
Thess: Poonus s partcuary mportant n the
pay because hs atttude to hs famy reveas to
us very ceary the emotona sterty of the
court n Esnore.
TS 1: Poonus, an mportant court offca, s so
addcted to yng, manpuaton, and routne
decepton, even n hs famy fe, that he has no
understandng of emotona honesty.
TS 2: The reatonshp between Poonus and hs
son, Laertes, provdes an mportant sense of
Poonus's prortes, especay the way n whch
hs vaues are domnated by practca wordy
success rather than by genune feengs of ove.
TS 3: In hs deangs wth Ophea, Poonus s a
crue buy.
Essay 2: 4n ?ar)oti)s
Genera Sub|ect: Iega Narcotcs
Focus 1: Iega Narcotcs and the Law
Focus 2: The need to egaze narcotcs
Thess: The ony approprate souton to our
present drug probem s to decrmnaze a
dervatves of mar|uana, heron, and cocane
mmedatey.
TS 1: The present stuaton, n whch so many
narcotcs are ega, s the ma|or cause for a
much bgger probem than narcotcs, urban
crme.
TS 2: The dea that the poce and the courts,
gven ots of money, can somehow prevent or
even reduce the suppy and the consumpton of
ega narcotcs s totay msguded.
78
TS 3: Snce we have many harmfu narcotcs
egay avaabe throughout the country, makng
ess harmfu substances ega s foosh.
Notce how such an outne provdes a very cear sense of
what the essay s focusng upon, what the thess s, and how
each paragraph of the argument w start. Pay attenton aso
how the key eements here are compete sentences (the
thess and the topc sentences) rather than |ust |otted
ponts. These sentences w appear n your essay n the
approprate paces.
The above outne may ook smpe enough. But t w usuay
take a good dea of thought and dscusson. For some
arguments you may have to do some research n order to
determne |ust what man ponts you wsh to ncude. So
drawng up such an outne may be qute tme consumng.
But you shoud not start the frst draft of the essay unt you
have somethng ke ths n pace. Every fve mnutes you
spend workng on a usefu outne w save you at east an
hour n the wrtng of the paper.
3(8 $!e)king t!e 4ut"ine
Once you have an outne ke one of the above sampes n
pace, revew t carefuy wth the foowng ponts n mnd:
1. Is the thess a ceary assertve argument,
somethng we can dspute? Is t cear n your
mnd precsey what you are argung and what
you are not argung? Can you make t any more
specfc and cear?
2. Is each topc sentence an opnonated
asserton, somethng we can argue about? Are
you certan that the topc sentence s not |ust
makng an obvous statement of fact?
3. Is each topc sentence statng very ceary |ust
one mportant and specfc opnon? Are there
any ambgutes or contradctons n the topc
sentence whch you mght carfy?
4. Are the topc sentences n the most
persuasve order? If parts of your argument are
much stronger than others, then normay, you
shoud put the most persuasve pont ast, the
second best pont frst, and the east persuasve
pont n the mdde.
3('0 *ome *amp"e +ormats &or %opi) *enten)es
Topc sentences form the ma|or peces of the ogca
framework of the argument, and thus you need to pay
79
partcuar attenton to framng them correcty. The foowng
notes offer some advce on how you mght ke to formuate
and vary the topc sentences n the essay.
A( *tandard +ormat: Interpretative Assertion
(4pinion)
A common form of topc sentence s a statement of the
assertve opnon you are now gong to dea wth n the
paragraph. The foowng exampes ustrate the stye:
1. The store tsef obvousy pays an mportant
roe n Sammy's decson to eave, for hs wakng
out s a re|ecton of what t stands for.
2. The cruca factor n the economc crss was
the nabty of the French monarchy to repay ts
debts.
3. Capta punshment does not, as many of ts
supporters cam, deter crmes of voence.
4. Odysseus's most obvous characterstc s an
nsatabe curosty whch overcomes a thoughts
of potenta danger to hmsef or hs men.
2( *tandard +ormat Emp!asised: Interpretative
Assertion (opinion) +o""o=ed by $"ari&i)ation,
E@tension, or Emp!asis(
Here the topc sentence s bascay the same n form as the
frst, except that the wrter expands on the openng
sentence, makng t more emphatc and cear. Ths s a
partcuary usefu and common stye for a topc sentence.
1. The story tsef obvousy pays an mportant
roe n Sammy's decson to eave, for hs wakng
out s a re|ecton of what t stands for. In fact, f
we attend carefuy to Sammy's descrptons of
where he works, we come to understand hs
feengs about the fe he faces f he remans
dong what he s dong.
2. The cruca factor n the economc crss was
the nabty of the French monarchy to repay ts
debts. For years the Kng had nssted on
borrowng money to conduct expensve foregn
wars and gorfy the court; now the money
urgenty needed for soca probems was not
avaabe.
3. Capta punshment does not, as ts supporters
cam, deter crmes of voence. There s, n fact,
repeated evdence that mposng capta
80
sentences for murder has no effect whatsoever
on the frequency of such crmes.
4. Odysseus's most obvous characterstc s an
nsatabe curosty whch overcomes a thoughts
of potenta danger to hmsef or hs men. In
spte of the fact that the word s fu of great
dangers, ke the Kykops or the Srens, Odysseus
must experence frst hand a that there s to
experence.
$( Guestion: *imp"e .ire)t Guestion &or Emp!asis
A good way to add emphass and varety to your stye s to
set up the topc sentence as a queston. The paragraph w
then become an answer to the queston.
1. What exacty s the mportance n the story of
the man settng of the store?
2. Why was the economy n such dffcuty at ths
stage?
3. Does capta punshment effectvey deter
crmes of voence?
4. Why s Odysseus so curous about the word?
.( .oub"e Guestion: %=o Guestions, t!e *e)ond
E@panding on t!e +irst, &or >reater Emp!asis
A reay emphatc way to open a paragraph s to set up a
doube queston, the second emphassng the pont rased n
the frst.
1. What exacty s the mportance n the story of
the man settng, the store? What roe does that
pay n Sammy's decson to eave?
2. Why was the economy s such dffcuty at ths
stage? Why was a country as rch and powerfu
as France unabe to meet the fnanca demands
of the new stuaton?
3. What about the argument that capta
punshment deters crme? Is t not the case that
the threat of a etha punshment makes
potenta crmnas more reuctant to commt
murder?
4. Why s Odysseus so curous about the word?
Why, that s, does he never temper hs thrst for
new experence wth some common-sense
81
prudence whch mght ead hm to avod dangers
rather than embrace the rsk of them?
E( *tatement o& +a)t and Guestion: .ire)ting t!e
Reader to a +a)t in t!e Argument and Raising an
Issue About It
Earer n ths secton, we stressed that a paragraph shoud
never open wth a matter of fact, and that prncpe s st an
mportant one. However, t s permssbe, but ony f you
mmedatey drect the reader's attenton to an
argumentatve pont about that fact.
1. Sammy works n a standard supermarket n a
sma town. What s sgnfcant about ths fact n
the story?
2. By the md-1780's the poverty of the
agrcutura casses and the poorest groups n
the ma|or ctes had reached crtca proportons.
Why had ths come about, especay n a country
apparenty so economcay we off?
3. Supporters of capta punshment often cam
that t s an effectve deterrent for some peope
who mght commt murder. But s ths true?
4. Odysseus has no partcuar reason for vstng
the Kykops. So why then does he ncur the rsk,
especay aganst the wshes and entreates of
hs men?
+( *tatement o& +a)t and a .oub"e Guestion
Agan, one can make the prevous stye of topc sentence
more emphatc:
1. Sammy works n a standard supermarket n a
sma town. What s sgnfcant about ths fact n
the story? What roe, f any, does the store pay
n Sammy decson to eave?
2. By the md-1780's the poverty of the
agrcutura casses and the poorest groups n
the ma|or ctes had reached crtca proportons.
Why had ths come about, especay n a country
apparenty so economcay we off? What was
there about ths partcuar moment that turned a
wdespread soca probem nto the fuse that t a
revouton?
3. Supporters of capta punshment often cam
that t s an effectve deterrent for some peope
82
who mght commt murder. But s ths true? Do
the statstcs of murder rates bear out ths
common contenton?
4. Odysseus has no partcuar reason for vstng
the Kykops. So why then does he ncur the rsk,
especay aganst the wshes and entreates of
hs men? What s there n hs character that
amost requres hm to undertake whatever
adventures ths sand w brng?
3('' %opi) *enten)es to Avoid
The foowng are some common forms of neffectve topc
sentences. They are not mmedatey usefu n an
argumentatve structure because they do not aert the
reader to anythng drecty reevant to a new deveopment n
the argument. You shoud check to make sure that you are
not offerng up as topc sentences statements whch fa nto
one of the foowng categores:
1. Statements of Fact whch stand by themseves
(.e., whch are not mmedatey foowed by
somethng of nterpretatve nterest or a
queston, as n the exampes above).
2. Ma|or generazatons about fe, berty,
moraty, the nature of the word, or anythng not
drecty reated to the detas of the text you are
consderng (e.g., "Peope have aways wanted to
beeve n a God who s mercfu, knd, and
ratona"; "Curosty s a trat we aways admre,
especay n chdren"; "Workng n a sma store
s aways a depressng experence"; and so on).
3. Any topc sentence whch ntroduces a pont
not drecty reevant to the thess you have
estabshed.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion *even
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
83
6(0 4R>A?IHI?> %HE MAI? 24.D 4+ %HE
AR>#ME?% (II)
By now you shoud have a cear dea of how to set up an
outne whch defnes the focus and thess of the essay
ceary and whch offers a seres of topc sentences, each of
whch w ntate a new step n the argument. The man
purpose of such an outne s to provde you wth a cear
sense of where you are gong n the argument, step by step.
It s reay mportant to have ths n pace before you start to
wrte the frst draft.
The purpose of ths secton s to offer some advce on
dfferent structures for the seres of topc sentences, that s,
for the overa ogc of the man body once you have defned
the argument. There are a number of optons here,
especay n a onger research paper where you have more
paragraphs at your dsposa.
6(' *imp"e Additive *tru)ture
Once you have defned the argument n the openng
paragraph, the smpest way to organze the seres of topc
sentences s n what we can a an addtve sequence, that s,
a structure n whch each paragraph ntroduces a new
argumentatve pont n support of the thess. Ths s a very
common structure for short essays on terary sub|ects. Here
s an exampe (of a fctona fm):
Genera Sub|ect: A Fm Revew
Focus 1: A revew of !anana Loaf
Thess: The recent fm !anana Loaf
s an exceent exampe of what s
reay good and reay bad about
modern adventure fms. Whe t has
some obvous merts, there are aso
some sgnfcant probems.
TS 1: The best thng about !anana
Loaf, a quaty whch brngs t
constanty ave, s the superb
cnematography, whch constanty
ntrgues and deghts the vewer.
TS 2: A second feature of the fm
whch enthras the vewer s the
speca effects, whch are
consstenty nventve and absorbng.
84
TS 3: Unfortunatey, the same
quaty s not manfested n the
characterzaton or the actng. These
reay detract from one's
apprecaton for the fm.
Notce that n ths structure each topc sentence s a
separate pont, each deang wth a part of the opnon
estabshed n the thess. In ths case, that man opnon s
mxed (some thngs were good, some thngs were bad). The
wrter has estabshed a near structure n whch each
separate part of the man body adds a pont to the
argument.
Such a structure (whch amounts to a st of separate ponts)
s smpe and effectve. It s addtve n the sense that the
argument proceeds n a drect near way as a seres of
separate ponts. Each paragraph s gong to argue n deta
the pont t announces, and each paragraph n the argument
ntroduces a new pont.
Ths structure s partcuary approprate for a short essay, n
whch you present a frm thess and a seres of reasons why
you thnk that thess s vad. It works we n short essay on
terary sub|ects, for exampe.
6(2 A)kno="edging t!e 4pposition
An mportant aternatve to the addtve structure descrbed
above s a technque for ncorporatng nto your argument a
poston whch does not agree wth the thess you are
presentng. Notce the foowng sampe outne:
Genera Sub|ect: Pouton
Focus 1: Ar Pouton
Focus 2: Acd Ran
Focus 3: Acd ran and fresh water
fsh
Thess: If we do not act mmedatey
to dea effectvey wth acd ran,
soon we w not have fresh water
fshng avaabe to toursts or
commerca fsherman except as a
camp-fre memory.
TS 1: Many peope do not have the
fantest dea |ust how serous the
threat of acd ran reay s.
TS 2: Accordng to many
spokespeope, the cost of dong
anythng effectve about acd ran s
prohbtve; we smpy cannot afford
85
the sorts of measures that w
sgnfcanty affect the probem for
the better.
TS 3: But these vews about the
prohbtve cost totay msrepresent
the probem and the rea costs
nvoved.
TS 4: Besdes, we cannot afford to
qubbe about the prce; what we
stand to ose s prceess.
Notce that n ths essay, whch s argung that we must do
somethng rght away about acd ran, the organzaton
makes room n the second paragraph of the man body (TS
2) for an opposng pont of vew. The argument s here gong
to ca attenton to somethng whch peope who oppose the
thess w brng up (.e., the argument s ac'no%ledging the
opposition).
Notce, too, that n the paragraph mmedatey foowng ths
ntroducton of the opposton's vewpont, the argument
answers that pont; n other words, t counters the
opposton's pont.
Here are some more exampes of ths technque. Notce how
the second outne uses the technque twce n a row.
Essay '
Genera Sub|ect: Crmna |ustce
System
Focus 1: Capta punshment
Thess: There s no acceptabe
reason why any state shoud punsh
a crmna wth death. Capta
punshment shoud be unversay
ega.
TS 1: The frst cogent argument
aganst capta punshment s that t
does not deter future crmes of
voence.
TS 2: Supporters of capta
punshment often pont to the
enormous expense of keepng
murderers ncarcerated for years,
argung that ths s an unnecessary
expense.
86
TS 3: However, ths cost anayss s
serousy mseadng.
TS 4: Moreover, there s aways the
horrbe possbty that an nnocent
party w be convcted of a capta
offence and executed.
Essay 2
Genera Sub|ect: Shakespeare's
.alet
Focus 1: The character of Prnce
Hamet
Focus 2: The character of Prnce
Hamet: Why does he deay carryng
out the revenge?
Thess: Why Prnce Hamet does not
mmedatey k Caudus s
somethng of a puzze. But a carefu
study of the text reveas that ths
deay stems from some fundamenta
nner emotona probem n Hamet,
somethng whch transcends the
mmedate context of the murder
and has somethng to do wth hs
nabty to escape the corruptng
nfuence of hs father.
TS 1: Hamet s ceary sufferng from
some profound emotona
dssatsfacton wth the word. We
earn of ths repeatedy n the pay. It
s the most sgnfcant aspect of the
hero's character.
TS 2: What s the orgn of ths
dssatsfacton? We, the scene wth
the ghost of hs father strongy
suggests that ts roots e n the
overbearng nature of the od warror
kng.
TS 3: Some nterpreters have
suggested, of course, that the deay
has nothng to do wth Hamet's
nner condton, but s smpy a
matter of a ack of opportunty.
TS 4: Ths apparenty pausbe dea,
however, smpy does not match the
87
facts of the pay, whch show that
Hamet has frequent and easy
access to Caudus.
TS 5: Other nterpreters agree that
Hamet's probem s nner, but
suggest that the ssue s a ack of
courage or a chronc nabty to do
anythng decsve.
TS 6: Ths approach, too, s ceary
contradcted by specfc actons n
the pay.
TS 7: Gven, therefore, that some
evdence ponts to the reatonshp
wth hs father as the source of
Hamet's probem, what addtona
parts of the pay can we pont to as
supportng ths cam?
Ths technque of admttng nto the argument opposng or
aternatve vews so that you can counter them s very usefu
n a number of ways. It shows the reader that you are aware
of vews dfferent from your own and are prepared to meet
them head on. It thus brngs nto the argument some
varety, breadth, and sophstcaton.
Acknowedgng the opposton n ths way s not aways
necessary or possbe, but t s amost aways strongy
advsabe when you are deang wth a topc whch s we
known as dsputatous and for whch there are recognzabe
dfferences of opnon (e.g., wefare reform, capta
punshment, aborton, the character of Hamet, and so on) or
aternatve competng optons.
When you are organzng an essay, and especay when you
are deang wth a ong argument n a research paper, ask
yoursef the foowng queston: What s the snge most
mportant pont someone who does not agree wth my thess
s key to brng up aganst my poston? If there s such a
snge, cear opposng argument, you mght thnk about
ncorporatng t n the essay n the above manner.
However, f you are gong to appy ths structura technque
n an argument, make sure you observe the foowng
prncpes. Otherwse you may end up weakenng your
argument.
1. Make sure you represent the opponent's
poston fary and use hs best argument. Do not
create the ogca faacy of a straw-man
argument; that s, do not set up a smpstc,
trva, fctona, or obvousy erroneous pont |ust
88
so that you can knock t down. The opposng
vew has to be serous and substanta, and you
must not dstort t or smpfy t.
2. Do not ntroduce the opposng pont of vew
uness you are prepared to answer t n the
paragraph mmedatey foowng. Obvousy you
cannot end the essay wth a vew opposng your
vew, so you have to make room n the essay for
a proper repy to your opponent. Snce a short
essay has ony a very few argumentatve
paragraphs, the technque s not neary so
common there as n a research paper, where you
have room to use t repeatedy.
3. Do not ntroduce the opposng vewpont
uness you reay can answer t convncngy. If
you end up makng your opponent's case sound
much more ogca and persuasve than your
own, then the purpose of the technque s
defeated.
4. Do not use the technque of acknowedgng
the opposton |ust for the sake of t. It s
approprate when there s a cear and substanta
pont n opposton to your own, a pont whch
someone argung aganst your poston s key
to rase.
If you keep ths technque n mnd when you are conductng
research nto a topc on whch you are gong to be wrtng an
essay, then you shoud be on the ook out for opposng
ponts of vew whch you mght ke to ncorporate. Do not
mmedatey dsmss them because they do not support the
thess you are advancng.
6(- %!e *tru)ture o& a $omparative Argument
Many essay topcs ca for a comparson between two
eements (e.g., two characters n a story, two dfferent
economc theores, two dfferent phosophca theores or
scentfc expanatons, two dfferent hstorca actons or
characters or poces, and so on). Such essays ntroduce
speca factors whch you need to take nto account n
desgnng the structure of the argument.
>enera" 4bservations on $omparative Arguments
The key prncpes to remember n a comparatve essay
featurng two tems are that you must, frst, carfy for the
reader precsey what you are comparng and, second, that
you must keep the comparson ave throughout the essay.
One of the commonest fauts of a poor comparatve essay s
that the comparson becomes unbaanced, that s, the essay
89
turns nto an extensve dscusson of one of the two tems
and gves a dstncty ess mportant pace to the other.
To carfy for the reader the precse nature of the
comparson whch the essay s exporng, you must n the
ntroducton to a comparatve essay specfy exacty a very
partcuar focus, so that the reader understands the mts of
your comparatve treatment of the sub|ects. For exampe,
you cannot n a short essay or even n a onger research
paper compare Marx's vew of human nature wth Freud's.
That comparson s far too arge. You must, therefore, narrow
down the focus of the comparson consderaby to compare
one aspect common to both thnkers (e.g., by comparng
Marx's vew of the orgns of ev wth Freud's vews of the
same sub|ect and by omttng everythng ese). The reader
must understand what you are ookng at and what you are
not ookng at n the comparson.
The thess of a comparatve essay w normay be a
statement of a preference for one of the two thngs beng
compared or an nterpretatve asserton about the
dfferences or smartes between the two. Thus, the
argument w be an attempt to estabsh the vadty of your
nterpretatons of the two tems.
*amp"e 4penings to a $omparative Essay
The foowng ustratons show how one can ntroduce an
argument based upon a comparatve evauaton. Notce that
the ntroducton foows the customary format (sub|ect,
focus, thess).
Essay ': A $omparison o& t!e %!eories o&
0ar" Mar@ and *igmund +reud
Kar Marx and Sgmund Freud are obvousy two
of the most nfuenta thnkers of modern tmes.
Both deveoped enormousy mportant and
comprehensve vews of human nature and
socety, theores whch have exerted a ma|or
and contnung nfuence on the way we thnk
about ourseves and our feow ctzens. Of
partcuar mportance for us are the vews of
these two thnkers about the nature of ev n
socety. For ther theores on the orgn of human
ev have shaped n arge part the way we
understand and therefore the methods we
attempt to dea wth the eterna probems of ev.
And the dfferences between these two men's
deas have created contnung debates about
how we shoud organze ourseves to mtgate
human sufferng. What does seem ncreasngy
cear, however, s that, of the two great thnkers,
Freud deveoped a much more subte and
endurng understandng of the orgn of human
90
ev; Marx's wrtngs on the sub|ect, though
compex and st fascnatng, now appear by
comparson n many respects nadequate.
Essay 2: A $omparison o& %=o 9iterary
$!ara)ters
In many ways Nora n Henrk Ibsen's & 3oll4s
.ouse and Esa n |ohn Stenbeck's short story
"The Chrysanthemums" face smar
crcumstances. Each woman ves wth a
husband who does not understand her
ntegenty, n confned crcumstances wth tte
prospect for sgnfcant change. And n the
course of both stores, each woman comes to
dscover |ust how much she s beng brutazed
by men. However, the two women react very
dfferenty to the crss whch that recognton
brngs: Esa coapses and retreats, and Nora
abandons her famy for a fe on her own. By
examnng the characters of these two women
and ther reactons to the most mportant
emotona crses n ther ves, we can better
understand the very human tensons created by
marred fe and the enormous dffcutes of
fndng a proper response to that stuaton.
Notce how n the frst sampe, the wrter ntroduces the
genera comparson frst (Marx and Freud), pontng out the
bass for the smarty (two great thnkers wth theores of
human nature), then moves onto a very specfc aspect of
that genera sub|ect (the dfferent vews on the orgn of
ev), and fnay estabshes a thess by decarng a
preference.
In the second sampe above, the wrter agan starts wth a
genera pont whch estabshes the smarty between the
two fctona herones. Then the ntroducton moves to the
specfc focus of the essay (ther response to an emotona
crss n ther ves), and then fnay estabshes a thess n
an nterpretatve asserton. Ths s not the statement of a
preference but an argument about the sgnfcance of the
two stores.
%!e *tru)ture o& a $omparative Argument
Once the comparson and the bass of the argument have
been defned, then you need to organze, as before, the
sequence of paragraphs n the man body of the argument.
In settng up the sequence of the paragraphs, you have
some optons, as foows:
1. You can keep the comparson ave n every
paragraph, so that the argument dscusses each
91
haf of the comparson n each paragraph. For
exampe, n comparng Esa and Nora, you coud
begn wth a paragraph comparng ther two
stuatons, foow that wth one comparng how
they each react to the reazaton of how men
have treated them, and fnsh wth a comparson
of how each woman ends up as a resut of the
confct. The advantage of ths structure s that t
keeps the comparson between the two sub|ects
constanty before the reader, and forces you to
pay equa attenton to each sde of the
comparson.
2. A second method for organzng the sequence
of paragraphs n the man body of a comparatve
essay s to aternate between the two sub|ects.
In the frst paragraph of the argument, for
exampe, you can focus on Esa's reatonshp
wth her husband, pontng out how that defnes
certan thngs about her and her fe. Then n the
second paragraph of the man body, you dscuss
Nora's reatonshp wth her husband, pontng
out how that defnes certan thngs about her
and her fe. Then n the thrd and fourth
paragraphs you repeat the process, ookng at
another pont n the comparson. The method
gves you the chance to dscuss each pont n
greater deta, and t aso keeps the comparson
ave for the reader, provded you keep
aternatng and makng sure that you contnue to
dscuss the same aspect of each character's fe.
3. The thrd way of deang wth comparatve
essays s to say n a seres of paragraphs a you
want to argue about one sde of the comparson
and then, when you have sad a you want to
about that sub|ect, swtch to consder the other
sde of the comparson. Thus, the man body of
the essay woud tend to fa nto two parts: n the
frst you consder the frst eement n the
comparson, and n the second haf you consder
the second eement n the comparson. The
danger wth ths method (and t s a consderabe
and common probem) s that the comparson
w become op sded, that s, you w end up
wrtng a great dea more about one of the two
tems than the other. The other rea danger s
that you w dscuss both eements, but swtch
the crtera of the comparson n the second haf,
so that you dscuss dfferent features of the
second tem n the comparson from those you
92
consdered n the frst. If ths happens, then the
comparson w fa apart, because you are not
comparng the same features of the two thngs
(ke comparng, say, the body styng, the fue
economy, and the nteror sze of one car mode
wth the engne capacty, the transmsson, and
the trunk space of another car mode; such a
comparson s dffcut to foow because the
wrter does not compare the two modes under a
common feature).
Generay, n a short essay comparng two tems t s better
to foow the frst or the second structura desgn for the
comparson, rather than the thrd. If you are comparng
three tems, then you need to use the second or thrd
prncpe, snce deang wth three or four separate tems n a
snge paragraph w make that paragraph too buky.
6(/ Additiona" *amp"es o& 4ut"ines &or
$omparative Essays
Here are two more sampes of detaed outnes for essays
whose centra argument nvoves a comparson. Notce the
dfferent structura prncpes n the two: the frst foows the
frst structura prncpe mentoned n Secton 7.3 above; the
second essay foows the second structura prncpe.
$omparative Essay A
Sub|ect: Homer's Poems
Focus 1: Aches and Odysseus from the ,liad
and the 0dyssey
Focus 2: A comparson between the two heroes'
atttudes to war
Thess: Odysseus n the 0dyssey and Aches n
the ,liad are both frequenty tested by hoste
forces and combat. However, they dffer n ther
characterstc range of responses to crtca
stuatons. A study of these two men n ths
regard reveas some reay sgnfcant
dfferences about the vsons of fe n the two
poems.
TS 1: At frst gance, Aches and Odysseus share
many thngs n common. (Paragraph goes on to
dscuss the smartes between the two men)
TS 2: However, they dffer competey n ther
atttude to the war and the warror code.
93
TS 3: From these dfferences n atttude arse the
dfferent ways Odysseus and Aches respond to
physca danger, one of the most remarkabe
dfferences n ths comparson.
TS 4: Gven the above, t s not surprsng that
Aches and Odysseus dffer consderaby n the
way they treat other peope who face dangers
wth them.
$omparative Essay 2
Genera Sub|ect: Confcts over Land Use
Focus 1: Foresters and Ranchers on Crown Land
Focus 2: Foresters and Ranchers on Crown Land
n the BC Interor
Thess: Both foresters and ranchers have
egtmate, though dfferent, demands on crown
and. These we must recognze and accept n
order to devse an equtabe method of sharng a
pubc resource.
TS 1: It s not wdey recognzed |ust how much
ranchers and foresters operate together on
certan pubc ands n the BC Interor.
(Paragraph goes on to descrbe the smartes
between the two thngs beng compared)
TS 2: Foresters cam, wth |ustce, that the
tmber on crown and s economcay essenta
to ther ndustry.
TS 3: However, the ranchers have a persuasve
case that the same and s vta to the we beng
of ther ndustry.
TS 4: The foresters accept the ranchers'
statstcs but argue that grazng catte are
constanty destroyng newy panted seedngs.
TS 5: The ranchers, by contrast, argue that
grazng catte do not damage seedngs and are,
f anythng, benefca to the newy panted
areas.
TS 6: How s one to sort out these competng
cams?
Notce that n both these sampe outnes, the argument
starts by nsstng that the two thngs beng compared are
94
suffcenty smar to bear the comparson. That s often an
mportant pont. You shoud not aunch a comparson wthout
ndcatng why you thnk these two tems beong together n
a comparson. For nstance, f you set up a comparson n
whch you compared, say, roer skates and automobes, the
reader mght genuney wonder about what these thngs
have n common that enabes the comparson between them
to make any argumentatve sense.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;

Essays and Arguments, *e)tion Eig!t
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
7(0 ,ARA>RA,H *%R#$%#RE
Up to ths pont we have been concentratng on the overa
ogc of an argument. The emphass has been on deveopng
a cear ogca framework for the argument, n the form of a
detaed outne, so that you know from the start the centra
cam of the essay and the way n whch each paragraph w
contrbute to that argument.
If you can now formuate a cear focus, thess, and sequence
of topc sentences, then your essay w have a frm ogca
framework. It w be cear what you are tryng to acheve
and how you are proposng to acheve the argumentatve
pont of the essay or speech. No matter what you wrte
further, f you stck to the outne you have proposed and f t
s a good one, the reader w be cear about the purpose and
drecton of the argument. Now, we must turn to the matter
of the specfc detas of the argument whch w turn that
framework and ntenton nto a convncng compete
argument.
The next two sectons focus on the paragraphs whch you
construct on the bass of the topc sentences you have
estabshed for the man body of the argument. That s, they
dscuss varous ways n whch the partcuar detas of the
argument, whch fesh out the outne you have drawn up,
can be constructed.
95
Ths secton deas prmary wth those paragraphs whch w
make up the man body of the argument n a short essay. In
a ater secton we w dscuss further some paragraphs that
you may need to wrte as part of the defnton of the
argument or as ways to suppement the argument n a
onger research paper.
7(' ,aragrap!s in t!e Main 2ody o& t!e
Argument
Once you have defned an argument and setted on an
outne for the man body, you then need to construct the
detas of that argument, paragraph by paragraph. If you
have thought carefuy about the seres of topc sentences
and have wrtten them down n sequence, then you shoud
know how you ntend to proceed. These topc sentences n
the outne w form the openng sentences for each
paragraph of the argument.
The key prncpe to bear n mnd, as you set out on the
argument, s that any snge paragraph can dea wth ony
one tem: the argumentatve pont estabshed n the topc
sentence. Hence, the ma|or purpose of the paragraph s to
provde the argumentatve detas whch w make that topc
sentence persuasve to the reader. That means, n effect,
that each paragraph forms a sub-argument reated to the
man thess; t advances a pont n support of that thess and
argues t.
The argument n the paragraph w be ether a deductve
argument, an nductve argument, or, ess commony, a
combnaton. What that means s that n each paragraph you
w ether estabsh a common and agreed upon genera
prncpe and appy t to a specfc case, to produce a
deductve concuson, or you w provde facts, research
data, quotatons from the text and produce an nductve
concuson.
Here are two exampes of paragraphs taken from the man
body of an argument aganst capta punshment. Each has a
cear topc sentence, and each conducts the reader to a
concuson at the end whch renforces and repeats the topc
sentence. Notce that the frst has a deductve structure (no
coected nformaton s ntroduced; the argument comes
entrey from prncpes), and the second has an nductve
structure (note that the statstcs and the references n the
second are fctona; they are there ony as exampes of the
stye).
*amp"e ,aragrap! A
96
The frst compeng argument aganst capta
punshment s that t s moray ndefensbe. If
we consder the argument from a Chrstan
standpont, we have the prohbton on kng n
the Ten Commandments. In addton, we earn
from the Bbe that vengeance beongs to the
Lord. However we descrbe capta punshment,
t ceary nvoves kng another human beng
and, n many cases, assumng responsbty for
avengng the death of someone ese. From the
pont of vew of secuar human rghts, too, there
are many prncpes n pace whch encourage us
to agree that the deberate takng of a human
fe, especay n crcumstances where the
person ked s defenceess aganst the
nvncbe power of the state and where the
state's acton consttutes crue and unusua
punshment, s moray wrong. It may we be
that our feengs are often outraged at the
partcuar barbarty of the orgna murder, that
the gut of the murderer s beyond doubt, that
he or she shows no sgns of repentance, and that
socety carres a consderabe cost for
ncarceratng a murderer for fe, a that may be
true. None of t, however, removes from us the
awareness that for a group of ratona human
bengs to sancton the state kng of an
ndvdua, especay when there s no
mmedate threat to any other ndvdua or to
the state coectvey, s never moray |ustfabe.
(226 words)
*amp"e ,aragrap! 2
The argument that we need capta punshment
n order to reduce the cost of mantanng the
pena system s qute mspaced. There s no
evdence that executng murderers w save us
money. A number of studes of ths queston
have shown that, on average, t costs about
$50,000 per year to keep a maxmum securty
offender n |a (Schneder, 1990; Ross and
Sncar 1996). A person who serves, say, a 25-
year sentence, therefore, costs the state about
$1,250,000. However, n countres whch show
some concern about the rghts of the accused to
a fu and far process, a system whch has
capta punshment for murder requres far more
eaborate tras and a much engther and more
expensve appea process for capta offences
than for non-capta offences. In addton, the
97
cost of the executon tsef s not nsgnfcant.
Recent studes by Gardner (1998) have shown
that n the Unted States the cost of the varous
|udca processes and of the executon for
convcted murderers s up to 30 percent hgher
than the cost of keepng them n |a for fe.
Other smar studes by McIntyre (1990) and
|ackson (1995) have come to the same
concuson. There s, n other words compeng
reason serousy to queston one of the most
frequent cams made n support of capta
punshment: that t w reduce costs
sgnfcanty. In fact, f savng money s the man
concern n the pena system, we shoud get rd
of capta punshment mmedatey. (244 words)
Both of these paragraphs are opposng capta punshment.
The frst s argung deductvey. It does not appea to facts
but to agreed prncpes whch t appes to the exampe of
capta punshment. The second s argung nductvey. It
presents nformaton, data, statstcs gathered by research.
Notce that each paragraph begns wth a cear topc
sentence whch announces the opnon beng presented n
the paragraph, and each fnshes by brngng the reader
back to that opnon. And each paragraph s substanta,
more than 200 words. It deas wth the pont thoroughy.
7(2 ,aragrap!s Making Indu)tive Argument
Most of the argumentatve paragraphs you wrte w
resembe the second exampe above, that s, they w be
presentng nductve arguments, based upon evdence. As
we have aready dscussed, the strength of ths argument s
gong to depend, n part, upon the nature of the evdence
you present. No nductve argument whch acks reabe
evdence w be persuasve.
*our)es o& Eviden)e
Evdence comes from many paces, dependng upon the
nature of the argument you are makng. Here are some of
the prncpa sources for evdence n nductve arguments:
1. In essays on terature, the evdence comes
amost entrey from the text of the work you are
evauatng, that s, from the words on the page.
Hence, an mportant prncpe n wrtng
convncng arguments about terature s stckng
cosey to the text and anchorng what you have
to argue on specfc detas whch are reay n
the text, ether wth drect references to such
detas or wth quotatons.
98
2. Essays about fms or the fne and performng
arts get ther evdence from what the work tsef
contans. For nstance, a fm or a CD revew
shoud base tsef cosey on what peope
actuay see and hear. A revew of a pantng or
an art exhbton bases tsef what s n the art
works.
3. Evdence can aso come from your own
research, that s, from data you yoursef have
coected as part of fed work (e.g.,
questonnare resuts) or expermenta data you
have coected n the aboratory.
4. Evdence aso comes from secondary sources,
that s, from books, artces, reports about the
sub|ect you are dscussng. Ths s partcuary
the case n soca scence and scence arguments
(ke the second exampe n Secton 8.1 above)
and n research papers generay. In usng such
evdence, as we have mentoned before, t s
mportant that you seect an up-to-date and
reabe source (and one that s recognzed as
reabe).
Evdence does not come from sources whch
cannot be checked (for exampe, magned
detas of a fctona story or unacknowedged
secondary sources or sub|ectve recesses of the
wrter's memores) or vague appeas to
unspecfed authortes or named ceebrtes.
Interpreting Eviden)e
A reay mportant prncpe of nductve arguments s the
foowng: Evdence by tsef s rarey persuasve, uness the
wrter nterprets the sgnfcance of that evdence. In other
words, once you have paced some facts nto the argument,
you must dscuss those facts to show how they estabsh the
pont you are argung n the paragraph.
Ths s a cruca pont, especay n arguments about
terature. It s never enough n a paragraph argung about a
pont n terature smpy to offer a quotaton from the text or
a seres of such quotatons. Whe such evdence s essenta,
t s unpersuasve uness the wrter then nterprets that
evdence, that s, offers a dscusson about what the
quotaton contans whch suggests that the pont of vew
advanced n the paragraph s vad.
The same pont hods for statstca evdence. Smpy
presentng a tabe of data, for exampe, n support of an
argumentatve pont s not very persuasve, uness,
mmedatey after the tabe, the wrter then drects the
99
reader's attenton at those detas n the tabe whch are
reevant and expans how they support the argumentatve
pont whch the paragraph s tryng to make.
Here s an exampe of a paragraph from an essay on .alet
n whch the wrter s presentng an nductve argument,
usng detas from the text to support a cam about the pay.
Notce that the argument does not |ust offer evdence; t
nterprets that evdence to show how t heps to endorse the
cam made n the topc sentence:
Hamet's openng sooquy n 1.2 reveas
mmedatey that he s n a very pecuar
emotona state, n contrast to everyone ese at
court. The prevang sense s ceary that of a
personaty morbdy obsessed wth death and
preoccuped n a most unheathy way wth
femae sexuaty. The emphass on death comes
out ceary n the references to sucde (129-
132). And there runs throughout the speech a
sense of hatred for fertty and sexuaty n the
word. Notce especay the foowng nes:
'Ts an unweeded garden
That grows to seed; thngs rank and
gross n nature
Possess t merey. (135-137)
Here we see what ater emerges as a
characterstc tendency n Hamet to reduce
human experence to the owest, most
unsatsfactory terms. For hm fe s a "garden,"
but he re|ects a the conventonay peasant
(even paradsa) assocatons of that term, by
seeng the pace as "unweeded," a pace where
vgorous and unchecked wd nature has taken
over n a rot of reproductve energy. The
ad|ectves "rank" and "gross" convey a strong
sense of dsgust, wth marked sexua
undertones, and the ast word n the sentence,
"merey," sounds amost ke a sneer. If we
recognze from hs refusa to partcpate n the
acton at the court a sense that he s, rght at the
start of the pay, aenated from the soca fe of
the court, then hs manner of expressng hmsef
to hmsef, that s, of thnkng aoud, creates an
nta feeng of an overreacton arsng from
some desre to see the worst. It s true that
Hamet has |ust ost hs father, and hs mother
has remarred hs unce. But ths does not
appear to upset anyone ese unduy, so the very
strong anguage he uses here to express hs
100
deepest thoughts mmedatey conveys to the
reader the suggeston of an unheathy and
excessvey morbd response to oss. (302 words)
Notce that n the above paragraph the wrter has seected a
few detas from a partcuar part of the text and drawn the
attenton of the reader to them. But she has not smpy eft
the evdence there for the reader to fgure out. She takes
amost a the second haf of the paragraph to comment on
the evdence she has ntroduced, expanng to the reader
how t brngs out the pont whch she has announced as the
topc for the paragraph (.e., nterpretng the evdence).
Make qute sure you understand ths pont. Evdence
requres nterpretaton whch nks the facts to the pont
beng made n the topc sentence of the paragraph. It w
not satsfactory carry the argument uness the wrter makes
ths connecton for the reader. Thus, f your nductve
arguments merey present evdence, wth no nterpretaton,
they w not be very persuasve, no matter how much
evdence you ntroduce, because the reader w fa to
understand the ways n the whch the evdence
substantates the ponts you are tryng to estabsh. Do not
thnk that the quantty of evdence (smotherng the reader
wth quotatons, statstcs, and other data) w carry the
argument wthout your nterpretatve expanatons.
Now, nterpretaton s somethng students tend at frst to
fnd dffcut (hence they tend to suppy far too much
evdence wthout dscusson). Interpretaton requres an
educated response to data (an eye for sgnfcant deta) and
a sutabe vocabuary to express that response. Hence, much
of the work n undergraduate courses nvoves educatng
students n ways of nterpretng the data most reevant to
the fed of study. And f your arguments are gong to be at
a persuasve n the detas you present, you have to earn
how to carry out such nterpretaton.
Once you begn to grasp and to practce ths prncpe of
nterpretng the evdence you ntroduce, you shoud be usng
up most of the paragraph for ths purpose (as n the above
exampe). And your argumentatve stye w begn to
change, so that you ntroduce ess evdence but dscuss n
greater deta the evdence you do ntroduce.
When students compan, as they often do, of not havng
enough to say about a partcuar topc, of havng sad a
they have to say and st havng many hundreds of words to
compete the requrements of the argument, the reason s
aways the same: there s nsuffcent nterpretaton. The
essay may be estabshng good topc sentences and puttng
usefu evdence on the tabe. But a man part of the
argument, the nterpretaton of evdence, s mssng. By
contrast, students who earn to nterpret propery then often
face a probem of not havng enough space, snce thorough
nterpretaton takes up much of the essay.
101
In genera, the best essays tend to be those wth a reatvey
narrow focus, n whch the evdence presented s good
evdence but not overwhemng n voume, and n whch the
nterpretaton of the evdence presented s frst-rate and
thorough. The quaty of the nterpretaton, n fact, s one of
the key features characterzng an A essay.
7(- *ome Important *ymptoms o& ,oor
Argumentative ,aragrap!s
Gven the ponts mentoned above, you can often recognze
qute easy by some characterstc symptoms whether your
essay s fufng the requrements of a good nductve
argument.
1. If your paragraphs are qute short (.e., ess
than, say, 150 words), then they are amost
certany not carryng out a thorough argument.
As shoud be cear from the varous exampes
gven above, ntroducng the topc sentence,
presentng evdence, and nterpretng the
evdence n deta shoud take up a substanta
amount of space. So f, when you ook at the
vsua appearance of your essay, you notce that
the paragraphs are changng very fve or sx
nes, then somethng s wrong. It most cases,
the probem w be that you are not dong
enough nterpretaton.
2. As you revew your essay, ook carefuy at
those paces where you have quoted some
matera, ether from the text whch s the
sub|ect of the argument or from a secondary
source. Ask yoursef ths queston: What s gong
on n the essay mmedatey after the quotaton?
If you are not at that pont dscussng the
sgnfcance of the quotaton for the argument
the paragraph s makng (.e., nterpretng the
quotaton), then you are probaby negectng an
essenta part of the argument.
3. Fnay, how much of each paragraph s taken
up wth quotatons from the text or from
secondary sources? If these make up the ma|or
part of the paragraph, then you are probaby
overoadng the argument wth evdence and not
provdng suffcent nterpretaton of the
evdence. As a genera rue, seect the best
evdence avaabe, and nterpret t thoroughy,
rather than tryng to stuff the essay wth
quotatons.
102
7(/ ,aragrap! #nity
A key characterstc of good paragraphs s that they exhbt
unty, that s, everythng n the paragraph s nked drecty
to the man pont announced n the topc sentence. There
are no dgressons nto other sub|ects or addtona ponts
brought nto the mdde of the paragraph. Everythng s
reevant to the snge argumentatve pont of that paragraph.
Notce n the foowng paragraph how the ogc of the
argument announced n the topc sentence begns to go
astray as soon as the wrter ntroduces another pont, not
drecty nked to the topc:
Esa's man probem n ths story s that she s
uncertan about her femnnty. We sense ths
probem n the way she dresses, somethng
emphassed n the openng descrpton of her.
Her fgure ooks "bocked and heavy." She wears
a man's hat pued ow over her face. She does
wear a dress, but that s amost totay conceaed
under a heavy apron, so that we get the
mpresson of a woman who s hdng somethng,
a sense that s strongy renforced by the
narrator's descrpton of her cothes as a
"costume," somethng worn by actors
mpersonatng someone ese. The settng aso
sound qute soated and oney, as f there s no
day human contact wth a communty of
frends. And the fact that the story s set at a
tme when the feds are "brown" and wthout a
crop evdenty comng to fruton, a tme of
"watng," creates a sense that Esa has no
mmedate fufment n her day fe. Esa's
conduct when the stranger arrves s thus qute
understandabe; she s uncertan about how to
dea wth a sudden ntruson, especay a
strange man. A these detas revea ceary that
Esa has some sgnfcant emotona nsecurtes.
Ths paragraph begns by announcng a very specfc topc,
the reatonshp between the descrpton of Esa's cothng
and our sense of her uncertanty about her femnnty. And
the frst few detas focus on that we, wth evdence and
usefu nterpretaton. But then the wrter swtches to
somethng ese (the settng) and then, a bt ater, to
somethng ese (the arrva of the stranger). Hence, by the
end the reader has ost contact wth the specfc pont
announced at the start. Thus, the unty of ths paragraph has
dsappeared.
It s mportant to concentrate on paragraph unty and to
keep out of a paragraph thngs not mmedatey reevant to
103
what the topc sentence announces. If you suddeny decde
that there s an mportant pont you must ncude n the
argument, make t n a separate paragraph.
One way n whch nexperenced wrters commony nterrupt
the unty of the paragraph (and the argument) s suddeny to
stray nto arge questons far outsde the scope of the focus
you have defned. Once you start the argument, you shoud
stay specfcay on that, wthout nvokng huge
generazatons whch e outsde the specfc area you have
defned. If you want to nk the argument to bgger
questons, then do that n the concuson.
For exampe, f you are wrtng an argumentatve essay
about the sgnfcance of Hamet's abusve treatment of
women n .alet, then stay on that partcuar sub|ect. Do
not stray nto generazatons about men and women or
about the hstory of Denmark or gender-based voence or
the treatment of the same theme n other pays. If you fnd
yoursef wrtng about somethng n genera, somethng not
drecty pertnent to the specfc detas of the argument as
you have defned t, then you are amost certany
weakenng the unty of the argument.
7(1 ,aragrap! $o!eren)e
A second mportant characterstc of argumentatve
paragraphs s that they must be coherent, that s, the
argument gong on n them must fow ogcay from
sentence to sentence, so that the reader moves from the
openng decaraton of the topc (n the topc sentence),
through the evdence and nterpretaton, to the concuson of
the paragraph n a cear near fashon, wth no erratc |umps
or confusng nterruptons.
A #se&u" 2"ueprint &or A)!ieving ,aragrap! $o!eren)e
The most ogcay coherent form for a paragraph presentng
an nductve argument s as foows:
1. Topc sentence, an argumentatve asserton
announcng the man pont the paragraph s
seekng to make, perhaps foowed by one or two
sentences renforcng and carfyng the
argumentatve stance n ths paragraph;
2. Evdence n the form of drect references to
the text, quotatons, statstcs, summares of
reevant research data, and so on.
3. Interpretaton of the evdence, a secton whch
dscusses n deta how the partcuar evdence
you have ntroduced heps to back up the
argumentatve pont announced n the topc
sentence;
104
4. (Optona) Any quafcatons you want to
ntroduce to mt the argument, and especay
to carfy the reabty of the evdence and thus
the nterpretatons you have made of t (for
exampes, see beow);
5. Fna summary pont brngng the reader back
to the pont stressed n the topc sentence.
Ths s by no means the ony possbe coherent structure for
an argumentatve paragraph, but, f you foow t cosey, the
resutng argument w be coherent, snce ths foows the
standard ogc of an nductve argument: Ths s what I am
camng; here s my evdence; ths s what the evdence
ndcates; here are any reservatons I have about the
evdence; and thus I have estabshed the cam I began
wth.
Notce how ths format works n the foowng paragraph,
movng from topc sentence(s) to evdence, to nterpretaton,
to quafcaton, and fnay to a restatement of the orgna
pont. Here agan, the references are magnary, ncuded
smpy to show an exampe of the stye.
It s cear that our attempts to contro the spread
of ega narcotcs are not producng the resuts
we had hoped for, and t s thus hgh tme we
assessed the vaue of our ant-drug measures.
As we redoube our efforts and gve the poce
addtona powers, the street prce of ega
narcotcs contnues to decne, a sure sgn that
the suppy s becomng more pentfu (|ackson,
1997). A recent study of the street trade n
Vancouver confrms our worst fears: addcton s
ncreasng n the cty, street prces are fang,
and the ega nfrastructure s growng n power
(Caows, 1998). Other studes of the same cty
have shown that there s an ncreasng suppy
reachng schoo chdren (Smart, 1995; Stuart,
1997). Ths ncrease s naturay producng more
young addcts (Thomas, 1997). What do these
resuts ndcate? It doesn't take much bran
power to fgure out that the war on drugs, for
whch we are payng so much money, s not
havng much success, f reducng or emnatng
the suppy s st a ma|or goa. It's true that we
have to be carefu wth the resuts of some of
these studes, for ther methods are not aways
as reabe as they mght be, and there are often
potca agendas at work n the studes of our
narcotcs probem. Nevertheess, the recent
terature, none of whch offers any frm
105
evdence that our combat aganst narcotcs s
achevng anythng postve (other than enrchng
crmnas and empowerng poce forces) must
surey gve us reason to pause before we hur
mons more doars nto programmes whch are
not workng. For there s no evdence at a that
such an expendture w acheve anythng
socay hepfu. The money w, we can be
certan, argey go to waste. (292 words)
%ransition Words as 9ogi)a" Indi)ators
The key to sustanng the coherence of a paragraph s often
the approprate use of transton words. These are words or
phrases, usuay rght at the start of a sentence, whch
ndcate the ogca drecton of the new sentence n reaton
to what has |ust been sad. They nk what has |ust been
wrtten to what s now beng offered.
Here are a few exampes (the transton eements are n
bod).
In addition to t!is point, there are many
studes whch estabsh a reatonshp between
the ncome of one's parents and success n
schoo.
2y )ontrast, other passages of the poem
suggest a totay dfferent mood.
%!is emphass on pharmaceutca nterventon,
!o=ever, brngs wth t rea dangers. +or
e@amp"e, the medcaton often brngs
mmedatey harmfu sde effects. Moreover, t
can a"so create ong-term addcton. 2eyond
t!at, there s the queston of the expense. %!is
being t!e )ase, one wonders why we are so
keen to contnue wth ths medcaton.
Moreover, rock 'n' ro musc has exercsed an
mportant nfuence on cv rghts n North
Amerca. In &a)t, n popuar musc snce the
1950's, more than n any other actvty (wth the
possbe excepton of professona sports), back
peope have won fame, fortune, and astng
status among the whte mdde-cass. +or
e@amp"e, thousands of eager whte peope a
over North Amerca have ned up to attend
concerts by Prnce, Mchae |ackson, Chubby
Checker, Tna Turner, the Supremes, Chuck
Berry, Ltte Rchard, and many, many other
back performers. In addition, back sngng
stars have ever snce the ate 1950's been n
106
demand wth companes seekng hgh-profe
fgures to endorse products amed at the whte
mdde casses. Indeed, t s now a common
sght to see whte and back performers workng
together on prme-tme teevson, wthout
regard to the coour of ther skns. %!is
phenomenon, we sometmes forget, s very
dfferent from the stuaton before the 1950's.
%!en, n some paces no whte group coud
appear on stage wth a drummer (whte or
back), because the drum was consdered a
back nstrument. Moreover, there was a rgdy
enforced dstncton between back musc and
whte musc. Rado statons, &or instan)e,
payed one type of musc or the other, not both.
Ho=ever, snce the advent of rock 'n' ro a
that has atered. %o be sure, many other factors
were nvoved n ths mportant and compex
soca change. %!at cannot be dened. *ti"", we
shoud not deny our popuar muscans the credt
whch s ther due. +or wthout ther pervasve
nfuence and taent, often n dffcut condtons,
t!is mprovement n race reatons woud have
come about much more sowy than t dd.
Look carefuy at these words n bod. Most of them coud be
removed from the sentences, wthout damage to the sense.
What woud be ost, however, s the constant presence of
words and phrases nkng eements n the argument and
provdng the reader a sense of the ogca reatonshp of the
eement comng up to what has gone before.
An ntegent use of transton words reay heps to create
and sustan the coherence of a paragraph, enabng the
reader easy to foow the ogca connectons from one
sentence to the next.
A $ata"ogue o& %ransition Words
The st beow ndcates some of the common transton
words ndcatng ogca connectons between sentences and
paragraphs. The words are grouped accordng to the ogca
functon they carry out (ths st s not meant to be
comprehensve).
1. Words ndcatng a contnuty wth what has
gone before: and, in addition, oreover,
furtherore, also, indeed, besides, secondly,
next, siilarly, again, e+ually iportant, beyond
that.
2. Words ndcatng an exampe or ustraton of
a pont ntroducng evdence: for exaple, for
instance, as an illustration.
107
3. Words addng emphass to a pont whch s
renforcng a prevous pont: in fact, in other
%ords, that is, indeed, as a atter of fact.
4. Words ndcatng a concuson from or a resut
of what you have |ust been dscussng: thus,
hence, therefore, conse+uently, as a result.
5. Words ndcatng a contrast wth what has |ust
been sad: but, ho%ever, nevertheless, by
contrast, on the other hand, conversely.
6. Words ndcatng a quafcaton, doubt, or
reservaton about what you have |ust been
dscussng: no doubt, of course, to be sure.
7. Words ndcatng a summary statement s
comng up: in short, all in all, in brief, in
conclusion, to conclude, given all this.
8. Pronoun and ad|ectva nks to somethng
whch has gone before: this, that, the above(
entioned, such.
9. Words estabshng tme reatonshps
(mportant n narratve paragraphs): after,
after%ards, then, later, before, %hile, at the
sae tie, iediately, thereupon, next,
ean%hile, subse+uently, previously,
siultaneously.
10. Words ndcatng spata reatonshps
(mportant n physca descrptons): above,
beside, next to, on the other side, facing,
parallel, across fro, ad1acent.
An E@er)ise in %ransition Words
In the spaces provded n the foowng paragraph, provde
from the st above (or from other smar phrases) transton
words or phrases whch w hep the ogca coherence of the
foowng paragraph. Read the paragraph once or twce
before startng to f n the bank spaces. Then, when you
have fnshed, read the passage over agan, makng sure the
words are hepng to carfy the ogc of the sequence of
sentences.
The cam s often made that conductng
conventona research and
pubshng the resuts n academc |ournas s
essenta to mantan a
108
hgh quaty of nstructon of undergraduates.
_____________ ths
cam s so common, that t s part of the offca
pocy of the
Canadan Assocaton of Unversty Teachers.
_____________ t s
not uncommon for evauatons of the quaty of
teachng at a
post-secondary nsttuton to factor n the
research output of the
facuty. ____________ s ths cam true? __________
s t the case
that coege teachers cannot do a good |ob
uness they mantan a
research output? We, a number of studes
suggest that there s no
bass for ths beef. _________________ a study by
|ohnston (1991)
whch expored the varous studes of ths
queston concuded that
resuts consstenty show no reatonshp
between the quaty of
undergraduate nstructon and research output.
______________
there s a great dea of anecdota evdence whch
cams the same
thng. _______________ there s no reabe
evdence that there s a
sgnfcant connecton between the two
actvtes, somethng whch
woud support the common cam. _____________
the frequent
emphass on the mportance of research to
mantan an acceptabe
109
eve of undergraduate teachng woud appear to
be unproven, a
cutura myth perhaps desgned to perpetuate
what facuty want to do
rather than what the most urgent prortes of
the nsttuton reay are.
___________ ths s a dffcut queston, because
teachng quaty s
notorousy dffcut to assess. ___________, gven
the amount of
money spent to reduce the number of casses
taught n order to
promote research actvty, one woud thnk that
some evdence woud
be requred to |ustfy the practce. ___________
ths does not seem to
bother most nsttutons. __________ they
cheerfuy contnue to
spend nstructona money to support research.
_________ the facuty
keep demandng more tme away from cass n
order to be better
teachers.
7(3 $on)"uding ,aragrap!s
An argumentatve essay shoud normay fnsh wth a
concuson and sometmes, dependng on the sub|ect, wth
concusons and recommendatons. The concusons and
recommendatons (f there are any) shoud be paced n the
ast paragraph(s).
Good concusons are often dffcut to wrte. It s best to
eave them unt you have fnshed the frst draft of the
paper, so that you have a compete sense of the argument
as you have presented t. Now you are ready to eave the
reader wth some fna concudng thoughts.
In thnkng about how to wrte a concuson, you mght
beneft from onsderng the foowng deas:
110
1. The concuson shoud not contnue the
argument by ntroducng new matera. It s a
pace to sum up the argument whch has come
to an end n the fna paragraph of the man
body of the argument. Hence, you shoud never
ntroduce new ponts n the concuson.
2. The man purpose of the concuson s to sum
up the argument, to re-emphasze the thess,
and to eave the reader thnkng about the
mportance of the argument, perhaps n a wder
context. In a sense, ts purpose s the reverse of
the ntroducton: the concuson moves the
reader from the partcuar emphass of the
argument and takes t out nto a wder context (f
ths seems confusng, check some of the
exampes beow).
3. There are a number of thngs a wrter shoud
be carefu not to do n the concudng paragraph.
You shoud not, as mentoned, suddeny
ntroduce a new pont, nor shoud you dsquafy
the argument you have |ust presented wth a
comment ke "But a ths s |ust my opnon," or
"But I reay don't know that much about the
sub|ect." Make sure the concuson s a confdent
reasserton of the man pont of the argument.
4. Here are some thngs you mght do n a
concuson: you can sum up the argument you
have conducted and re-emphasze the thess you
set down at the begnnng, you can move back
from the specfc focus and pace the argument
n a arger context (see exampe beow), you can
eave the reader wth some specfc
recommendatons or questons to thnk about, or
you can pont to the future and nvte the reader
to consder what you have sad n that context.
Here are some sampe concusons. Notce how the wrter
does not contnue the argument (whch s over) but tends to
draw back to pace the ssue n a wder perspectve and, at
the same tme, to renforce for the reader the centra
argument whch the essay has been presentng.
$on)"usion A (from an essay argung that
Hamet's character s not that of the dea prnce
but s bady fawed)
A of the above ponts ndcate qute ceary that,
whatever the orgn of the ev n Esnore, the
111
prnce hmsef s one source of the sckness n
the court. As we have seen, agan and agan n
the pay Shakespeare brngs out Hamet's
essenta mmaturty, morbdty, aggressve
hostty to women, and characterstc dupcty.
Of course, there s more to the man than |ust
these eements and more to the pay than |ust
the character of the prnce. Moreover, Hamet's
character, ke the pay, s very compcated and
ambguous. It w aways have eusve eements.
However, as ths essay has argued, the
emphass on the unheathy aspects of Hamet's
personaty s so strong and frequent n the pay
that, however we fnay assess the hero, we
must take nto account hs own obvous
nadequaces, a too ceary a source, f not the
ony source, for the "somethng . . . rotten n the
state of Denmark."
$on)"usion 2 (from an essay argung that the
faure of the Meech Lake Accord was a drect
resut of the nepttude of the federa
government)
We, we no onger have a Meech Lake debate.
And the federa government's next ntatve on
the troubesome queston of the Canadan
consttuton and the status of Ouebec s
anybody's guess. Gven the feengs generated
by the amost ntermnabe Muroney-sponsored
debate over the accord and the many
mscacuatons of the natona mood, factors
whch scutted government strategy, t seems
unkey that the federa Conservatves w be
eager to resurrect a natona sou-searchng on
consttutona questons. Besdes, t appears as f
Ouebec and the natve peope w be settng the
agenda n the months ahead. But when the tme
comes for another natona effort on the
consttuton, we can ony hope that the federa
government w be consderaby more astute
than the Muroney Tores, who turned a potenta
agreement nto a naton-wde desre to separate.
$on)"usion $ (from an essay argung that the
ony ratona souton to our narcotcs probem s
to egaze a drugs)
Surey t's tme we recognzed the facts of fe:
that our efforts to stamp out ega narcotcs are
ony succeedng n enrchng organzed crme,
112
provdng the poce wth dangerous new powers,
fng our prsons wth young peope, and
encouragng many others to break the aw. And,
as I have mentoned, we need to remember that
the narcotcs we are tryng to stamp out are ess
dangerous than many ega substances n
wdespread use. So nstead of devsng new
utopan and ncreasngy expensve and fute
schemes to emnate drugs, we shoud move at
once to change the aw and to make cocane,
heron, mar|uana, and ther dervatves as ega
as tobacco, acoho, Vaum, and Rtan.
Notce carefuy what each wrter does n the above sampes.
Concuson A (about Hamet) opens by summarzng the
man thrust of the argument throughout the paper,
remndng the reader one more tme of what each paragraph
has been presentng. Then the wrter moves back to
consder the topc n the context of the entre pay, addng a
quafcaton to ndcate that she reazes there s more to the
topc than one short essay can dea wth. Fnay, the
concudng sentences answer the quafcaton by stressng
the man pont: the unheathy aspects of Hamet's character
are a sgnfcant part of the pay. Ths strategy of usng the
concuson to pace the specfc ssue of the essay n the
wder context of the entre work s often usefu n
concusons to essays on terary sub|ects.
Concuson B (about Meech Lake), now that the argument s
over, specuates about the future. What s gong to happen
next? In offerng a coupe of genera answers to that
queston, the wrter cas attenton to the man ponts n the
essay, the ncompetent handng of the ssue by the federa
government. There s no ca here for future acton, because
the wrter s not recommendng anythng. He s makng a
tentatve predcton (or mentonng a future hope). Ths
enabes hm to renforce the man pont of the essay. Such a
concuson s often hepfu n an essay dscussng a modern
potca or hstorca ssue.
Concuson C (about narcotcs) opens wth a quck but very
specfc summary (amost n the form of a st) of the man
ponts of the essay (each of whch has been dscussed n
deta durng the man argument), and fnshes wth a
specfc recommendaton for future acton. Such a structure
s qute common n the concudng paragraph of an essay
exporng a modern soca ssue and demandng acton.
7(6 Re)ommendations
Sometmes the argument you are conductng w requre
recommendatons, n fact, your thess may we be n the
form of one or more recommendatons. Such a requrement
113
s qute common n arguments whch are urgng the need for
partcuar soca or potca responses to probems.
The frst thng to note s that a recommendaton s not the
same thng as a concuson. A concuson arses, as we have
seen, out of a deductve or nductve argument. It s the
ogca resut of a process of reasonng, and t ndcates the
competon of a thought process. A recommendaton s, as
the name suggests, a statement urgng acton. Aternatvey
put, a concuson says, n effect, "Ths s the case" or "Ths s
very probaby the case"; a recommendaton says "Ths s
what we must (or shoud) do about the case."
Logcay speakng, recommendatons shoud normay foow
concusons. That s, the thought process and argument
whch resut n our understandng a probem better shoud
come before the proposas for how we shoud address the
probem. Ths, I take t, s generay obvous enough. We
cannot revew optons and recommend a course of acton,
unt we have drawn concusons about what the probem s.
None of ths s somethng you need worry about, uness the
argument s eadng up to a seres of recommendatons,
uness, that s, the ma|or purpose of the argument s to urge
the readers to thnk about a seres of practca measures
whch shoud be mpemented. Such a requrement s not
uncommon n papers exporng soca probems or pocy
anayss, but t s rare n arguments about terature or
phosophy. If you are eadng up to a seres of
recommendatons as a ma|or purpose of the argument, then
separate the concusons from the recommendatons,
present the concusons frst, and then n a separate
paragraph present the recommendatons, usuay n the form
of a numbered st.
Notce the foowng exampe of the end of an argument n
whch the concusons precede the recommendatons and
the atter are presented n the form of a st:
*amp"e $on)"usion and Re)ommendation Ending to a
,aper
As ths argument has ponted out repeatedy,
there s no reabe evdence that the quaty of
teachng n unverstes and coeges s nked at
a wth quantty or quaty of conventona
research and pubshng actvtes. Smpy put,
the frequent cam that conventona research s
essenta to good teachng has no bass n fact. It
may be true, of course, but there s as yet no
evdence to support the cam. Indeed the
consstent resut of studes nto ths queston, as
we have shown, confrm the ack of a
reatonshp. Gven ths we known pont, t s
ndeed curous that unversty and coege
facuty, whose ma|or task s educatng
114
undergraduates n correct reasonng, shoud
contnue to nsst upon such an unsubstantated
asserton n such an ogca fashon, to the pont
where t has become an artce of fath n facuty
cuture, a myth. It s beyond the scope of ths
paper to expore why that mght be the case;
suffce t to say that we shoud keep ths
concuson n mnd when we evauate how to
spend the money we aocate for undergraduate
nstructon.
On the bass of ths we estabshed concuson,
however, we shoud nsst upon some mportant
reforms n undergraduate educaton, especay
n the unversty-coeges, whch, unke most
arge unverstes, have no mandate to conduct
research:
1. The nstructona budget shoud
provde no reease tme for
nstructors to conduct research (.e.,
we shoud not cut casses and
courses to fund ndependent facuty
research), uness there s some
exceptona need for a partcuar
pro|ect to dea wth a probem of
mmedate mportance to the
nsttuton.
2. Instructors shoud, under no
crcumstances, be ranked or
evauated accordng to ther
research output.
3. The processes of hrng new
facuty shoud cease to consder
research quafcatons and
performance and concentrate
excusvey upon the teachng
experence and quafcatons of the
canddates as the ma|or crtera.
4. The currcuum shoud be much
more cosey desgned to meet the
earnng needs of the students rather
than the research nterests of the
facuty.
5. If prevang facuty cuture nssts
that research tme s essenta to
mantan the quaty of nstructon,
115
then we shoud nform them frmy
and repeatedy that, n the nterests
of reason, we w sten to any
arguments they wsh to present,
provded ony there s some reabe
evdence to support ther cam. Unt
such tme, however, we are gong to
proceed wth the reforms sted
above.
Notce how n ths exampe, the concusons come frst. They
sum up the argument whch has aready concuded. The fna
paragraph sts some specfc recommendatons and fnshes
by urgng that we mpement these.
Such a structure s, as mentoned, of partcuar mportance
ony n those arguments whose man purpose s to anayze a
probem, reach some concusons about the source of the
probem, and make recommendatons about how we mght
dea wth t.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;


Essays and Arguments, *e)tion ?ine
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
8(0 ,ARA>RA,H +#?$%I4?*
In the prevous sectons we consdered some basc
propertes of paragraphs, partcuary the ntroductory
paragraph(s), the concudng paragraphs, and the structure
of paragraphs n the mdde of an argument. In ths secton,
we contnue to ook at paragraphs, but n a more compex
way. The matera here w be partcuary reevant to
organzng and wrtng a onger research paper.
8(' %!e 2asi) +un)tions o& ,aragrap!s
In the prevous secton, we stressed that any one paragraph
can make ony a snge pont, f we wsh to mantan the
unty and coherence of that paragraph. Another way of
sayng the same thng s to state that any one paragraph can
carry out ony a snge functon. Once you have decded on
116
what you want that paragraph to do, then t becomes easer
to ft t nto the deveopng ogc of the entre argument.
To deveop a fuer understandng of paragraphs as havng
partcuar functons, here s a st of a the thngs whch
paragraphs n an argument can do.
'( Introdu)tion to an Argument: We have
aready dscussed ths n some deta earer n
ths handbook (the sub|ect-focus-thess
paragraph at the start). You shoud be very cear
about the key functon ths sort of a paragraph
carres out.
2( .e&inition: The paragraph can offer an
extended defnton of a key term or seres of
terms, of the sort we have consdered earer n
ths handbook.
-( ?arration: A paragraph can serve the
functon of teng a story, a chronoogca seres
of detas whch w carfy for the reader facts
mportant for the argument.
/( ,!ysi)a" .es)ription: A paragraph can
descrbe at ength a partcuar scene or ob|ect, n
order to carfy mportant detas for the reader.
1( I""ustration: A paragraph can provde a
snge detaed exampe at some ength (of a
person, a sampe of a text, and so on).
3( Ana"ysis: A paragraph can serve the functon
of breakng a compex topc up nto ts
component parts so that the reader understands
|ust what s nvoved n the arger term (e.g., the
paragraph mght anayze the varous parts of a
nucear reactor or, to take somethng more
bewderng, the admnstratve structure of a
coege).
6( $omparison: A paragraph can compare two
dfferent ob|ects or characters or styes under a
common headng.
7( Argument &rom $auses to E&&e)ts: A
paragraph can make the argument that certan
factors w ead to certan resuts (e.g., how the
present aborton aw affects the ves of
pregnant women for the worse).
117
8( Argument &rom E&&e)ts to $auses: A
paragraph can make the argument that certan
effects have partcuar causes (e.g., Hamet
behaves the way he does because he s terrfed
of hs father).
'0( Argumentative Assertion: A paragraph
can present a case for an argumentatve
asserton that does not ft one of the above
categores (as we outned n the prevous
secton).
''( $on)"usion to an Argument: A paragraph
can serve to concude an argument (wth or
wthout recommendatons ncuded), as we
consdered at the end of Secton 8.
It's mportant you revew ths st carefuy. It tes you the
varous toos you have for structurng your argument. Notce
that some of these paragraphs (especay the frst sx and
the ast) do not usuay have an argumentatve functon;
nstead they defne, carfy, ustrate, or n other ways
suppement the argument (.e., present nformaton
necessary to foow the argument).
Some of these toos have desgnated paces and very
specfc functons (e.g., the Introducton and the Concuson).
Others you mght want to use n dfferent paces, or you
mght not want to use them at a.
8(2 E@er)ise in %opi) *enten)es Announ)ing t!e
+un)tion o& a ,aragrap!
Beow s a st of topc sentences. Indcate what functon you,
as a reader, are expectng the rest of the paragraph to
serve. You can refer to the numbered st above.
1. Frst, t s mportant we a understand exacty
what acd ran s.
2. The Mnstry of Forests s a compex
bureaucracy made up of a arge number of
dfferent dvsons.
3. The present mnstry reguatons create some
severe probems for the sports fsherman n BC.
4. Of a the coasta natve peope, the Hada
have the proudest hstory.
5. There are a number of features of the stye of
ths poem whch contrbute to a sense of
emotona tenson.
118
6. Consder the case of Anta |ones, a chronc
user of heron who has been askng for hep for
years.
7. To some extent we can see the hero's
frustraton as the drect resut of the home
envronment n whch he ves.
8. Before consderng ths pont n more deta,
we shoud carfy precsey what the present aw
concernng adopton n BC states.
9. To understand the potca senstvty of west
coast o drng, one needs to know somethng
about the envronment and communtes of the
Guf Isands.
10. |ust who was Georges Cuver?
11. In Brtsh Coumba there are a number of
reasons for the wdespread dssatsfacton wth
the federa government's atttude to Ouebec.
12. Hamet's conversaton wth the ghost
provdes some mportant nsghts nto the
prnce's emotona nature.
13. The use of Rtan to treat attenton defct
dsorder creates speca probems, not east of
whch s the expense.
14. What exacty s ths new wonder p Vagra?
15. The descrpton of the settng n the story
very qucky estabshes a mood of anxous
expectaton.
8(- 4rgani5ing an Essay by ,aragrap! +un)tion
Once you become famar wth the range of functons
paragraphs can carry out, then pannng the essay or
research paper takes on a more sophstcated character.
Pannng the argument then becomes a seres of answers to
the questons "What do I want to do at ths stage?" "How can
I carfy or strengthen the argument at ths stage?" "Are
there some usefu ways I can vary or enven or enrch the
argument?" Thus, pannng the structure of the argument
becomes a seres of choces.
We have aready revewed some of these functons n earer
sectons. For exampe, eary n the essay or research paper
(usuay at the very start) you w requre an Introducton,
119
whch defnes the argument (sub|ect, focus, thess), and you
w often want to foow that wth one or two Defnton or
Narraton or Physca Descrpton paragraphs to provde the
necessary background matera, before you start the
argument. In fact, thnkng n terms of the functon of
paragraphs n an argument, you w generay need to do
somethng ke ths (at the start):
Introducton
Defnton Paragraph
Addtona Background Informaton
(Narraton)
Argumentatve Pont 1
Argumentatve Pont 2, and so on.
What s happenng n such a structure s that after the
Introducton, you are seekng to answer the queston: "What
do I need to te the reader so that she can understand the
argument?" In the above outne, the wrter has decded to
defne the key terms and has added an addtona paragraph
to pace the argument n a hstorca context (to gve the
reader the detas of the story necessary to grasp the
argument).
However, as we sha see n ths secton, there are some
nterestng ways to modfy ths basc manner of startng an
argumentatve paper.
8(/ ,aragrap!s o& I""ustration, ?arration, and
.es)ription
We have aready taked about usng paragraphs of narraton
and physca descrpton and defnton as part of the
ntroducton to the argument. Sometmes t s preferabe to
hod back on such background nformaton unt the
approprate pont n the argument (.e., when the reader frst
needs t). In other words, nstead of gvng the reader rght
at the start of the argument a the background facts he s
gong to need to understand every part of your argument,
you reserve some of the nformaton that you mght put n
the essay as part of the ntroducton and nsert t where t s
frst needed.
Inserting ,aragrap!s o& ?arration, .es)ription, or
Ana"ysis in t!e Midd"e o& An Argument
Sometmes n the mdde of the argument you may wsh to
pause n order to provde addtona background expanatory
matera before contnung. Normay, ths w occur |ust
before you move to a pont that requres such nformaton
(provded you have not aready gven a the necessary
detas n the ntroducton).
Suppose, for exampe, you are wrtng an essay on Arstote's
Ethics, and, n the mdde of that argument, you wsh to
consder hs crtcsms of Pato's Theory of Forms. Snce you
120
cannot assume that the reader of the essay w be famar
wth Pato's theory, you wsh to devote a paragraph to
outnng n summary form Pato's theory before contnung
the argument wth Arstote's treatment of Pato's deas.
Smary, n an essay on, say, mmgraton pocy, you mght
n the mdde of the argument wsh to dscuss the experence
of the |ewsh mmgrants to Mantoba eary n the twenteth
century. Before dscussng the detas of ther ves n
Canada, however, you want to nterrupt the argument to
make sure everyone understands some mportant facts
about ths mmgraton.
Here s an exampe of such an nserton nto the mdde of an
argument. Here the thess of the essay s argung that the
death of Aexander the Great was an event of great potca
sgnfcance. The ntroductory paragraphs have been
omtted.
The frst crss provoked by the unexpected
death of Aexander n 323 BC was confuson n
the eadershp of the Macedonan armes, argey
because the tradtona method of determnng a
successor dd not work. (Paragraph argues ths
pont)
Of a the generas who rose to sudden
promnence at ths |uncture one of the most
nterestng was Ptoemy, son of Lagus. Hs
assocaton wth Aexander went back many
years. (Paragraph goes on to gve bographca
detas of Ptoemy; t s not advancng the
argument, but t s makng sure that the reader
has the necessary background detas to
understand who Ptoemy was)
Ptoemy's mmedate response to the crss was
a decson that the most mportant part of the
Empre was Egypt. He was probaby rght. At the
tme, Egypt. . . . (Paragraph goes on to descrbe
some background detas of Egypt; here agan, t
s not contnung the argument, but t s
provdng necessary background detas)
To gan a hod on ths przed terrtory, Ptoemy
carred out a bod and aggressve mtary
strategy. (Paragraph resumes the argument by
tryng to persuade the reader that Ptoemy's
tactcs were effectve)
Pay cose attenton to what s gong on here n the second
and thrd paragraphs above. The wrter has stopped the
argument to provde background nformaton: n the frst,
121
some bographca detas of Ptoemy, n the second, some
geographca and economc facts about Egypt. Once these
have been deat wth, the essay resumes the argument.
Ths s an mportant and usefu technque, especay n
onger research papers. You shoud use t wth care,
however, makng sure that you ntroduce ony narratve or
geographca or anaytca detas whch are essenta to the
argument. Do not use t smpy to pad the essay (.e., to add
rreevant matera).
If, n ths exampe, the bographca detas of Ptoemy are
not reay necessary, but you want to make a bref menton
of who he was, you can often do that most convenenty n a
footnote.
Make sure you understand ths technque; t s a reay
hepfu way to keep the reader fuy nformed about a the
necessary detas wthout havng to provde them a at the
start or tryng to nsert them nto the mdde of
argumentatve paragraphs.
Inserting a .etai"ed E@amp"e into t!e Argument
A reay usefu way of makng an argument more nterestng
and brngng t a ot coser to the reader s to stop the
argument somewhere n the mdde to dwe n deta upon a
snge specfc ustraton or exampe.
For nstance, suppose you are presentng an argument on
the unfarness of the present system of dstrbutng wefare
n BC. You have made your frst and second argumentatve
ponts (that the system s sow and that t dscrmnates
unfary aganst some peope). Before movng onto your next
argumentatve pont, you mght want to nsert a paragraph
n whch you descrbe n deta a partcuar exampe. The
topc sentence mght read somethng ke ths, "To see these
probems at frst hand, one has ony to consder the case of
Terry |ackson." The paragraph w go on to descrbe Terry
|ackson's stuaton n deta, so as to ustrate the ponts you
have made prevousy n the argument.
Or, to take another exampe, suppose you are wrtng an
argumentatve nterpretaton of a work of terature. You
have made one or two argumentatve ponts. You mght now
nsert nto the argument a very specfc exampe from the
text whch w ustrate the ponts you have been makng
(.e., a detaed ook at one partcuar passage n the text).
Here are some more exampes of topc sentences whch
ntroduce ustratve paragraphs n whch the wrter s gong
to ook n deta at a partcuar exampe.
Essay A
(The openng seres of paragraphs dscusses
mportant eements n the new stye of poetry
ntroduced by Imagsm, argung that these are
sgnfcant changes)
122
One can get an exceent sense of what these
new vews of poetc stye meant n practce by
ookng at "Oread" by H.D., a we-known
representatve of the new stye. (Paragraph goes
on to dscuss how partcuar detas of ths poem
ustrate the ponts she has been makng n the
prevous paragraphs)
Essay 2
(The openng seres of paragraphs dscusses
mportant defects n the federa government's
strategy n the debates on the Meech Lake
Accord)
These varous ms|udgments on the part of the
Muroney Conservatves created some
embarrassng ncdents. What happened at a
town meetng n Fort |ackson, a sma town n
Aberta, s typca. (Paragraph goes on to provde
narratve detas to ustrate what has been sad
aready).
Notce what these paragraphs w be dong: they w provde
a cose ook at a snge ustraton. Thus, they do not
contrbute very much to the evdence you are puttng nto
the argument (for the ustraton s ony one case). However,
f the ustraton s a good one and you dscuss t we, t w
brng your argument ave and w enabe you to consodate
the ponts you have aready made (a partcuary mportant
strategy n essays on pubc ssues about whch there are
strong feengs). Thus, used effectvey, an ustraton
paragraph can make your overa case very much more
persuasve. One word of cauton, however: you shoud not
overuse ths technque, uness the purpose of the paper s a
seres of case studes.
Here are a few more exampes (n bref).
E@amp"e A (from an essay argung that
Descartes's argument s probematc but
nterestng)
Descartes' argument creates dffcutes,
however, when he tres to connect the "proven"
word of the mnd wth the externa word of the
body. (Dffcutes dscussed and defned)
To ustrate ths dffcuty, consder the foowng
passage n deta. (A detaed examnaton of a
partcuar spot n Descartes's text whch
123
ustrates n hs own argument the pont made n
the prevous paragraph)
Ths dffcuty asde, however, we need to note
the great strength of Descartes ogc n
approachng questons of knowedge n ths way.
(Argument resumes on the next pont).
E@amp"e 2 (from an essay argung that the
Chpko movement s a sgnfcant ndcaton of
the power of uneducated women to affect
government pocy)
The Chpko movement won support among a
wde varety of women because t addressed
ther concerns drecty. (Paragraph goes on to
dscuss the appea of the movement).
To apprecate ths pont more fuy, we can
examne the case of AB. (Paragraph goes on to
ustrate the pont n the prevous paragraph by
a partcuar case study of a snge woman
nvoved).
But the movement was sgnfcant for reasons
other than ts popuarty. (Paragraph resumes
the argument wth the next pont).
E@amp"e $ (from an essay argung that
Thoreau's Waden s a fne exampe of Amercan
Romantcsm)
Thoreau's atttude to nature s ceary what we
mght characterze as ntensey Romantc and
sprtua. (Paragraph goes on to expan what
these terms mean).
Ths pont s made over and over agan n
Thoreau's text. The foowng passage brngs out
eoquenty hs characterstcay enthusastc
sense of the sprtua vaue of the woods around
hs house. (Paragraph goes on to examne n
deta a partcuar exampe).
But there's more to hs vews than ths. For there
s aso a shrewd Yankee at work n hs
magnaton whch creates a dfferent
perspectve. (Paragraph goes on to consder the
next pont)
124
Ths quaty s nowhere more evdent that n
Thoreau's atttude to the raway. (Passage goes
on to ustrate the pont of the prevous
paragraph)
E@amp"e . (n an essay argung that a
partcuar ega |udgement was correct)
An mportant prncpe, cruca to the
prosecuton's case, was the controversa ssue
of famy assets. (Paragraph goes on to dscuss
why ths was mportant).
The mportance of ths pont emerged ceary n
the summng up of one of the |udges, n the
foowng remarks. (Paragraph goes on n deta
to examne one porton of the remarks of one
|udge)
Another determnng factor n the |udgment was
the defnton of work on the farm. (Paragraph
resumes the argument wth a new pont).
Notce agan n these exampes how the ustratve
paragraph works. It foows a paragraph whch s makng an
argumentatve asserton and serves to provde an n-depth
anayss of a partcuar chunk of the text, case study, or
persona exampe. The ustratve paragraph thus does not
advance an argument, for t s ntroducng nothng new. Its
purpose s to consodate a pont aready made, to make
sure that the reader understands the pont by beng
confronted wth a detaed ook at a very specfc exampe.
It s possbe to use more than one ustratve paragraph to
consodate a pont. Ths s partcuary common n essays
whch are nterpretng terary styes or terary characters.
Notce the foowng exampe.
Hamet s ceary a very nsecure character,
uneasy about the pubc word of Esnore.
(Paragraph goes on to argue ths pont, usng
sma peces of evdence).
We can see ths aspect of hs character very
ceary n hs reacton to hs stuaton n 1.2.
(Paragraph gves a detaed ook at parts of ths
scene).
Another pace where Hamet's soca nsecurty
manfests tsef s n the scene mmedatey
before the pay wthn the pay. (Paragraph goes
125
on to show how parts of ths scene umnate the
pont ntroduced two paragraphs before).
In prvate, however, Hamet's character s very
dfferent. (Paragraph goes on to dscuss a new
pont).
In the same way, one mght offer more than one ustraton
for any of the argumentatve ponts made above.
Whe usng ustratve paragraphs ke ths reay heps to
consodate and ven up an argumentatve pont, you shoud
be carefu not to overuse t. Remember that detaed
dscussons of very partcuar exampes reay hep to
ustrate a pont and consodate an opnon, but once the
pont has been ustrated, the argument s not reay heped
by mutpyng ustratons unnecessary. So once you thnk
the reader shoud have grasped the pont, move onto to
another topc.
*etting #p a ?arrative or .es)riptive EHookE
In a onger paper, you can sometmes add varety and
nterest to the paper by startng wth a narratve or
descrptve paragraph whch draws attenton to a partcuar
exampe n a graphc way and enabes you to ead nto the
ntroducton after you have grabbed the reader's attenton.
Notce the foowng exampe; these are the openng
paragraphs to an essay on acd ran (the exampe s fctona,
here to ustrate the stye):
Paha Lake s stuated about ffteen mes north of
Sudbury n a beautfu forest. The ake, about ten
mes ong and haf a me across at ts wdest, s
|usty ceebrated as one of the most beautfu n
the entre regon, wth moderatey steep sdes of
grante nterspersed wth ower regons often
covered wth wd fowers. There are many
paces on the ake whch make good natura
campgrounds provdng easy access to the water
and panoramc vews of the much of the
shorene. A vstor today aso notces
mmedatey the wonderfu carty of the water,
whch seems to catch the sun n unusua ways
and, when the ght s at the rght ange, to
shmmer nvtngy. Ony graduay does one get
the sense that there s somethng odd about the
scene. At frst, there no cear ndcaton what
that mght be. And then one reazes--there are
no brds around, none of the usua crowd of gus
or oons or ducks. And there are no other peope,
no avd fshermen out for a weekend's
adventure. And then the reason dawns: Paha
Lake s a dead ake. Its waters support no fe at
126
a, because Paha Lake has become one more
vctm of acd ran.
There are many Paha Lakes n Northern Ontaro,
and ther numbers are ncreasng every day.
Where ony a few years ago, n a snge
afternoon one coud catch one's mt of pke,
pckere, ake trout, and bass, there are now no
fsh at a. The water s too acdc to sustan fe.
The probem s acd ran, one of the most toxc
sde effects of our ndustra processes. It s
sowy kng the fe n the forest. We have a
heard about acd ran, of course, and we
probaby know about some of the steps varous
governments and ndustres have taken to meet
the probem. What we may not reaze as
urgenty as we shoud s how serous the
probem st s and how qucky t s growng n
Northern Ontaro. In fact, t seems evdent that f
we do nothng more aganst the threat than we
are presenty dong, our provnca Canadan
Shed w soon have no fresh water fsh; the fe
whch those fsh sustan w then eave; and
sooner or ater the acdc waters w destroy
much of the forest fe. It s thus mperatve that
we make deang wth the causes of acd ran n
our northern forest a top prorty, no matter what
the economc cost.
Notce here how the frst paragraph does not ntroduce any
argument. It serves to catch the reader's attenton wth an
exampe. The pont of the exampe s not announced unt
the ast ne. Then the wrter moves drecty nto the
ntroductory paragraph, whch announces the sub|ect, focus,
and thess. Such an openng paragraph coud equay we be
a short narratve, desgned to arouse the reader's nterest,
before the man ntroducton.
Ths technque of openng an argument wth an ustraton or
narratve s very common n |ournasm, where the technque
s known as the "hook." In many essays you do not have the
space to try t, but n onger research papers, you mght
want to experment wth such an openng.
If you are gong to use a narratve or descrptve hook, then
make sure you observe the foowng prncpes:
1. The "hook" shoud not be too ong. You shoud
be abe to present t n a snge paragraph. If the
"hook" starts gettng too ong, t w overwhem
the ntroducton.
127
2. Try to structure the "hook" so that the man
pont of the ustraton or narratve does not
emerge unt the very end (as n the above
exampe). That makes t nherenty more
nterestng. The technque oses much of ts
effect f the reader gets the pont of the exampe
n the very frst or second sentence.
3. Foow the "hook" mmedatey wth the
standard ntroducton n whch you announce the
sub|ect, focus, and thess of the essay n the
usua manner (as n the above exampe).
4. Do not provde more than one narratve or
ustratve "hook." If you have a number of
exampes, seect the best one. Remember the
purpose of ths technque s to arouse the
reader's nterest, not to carry any of the
argument.
8(1 4rgani5ing an Argument in ,aragrap!
$"usters
Once you begn to get a sense of the dfferent functons of
paragraphs, you can then start thnkng of the argument, not
as a seres of paragraphs, but rather as a seres of
paragraph custers (perhaps wth three or four per custer).
Each custer of paragraphs w be ntroducng, argung, and
consodatng a snge pont n the argument. Thus, even n a
fary substanta research paper, the argument w become
reatvey few separate ponts (perhaps ony two or three),
but each one w be presented n a seres of paragraphs.
Ths ast pont s an mportant one to remember. An effectve
argument w generay consst of reatvey few ponts n
support of a very cear (and usuay narrowy defned)
argument. But each pont w be presented n some deta n
a sequence of paragraphs, so as to be as persuasve as
possbe. Ths s an especay mportant prncpe for wrtng
research papers.
Here, for exampe, are two fu outnes for a research
papers, one on a terary sub|ect and one on a pubc ssue.
Notce the partcuar functon of each paragraph.
Resear)! ,aper A: %!e Imagist Movement
in Modern ,oetry
Genera Sub|ect: Modern poetry
Focus 1: Imagsm
Focus 2: The sgnfcance of the stystc
nnovatons of Imagsm
128
Thess: Imagsm s the most sgnfcant
deveopment n modern poetry; n fact, ths
movement marked the start of what has come to
be caed the modernst movement n Engsh
terature, whch marked a decsve break wth
tradtona ways of wrtng poetry.
TS 1: How dd ths new movement begn? We,
ke many artstc movements t started as a
sma experment n the hands of few young
artsts. (Narratve paragraph, gvng background
hstorca detas to the orgn of the term)
TS 2: The most remarkabe contrbutor to these
new deas was a young expatrate Amercan,
Ezra Pound. (Narratve paragraph, gvng
background detas of Ezra Pound)
TS 3: Pound and hs frends were reactng very
strongy aganst the prevang styes of popuar
poetry n Engand, partcuary the Georgan
poets. (A paragraph of anayss and defnton,
provdng specfc detas of the sort of poetry
whch these young poets found ob|ectonabe)
TS 4: In contrast to ths stye, the new schoo
demanded adherence to a vta new prncpe,
the overrdng mportance of cear evocatve
magery. Ths was a partcuary sgnfcant pont.
(Argument starts here wth the frst pont about
Imagsm)
TS 5: One can get a sense of what ths prncpe
meant n practce by ookng cosey at the poem
"Oread" by HD, a work much admred by the
Imagsts. (Ths s an ustraton, provdng a
detaed ook at |ust one short poem n order to
consodate the prevous pont and make t more
nterestng)
TS 6: Another, and more mmedatey startng
change was Imagsm's re|ecton of tradtona
verse forms. (Ths paragraph contnues the
argument about the nature of Imagsm)
TS 7: Not surprsngy, many readers found the
new stye dffcut, and Imagsm drew many
hoste and often sarcastc responses from
Engsh crtcs. (Ths paragraph s acknowedgng
the opposton--ettng those who dsked the
new stye have a chance to enter the argument)
129
TS 8: Whe these ob|ectons have some obvous
force n the case of many poems, they were
answered decsvey by the one great poet
Imagsm produced, T. S. Eot. Before consderng
Eot's contrbuton, however, t s nterestng to
consder hs orgns. (Paragraph breaks the
argument to provde some background detas of
T. S. Eot)
TS 9: Eot's eary poetc stye demonstrated the
fu power of Imagsm n the hands of a great
artst. (Paragraph contnues the argument by
argung for the quaty of Eot's stye)
TS 10 A second vta contrbuton Eot made was
that he overcame the nherent dffcuty of
wrtng a ong Imagst poem. (Paragraph
contnues the argument about the quaty of
Eot's poetc stye)
TS 11 These quates n Eot's eary poems
cumnated n the greatest poem of the century,
The 5aste Land. (Paragraph offers an anayss of
parts of one poem to consodate the prevous
ponts)
TS 12 Eot's nfuence was decsve on a seres of
young poets. (Paragraph provdes evdence for
ths asserton)
TS 13 Even today, ong after the death of Eot
and Pound and the other orgna Imagst poets,
the evdence of ther revoutonary redefnton of
poetc stye can be seen n any anthoogy of
modern poetry. (Concudng paragraph,
summng up the argument. Ths mght be
extended wth exampes)
Resear)! ,aper 2: Modern Medi)ine and
t!e 9a=
Sub|ect: Modern Medcne
Focus 1: The Termnay I
Focus 2: The Rght To De wth an Asssted
Sucde
Thess: We shoud not ater the egsaton
concernng asssted sucdes, and we shoud
certany not press for any egsaton whch
mght confer on ctzens what has been caed
the "rght to de."
130
TS 1: What exacty do peope mean when they
encourage us to demand the rght to de or the
rght to de wth dgnty or the rght to an
asssted sucde? (Paragraph goes on to defne n
deta a key eement n the argument)
TS 2: To understand ths demand n context, we
shoud consder what the aw presenty states
about such matters. (Paragraph goes on to
defne what current aw says on ths matter)
TS 3 Before consderng |ust what ths aw means
n practce, we need to carfy what the term
right means n aw. Many of those demandng
the rght to de seem unaware of the ega
meanng of what they are seekng. (Paragraph
goes on to defne the concept of a rght)
TS 4 Gven ths ega meanng of the term right,
many doctors are |ustfaby worred about
conferrng the rght to de on ctzens generay.
(Argument starts here by stressng that any
change n the aw w make the stuaton dffcut
for doctors)
TS 5: In addton, there s the probem of what
has been caed the "sppery sope." Once we
admt ega kng nto our hosptas openy, then
where w that process end?
TS 6: Many peope, however, are not convnced
by these arguments. They beeve that ctzens
shoud have the rght to de wth dgnty.
(Paragraph here acknowedges the opposton,
by gvng the case aganst the thess some room
n the argument)
TS 7: Supporters of ths poston often cte the
case of Sue Rodrguez, the termnay natve of
Vctora, BC. (Paragraph goes on to provde an
ustraton of the opposton's pont by gvng
detas of a snge we known exampe)
TS 8: But Sue Rodrguez ost her ega batte, and
for good reason. The |udges were qute correct n
ther assessment. (Paragraph uses some detas
of the ega |udgement to support the thess)
TS 9: But many do not agree wth ths decson.
They pont to the exampe of Hoand, where
asssted sucde s ega. (Paragraph gves the
131
opposton another hearng, ths tme usng
exampes from another country)
TS 10: Those who make ths argument, however,
overook some of the probems of ths pocy
whch the Dutch themseves have admtted.
(Paragraph answers the opposton's pont n the
prevous paragraph)
TS 11: What compcates ths ssue s a matter
no one wshes to dscuss openy, the fact that
every day n Canada, doctors and fames do
make decsons about assstng death. It s not
the case that peope wth a powerfu wsh to de
never get the assstance they crave. (Paragraph
dscusses ths pont about the rea stuaton n
the hosptas)
TS 12: However, the exstence of ths practce s
nsuffcent reason for estabshng a ega
process whch must be foowed n every case.
(Paragraph argues why the present stuaton
shoud not be changed)
TS 13: Concudng paragraph, summng up the
argument and ookng ahead.
Resear)! ,aper $: An Essay on Wi""iam
amesBs The +arieties of ,eli"io&s
-xperience
Genera Sub|ect: Wam |ames's The 6arieties of
/eligious Experience
Focus 1: The vaue of |ames's book
Focus 2: The mportance of the message and the
stye of argument
Thess: |ames's 6arieties of /eligious Experience
s a vauabe book because t not ony expores
regon s a very meanngfu way but aso
redefnes the nature of phosophy.
TS 1: One of the great strengths of |ames's case
s hs frmy emprca base whch creates a bass
for ths vews on a host of partcuar exampes.
(Paragraph evauates |ames's emprca method).
TS 2: What makes ths work so effectvey s that
|ames's defnton of regon brngs wth t no
restrctng assumptons. (Paragraph makes the
132
second mportant pont about |ames's
argument).
TS 3: Some crtcs have contested ths pont,
argung that |ames's defnton of regon s too
cosey patterned on hs Protestant background.
(Paragraph acknowedges the opposton)
TS 4: There s obvousy some pausbty n ths
pont, but to concede t does not damage the
strength of |ames's method. (Paragraph answers
the opposton)
TS 5: Others have ponted out that |ames's a
encompassng vew of regon commts hm to
an essentay reatvst poston and a the
phosophca probems whch that entas. Ths s
an mportant crtcsm. Before we can evauate
t, however, we need to carfy |ust what s
meant by reatvsm. (Paragraph goes on to
defne reatvsm, not advancng the argument,
but provdng a necessary defnton).
TS 6: Gven ths sense of reatvsm, crtc MN has
argued, |ames's method s suspcousy feebe.
(Paragraph goes on to examne crtc MN's
argument aganst |ames).
TS 7: The bass of MN's sense of |ames's
weakness can be best ustrated n the foowng
passage. (Paragraph ustrates the prevous
pont by ookng at one very short part of MN's
argument).
TS 8: Ths s a grevous charge, but t
msrepresents |ames's man pont about vaue.
(Paragraph answers the ponts made by MN and
revewed n the prevous two paragraphs).
TS 9: Ths dscusson of |ames's sense of vaue
brngs us to the heart of hs method, the system
of thnkng he cas Pragmatsm. Ths term was
frst put nto phosophca debates by Chares
Perce (Paragraph offers a hstorca and
defnton paragraph to make sure the reader
understands what s meant by the term
Pragmatsm).
TS 10: |ames, n hs other works, repeatedy
seeks to gve us a cear sense of ths term.
(Paragraph goes on to defne the term
133
Pragmatsm n terms of what |ames has sad
about t).
TS 11: Wth ths understandng of Pragmatsm n
mnd, we can see why the charge of reatvsm s
not entrey accurate. (Paragraph contnues the
refutaton of reatvsm by reference to the
defntons of Pragmatsm gven n the prevous
paragraphs).
TS 12: In fact, f we examne ths concept of
Pragmatsm more cosey, especay as |ames
dscusses t n The 6arieties of /eligious
Experience, we can see that t appes to much
more than a study of regon. |ames s seekng
to redefne the phosophc enterprse.
(Paragraph goes on the dscuss how |ames's use
of the term n the text s sgnfcant n terms of
how one conducts phosophy).
TS 13: Not surprsngy, many phosophers have
found ths approach to phosophy unacceptabe
for a number of reasons. For exampe, XY ponts
out what he consders a basc faw n |ames's
poston. (Paragraph goes on to outne some of
the ma|or ob|ecton to the Pragmatc approach)
TS 14: A further ob|ecton comes from another
quarter. (Paragraph outnes a second ma|or
ob|ecton to Pragmatsm of the sort |ames
practces).
TS 15: However, these ob|ectons fa to take nto
account |ames's vews on the nature of dogmatc
assertons about the truth. (Paragraph answers
the ob|ectons rased n the prevous two
paragraphs about |ames's method).
TS 16: In fact, f we ook very cosey at one
secton of |ames's argument we can see that he
has aready antcpated and answered some of
these ponts. (Paragraph ustrates the pont
made n the prevous one by a very cose ook at
a partcuar secton of |ames's text).
The mportant pont to notce n these outnes s the way n
whch the wrters use a mxture of functons, mxng
argumentatve paragraphs advancng the thess wth
paragraphs acknowedgng the opposton, paragraphs
provdng ustratons, defntons, and narratve
backgrounds. These papers w be qute ong (probaby
134
about 3000 words), but they do not make a great number of
dfferent ponts. However, they reay go nto deta about
the ponts whch they do menton.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
Essays and Arguments, *e)tion %en
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
'0(0 WRI%I?> AR>#ME?%* A24#% 9I%ERARD
W4R0*
Some courses, partcuary n Lbera Studes, Phosophy,
and Engsh, requre argumentatve essays about terature;
that s, the assgnments w ca for an evauatve response
n the form of an essay about another book. Ths task s
dffcut to carry out f you are not entrey cear what the
essay s supposed to do. Ths secton focuses, frst, on that
ssue and, secondy, on varous ways you can address the
queston of organzng a sutabe argument.
Engagng n dscussons and arguments about books (and
other works) s a very common form of human nteracton,
somethng we routney carry out for peasure n our coffee
and pub conversatons or read about n the newspapers. It
stems from a human desre to engage our magnatons n
other peope's vsons of the word, to dscuss them wth
others, and to evauate them, especay n conversatons.
Such dscussons and arguments obvousy emerge out of
the nteracton whch occurs when we read another text, and
the quaty of what we have to say s gong to depend n
arge part on the quaty of our readng. Thus, n order to
carfy |ust how one mght set about constructng arguments
about texts, t s necessary frst to say a few thngs about
readng, partcuary about ntegent readng or what s
caed n the foowng secton readng beneath the surface.
These paragraphs dea many wth works wrtten n prose. A
ater secton concerns tsef wth wrtng arguments about
yrc poetry, a form of terature whch can cause speca
dffcutes for students.
135
'0(' Reading 2eneat! t!e *ur&a)e
Carefu readng, the knd whch gets you beneath the surface
of a book, s an mportant sk whch students contnue to
deveop throughout ther undergraduate program. One of
the man goas of those courses whch requre arguments
about terary texts s to encourage the students to become
better readers.
In courses whch dea wth terary texts, the books we study
fa, very roughy, nto two groups: some te fctona stores
(noves, epc poems, pays) and some present arguments.
Some texts, of course, do both (and these books are often
reatvey more compex because of that). As we read,
therefore, we tend to seect a man emphass arsng out of
the book (story or argument) and then to focus upon ether
the creaton of an magnary word n whch partcuar peope
act out a story n a specfc envronment (e.g., the 0dyssey)
or on the presentaton of a structured argument about
phosophca, potca, or scentfc ssues (e.g., 0n Liberty,
short argumentatve essays). Ths dvson may sometmes
be smpstc, but t makes a usefu startng pont.
Reading *tories
Once we begn to sense that the book we are readng s
many a fctona narratve (.e., a story), then, f our
magnaton s at a engaged wth the word of the fcton, we
w fnd ourseves to some extent n the poston of a |udge.
We w be foowng the actons of certan peope n
partcuar paces and stuatons, and we w amost certany
deveop a dstrbuton of sympathy for the characters (some
we ke, some we do not ke). Ths process of gettng
sympathetcay nvoved n the fctona word s, of course,
one of the ma|or peasures of readng stores.
Hence, our frst entry nto an ntegent apprecaton of a
fctona narratve w usuay be a reacton to the
characters. Wam Empson once observed that a
characters are on tra n a cvzed narratve. Ths s a usefu
observaton to bear n mnd, snce t paces us n the poston
of a |udge and nvtes us to render a seres of verdcts on the
fctona peope we encounter. Out of ths we can normay
construct many usefu arguments based on why we ke,
dske, or have a mxed reacton to one or more characters
(as we so often do after seeng a fm).
A ths s natura enough, but there are some nta dangers
to avod. In order to |udge the characters fary (and, n the
process to extend our own magnatve powers), we need to
136
understand them. And that w requre a good dea more
than smpy transatng them from the text nto our
mmedate word and appyng crtera from the word around
us. Eventuay, of course, we may want to do somethng ke
that, but before rushng to |udgement, we need to take the
tme to sort out why the characters are behavng the way
they are. Ths caveat s partcuary mportant when we are
deang wth stores whch come from a cuture very dfferent
from the one around us (ether because the stores are very
od, or because they come from non-western cutures, or
both), snce what the characters do and beeve n such
stores w amost certany strke us as odd n some ways.
In cose ntegent readng we need to do a great dea more
than smpy foow and |udge mmedatey what characters
do. In many of the stores we read, for exampe, characters
do thngs whch, by modern standards, are odd, abhorrent,
sexst, sef-destructve, ncomprehensbe, or unatc. If we
do not penetrate beneath these actons to expore the
reasons--the beefs whch prompt the acton--then much of
the book w reman conceaed from us. Thus, we shoud not
be too quck to mpose our twenteth-century |udgments
upon such matters unt we have wrested somewhat wth
the underyng beefs about the word whch nform the
actons of the characters.
Another way of puttng the same pont s to stress the od
sayng that human bengs mtate n acton ther vson of the
nature of thngs. We w not propery understand the
sgnfcance of what characters n fctons do uness we grasp
somethng of ther vson of reaty whch gudes ther
actons. So f we fnd ourseves ntrgued, enthraed,
dsgusted, confused, or otherwse moved by how peope
behave n a fcton, we can proftaby ask ourseves: Why are
they actng n ths way? How s ths acton nked to what
they and ther socety beeve about the word?
We shoud not be too quck, as I have sad, to |udge the case
by modern standards, no matter how strange or
unacceptabe we fnd the acton or opnon. We need to take
the tme to ponder an answer or seres of possbe answers,
whch must come from the context of beef gven n the
fcton tsef. That does not mean that we have to refuse to
|udge the characters but rather that we have to understand
them as fuy as possbe before |udgng them.
In assessng questons of ths sort n a story, we shoud pay
partcuar attenton to the settng of the acton, the word n
whch the characters ve, and, above a, to what they
beeve about t (e.g., ts orgns, the possbtes of change
n t, the dvne rung powers whch have set that word up
137
or contro t, and so on). For exampe, f the characters
beeve that the word s governed by rratona, hoste,
unpredctabe, and amora forces and f they ve n a very
demandng envronment, ther standards of behavour w
probaby vary consderaby from those who beeve that the
word runs accordng to mora, ratona, and benevoent aws
and whose mmedate surroundngs are ferte and secure.
Whether we share the same beefs or not, t s mportant for
us to get a grasp of the word vew deveoped n the fcton.
Otherwse our understandng of the characters' motves w
be very tenuous.
Consder an exampe. The Od Testament narratve of the
Israetes eavng Egypt and vng for years n the desert
presents a pcture of human bengs foowng a very
demandng code of fe n a frequenty very aggressve way
and demonstratng many characterstcs whch we do not
partcuary approve of n modern North Amercan socety
and hed together by strct rues we woud amost certany
not wecome. A that makes ther cuture very strange to us,
and t s easy enough to start crtczng. However, before
smpy mposng on the Israetes or on ther God or on ther
eaders our own mmedate vaues, we shoud refect more
deepy on what they beeve, why they beeve t, what
understandng of the word they derve from such a beef,
and, fnay, how that understandng of the word endorses
certan actons rather than others.
In gong through ths process of ntegent readng we
shoud not mpose on the fcton deas whch we may have
whch are rreevant to the story, for exampe, our
understandng of Chrstan nterpretatons of ths part of the
Od Testament or our feengs about present day Arab-Israe
confct or our awareness of modern debates about sexsm.
We cannot, of course, smpy empty our mnds of everythng
we know and beeve, but we can try to avod ettng a that
modern conscousness too qucky and peremptory
determne our evauaton of the story.
Remember that one of the great vaues of readng fctons
from cutures very dfferent from our own s that the vsons
of experence portrayed n these fctons can act, f the
stores are magnatvey exctng, as a chaenge to our
modern beefs (whch may, after a, be qute mtng). We
cannot transport ourseves back to Ancent Israe or rd
ourseves of our modern conscousness; we shoud not on
that account drag the text forcefuy nto the modern age, as
f t had been wrtten ast week. We have to meet t haf way,
and et the strange vson meet and enter nto a
conversaton wth our modern conscousness. We may then
138
dscover some mportant thngs about ourseves, as we try
to come to terms wth the vaue of the fcton.
For ths reason, there are two mportant approaches to avod
when deang wth a strange text, f one's nterest s n an
ntegent evauatve argument. The frst mstake s that of
the schoar who says that we can ony understand ths work
propery f we mmerse ourseves n the facts surroundng ts
producton (the bography of the author and the fu cutura
context of the work). The second mstake s that of the
hstorcay or cuturay unmagnatve reader who says that
we can evauate t wthout takng nto account ts dfference
from us. The chaenge of ntegent readng requres us to
combne the best features of both of these approaches,
wthout ettng ether one take over the entre process.
Ths, of course, s a mportant |ustfcaton for the vaue of
readng: ettng ourseves be chaenged by the unfamar,
not so that we w be converted to an unfamar beef
system (athough we mght be) but so that the chaenge
forces us to re-examne our own vaues and beefs. If we use
the beefs we brng to the fcton as a quck way of summng
t up, of |udgng t, of hodng t at arm's ength, then that
vta chaenge cannot take pace.
Thus, n readng the text of a fcton, we shoud nform
ourseves as best we can about the vson of fe t presents
(n partcuar by examnng the beef systems whch prompt
the characters to act and fee the way they do) and then
expore whether that partcuar way of ookng at the word
has any vaue. We mght usefuy ask ourseves questons
ke the foowng: What usefu thngs woud peope derve
from such a vson of fe? How woud t enabe them to
cope? How woud I fee n such a cuture (can I see any
mportant advantages or benefts that such a vson
possesses whch mne does not, or not to the same extent?
We may decde, after ettng the text speak to us as
eoquenty as possbe, that the vson of fe t offers s
unacceptabe, mtng, mmora, sentmenta, or whatever.
But we need to gve t a far hearng frst and refect upon
why we fee about t the way we do.
Reading Arguments
In the same way, f we are readng a book whch s many an
argument (e.g., a work of mora or potca phosophy), we
need to attend to more than |ust the detas of the argument
or a specfc st of recommendatons or concusons whch
emerges from t. In many cases, the most mportant part of
an argumentatve work n potcs or phosophy s not the
139
partcuar detas of what the author s recommendng but
rather the method of the argument.
The ssue of the method s a cruca pont: the greatest, most
nterestng, and most nfuenta thnkers are not necessary
those who came up wth "answers"; they are rather those
who redefned the ssues, the vocabuary, and the stye of
mportant arguments. If a we are nterested n s ther
answers to desgnated probems, then we w mss what
matters most.
Ths matter s worth stressng agan. When we come to cass,
we often want to concentrate on the most obvous
recommendatons deveoped n an argument, those detas
whch prompt an mmedate response (e.g., Pato's
recommendatons about the treatment of women, Hobbes'
vew of the soveregn havng absoute power, Rousseau's
treatment of ndvduaty, Marx's vews on the nevtabty of
the cass war, and so on). These are nterestng and
mportant. But unt we arrve at some understandng of why
the wrters are makng these proposas, of how they reached
them, that s, of the assumptons and methodoogy whch
have ed up to them, then we may be mssng the most
mportant part of the text.
Of partcuar mportance n any argumentatve text s the
openng secton, n whch the wrter typcay estabshes
certan assumptons about the nature of the word and about
the approprate methods for dscoverng how best to dea
wth t. We need to read very sowy and carefuy here n
order to estabsh a cear sense eary n the text of the
startng ponts for the entre argument: these w ncude the
basc assumptons about nature, human fe, and the proper
ways of reasonng. Usefu questons we mght ask ncude
the foowng: What does the wrter assume as axomatc
(sef-evdent) about our human nature and the cosmos? How
does the dvne ft n ths vson? How does the wrter defne
the key term(s) he s ntroducng (especay about human
nature)? In askng the questons he does about the word,
what does the wrter revea as centra to hs method of
enqury? What does the wrter ntroduce as evdence or ogc
to advance the argument (and what does he excude)? What
does the wrter recognze as the crteron for |udgng good
from bad arguments? What s the wrter's atttude to
tradtona systems of beef? And, of partcuar mportance,
what vews of the word s he reactng aganst and why?
In many arguments, once these startng ponts and the basc
methodoogy are conceded, the rest of the case s reatvey
persuasve. A dsagreement wth a partcuar
recommendaton or concuson at the end of the argument
140
may stem from somethng atent n one of the nta
assumptons to whch we have too easy gven assent.
Most books whch deveop arguments aso at some pont
attack some aternatve vews (n many cases, the books
were wrtten n drect response to a prevang beef or
seres of beefs). So t extreely usefu to pay very cose
attenton to those passages where an argumentatve wrter
drects hoste crtcsm aganst an emnent opponent (e.g.,
Pato's attack on Homer, Arstote's crtcsm of Pato,
Hobbes' attack on scrptura nterpretatons, Gaeo's
contempt for hs Arstotean opponents, Wostonecraft's
remarks on Rousseau, Freud's dsmssa of communsm, and
so on). If we keep posng the queston "|ust what s ths
wrter ob|ectng to and why?" we w often have a drect
entry nto somethng reay centra to the argument. And
such a queston often makes a partcuary usefu essay
topc.
'0(2 +rom Reading to *!aping An Eva"uative
Argument
2ui"ding on 4ur 4=n Rea)tions
The most vauabe hep to constructng an ora or wrtten
argument about a text s our own reactons (whch w vary
from one reader to another). Ths sounds obvous enough,
but t's an mportant pont: we shoud deveop our
arguments out of how we fee after we have deat wth the
book as honesty and ntegenty as we can. The very best
way to sort out how you fee about a book s to dscuss t
wth others, testng your nta tentatve vews aganst thers
and exporng together where certan nterpretatve
possbtes ead. The vaue of ths soca process of
nterpretaton, especay as a means of fosterng nta
nsghts and argumentatve possbtes, cannot be
overstressed.
One good technque to hep us probe beneath the surface
detas to the pont where we are thnkng about creatng an
argument s constanty to examne our own reactons to the
text. If we fnd ourseves confused, rrtated, excted,
chaenged, or bored wth part of the text, we can ask
ourseves why (and we shoud re-read such passages wth
partcuar care). Can we soate some key features of the
argument, stye, characterzaton, beef, and so on whch
the book presents, n such a way that our own response to
the book becomes more ntegbe to us? It may be worth
spendng consderabe tme on a reatvey sma porton of
the text (gettng assstance from others, where necessary). If
141
we can come to understand one confusng or exctng or
repeent secton of, say, Pato's /epublic or Freud's The
,nterpretation of 3reas or Twan's .uc'leberry *inn, then
we w have earned somethng mportant about the entre
work.
Often a strongy negatve reacton to a text can provde an
mportant earnng opportunty. We may sometmes fnd
ourseves turnng away from a book n tota dsagreement
(e.g., over Arstote's dscusson of savery, the kng n the
,liad, Rousseau's dscusson of marrage n Eile, de
Beauvor's vew of femae sexuaty, and so on). If we have
such a response, then we shoud not be too quck smpy to
wrte the text off. We shoud rather take the tme to expore
the reasons for our own response and some possbe reasons
for the author's partcuar treatment of that sub|ect. We do
not have to agree wth the varous wrters: our exporaton
may we confrm our frst snap |udgment. However, we
shoud make the effort to understand the sources of the
author's vson and of our own re|ecton of t, before we
fnay make up our own mnd. That process w often
generate magnatve nsghts usefu for an evauatve
dscusson.
If we have a reay strongy negatve reacton to a text or to
a part of t, we mght want to set ourseves a chaengng
assgnment: defend the wrter's vson of experence on ths
pont. For exampe, suppose we fnd Marx's argument n the
Counist Manifesto unacceptabe because, as good
beras, we cannot agree wth what he has to say about the
mdde-cass famy. If we want to chaenge our
argumentatve powers, we coud try to set up an argument
n whch we support Marx on that pont, n whch, n other
words, we try to |ustfy that concuson on the bass of the
prncpes Marx ntroduces. That w force us to come to
grps wth what Marx s reay sayng n a new, exctng, and
chaengng way.
Even f you are wrtng an essay crtqung Marx's vews of
the famy, an mportant part of your case mght be at some
pont gvng Marx's argument a far presentaton,
acknowedgng the strengths of t, and then demonstratng
ts nadequaces (a technque ths handbook dscussed
earer under the abe Acknowedgng the Opposton).
The pont s that you shoud never dsmss somethng merey
on the ground that t mmedatey offends what you beeve.
Use that reacton to engage the argument, to seek to
understand t, and, f possbe, to expose where t goes
wrong (or what t overooks).
142
#sing $omparisons
As your undergraduate educaton progresses, you shoud
fnd yourseves tempted to compare a book you are studyng
wth one you have studed earer n the same course or
perhaps n a dfferent course. Ths actvty s an mportant
earnng technque (whch w come nto pay n semnar
dscussons). You shoud get nto the habt from tme to tme
of cang attenton to the way n whch a book you are
readng s smar to or qute dfferent from an earer one.
And you mght ke to consder such a comparson as the
bass for an evauatve argument about the two books.
At a very basc eve, these comparsons mght start from a
smpe persona preference (e.g., for Mozart over Beethoven,
for Rousseau over M, for McKnnon over Rch, for Odysseus
over Aches, and so on). Workng from such an mmedatey
persona response and exporng t further n order to
understand t better, you w often be abe to come to a
fuer apprecaton of both texts. Some questons you mght
ke to ask yoursef when you fnd yoursef makng such
comparsons mght be some of the foowng: How are these
works smar? How are they dfferent? Why do I prefer one
to the other? What crtera am I usng to make ths
|udgment? What woud I say n order to persuade someone
ese to share my vew? Can I see why someone mght prefer
the one I thnk nferor? Out of such questons, some
nterestng and provocatve argumentatve stances can
emerge.
Deveopng ntegent comparsons between dfferent works
s one of the great toos of crtcsm, nformed dscusson,
and cutura enrchment. Learnng to deveop such
comparsons w aso hep to remnd us that |ust because we
have fnshed wth one work and are movng on to another,
that s no reason for settng the frst one asde. As we
progress through Lbera Studes, Engsh, and Phosophy
courses, we are contnung and enrchng a fe-ong
conversaton wth and about our cuture, a process whch w
ncude more and more matera for comparson and
argumentatve dscussons.
'0(- Eva"uative Argument versus ,rose
*ummaries
An assgnment to wrte an argumentatve essay about a
work of terature s cang for an evauaton of some aspect
of that work. That means the essay must be anchored upon
some opnon, some argumentatve stance, and not be
smpy a summary of the content of the work.
143
Ths prncpe s vta; ts mportance cannot be stressed
suffcenty. The faure to observe t s one of the ma|or
reasons why essays on terary sub|ects often do not work.
So make sure you understand the dfference between a
summary and an evauaton. Brefy put, the mportant
dfference s as foows: a summary devers the contents of
a book; t smpy transates what the book says nto the
essay wrter's own words. But t does not take a stand or
make a |udgment about the book or a part of t. An
evauaton, by contrast, s an argument about the
sgnfcance, the vaue, or the nterpretaton of a text or a
part of t.
For exampe, a summary of a fm w smpy rete the
obvous detas of the fm. If we have aready seen t, then a
summary w smpy te us what we aready know. If the
summary s an accurate one, then there s nothng to
dscuss. An evauaton or argument about the fm w offer a
|udgment of the fm or some part of t. It w probaby
generate a dscusson because not everyone w agree wth
t.
Thus, when you come to organze an essay on a terary text
(e.g., a nove or phosophca text) you must structure the
essay as an argument (uness you are specfcay asked for
a summary). Detas from the text w provde the evdence,
but however you structure the argument, you must not
smpy re-descrbe the content of the text. The faure to
remember ths prncpe s a ma|or reason for poor essays on
terature, because the essay turns nto smpy a summary of
arge parts of the fcton or of the argument.
The key symptoms whch ndcate that you are wrtng a
summary rather than an evauatve argument are the
absence of an argumentatve thess and the pattern of topc
sentences. If there s no thess about whch we can argue,
then the essay w probaby be argey summary, because
the essay wrter has put nothng argumentatve on the tabe.
If you are routney startng each paragraph wth a sentence
whch smpy cas attenton to another pont n the story or
another part of the argument, wthout makng any |udgment
about that part, then you are amost certany provdng a
summary of the argument and not an evauaton of t. Ths
pont goes back to somethng stressed at the very openng
of ths handbook: one cannot wrte an nterestng or usefu
argument about what s obvous.
'0(/ *tru)turing an Argumentative Essay on
+i)tion
144
As mentoned above, the best way to begn to organze an
argumentatve essay about terature s to seect somethng
very partcuar n the story or the argument, somethng
whch creates a reacton n you, and to expore the
mportance of that.
In sortng out how you coud wrte an argumentatve essay
about a fcton, you mght ke to thnk of the foowng
possbtes (ths st s by no means exhaustve):
1. What s the sgnfcance of a partcuar
character (or a partcuar moment n the career
of a snge character)? Why s that mportant?
What human possbty does that part of the
fcton hod up to us? And what s of mportance,
f anythng, n how the ncdent resoves tsef?
2. Does a partcuar character earn or fa to
earn somethng mportant n the story? If the
resouton of a narratve depends upon the
educaton of a man character, then a ma|or
nterpretatve pont n the story w undoubtedy
be what that character earns. Ths queston s
often very frutfu f a ma|or pont n the
narratve s a |ourney of some knd (Is the man
character the same person at the end of the
|ourney as at the start? If not, what has
happened? Why s that sgnfcant?).
3. What s the mportance of the settng (the
physca envronment) or some aspect of t? How
does ths hep to defne for the readers the
characters' sense of nature, of how the word
operates, of the vaues of human fe?
4. Is there an nterestng recurrng pattern n the
fcton (e.g., n the mportance of women, the
sgnfcance of food, the depcton of the gods,
the mages of nature, the stye of the cothes,
and so on), whch ponts to somethng
mportant? Peope's atttudes to and use of
money or cothes, for exampe, often serve to
symboze a mora pattern (e.g., n Chaucer,
Dante, Shakespeare, Dckens).
5. What roe does the narrator pay n your
response to the story? Is that voce reabe,
payfu, ronc? Does the narrator understand the
sgnfcance of the story?
145
Remember that n a short essay you can dea ony wth one
very partcuar aspect of the fcton, so seect carefuy, and
confne the argument to the sgnfcance of that one feature
you have seected.
Once you have seected what you are gong to focus on,
derve a thess for that focus, an argumentatve opnon
about t. Normay, ths w take the form of a statement
somethng ke the foowng: "X (the tem you have seected)
s partcuary sgnfcant n the story because . . ." If you
compete that statement wth an opnon, then you w have
a workabe thess.
Structurng the rest of the essay, once you have a workabe
thess, shoud foow the varous prncpes outned
prevousy n ths handbook. The resut shoud be an outne
somethng ke the foowng:
Essay A: 4n o!n *teinbe)kBs *!ort *tory
E%!e $!rysant!emumsE
Sub|ect: "The Chrysanthemums"
Focus 1: Esa's character
Focus 2: Esa's character: her weak sense of her
own femnnty
Thess: Esa s a strong but very vunerabe
woman, vta enough to have strong ambtons
but so nsecure about her own femnnty that
she s fnay unabe to cope wth the stran of
transformng her fe. The story focuses on how
that quaty eads to her defeat.
TS 1: When we frst see Esa, we get an
mmedate sense that she s hdng her sexuaty
from the rest of the word. (Paragraph examnes
the openng descrptons of Esa and nterprets
key phrases to pont out how she appears to be
conceang her rea sef)
TS 2: The speed and the energy wth whch Esa
ater seeks to change hersef brng out the
extent of her dssatsfacton wth the roe she
has been payng. (Paragraph dscusses what
happens as Esa starts to respond to the crss,
argung that she s seekng to move beyond her
frustraton)
TS 3: But Esa's new sense of hersef does not
ast. She does not have the nner strength to
deveop nto the mature, ndependent woman
she woud ke to be. In the ast anayss, no
146
matter how sympathetc we fnd her, she s an
emotona weakng.
Concuson: Ths story narrates a seres of
everyday events, but the emotona drama Esa
goes through s reay tense. (Paragraph goes on
to summarze the man argument and reaffrm
the thess)
Essay 2: *!ort Essay on Homer
Genera Sub|ect: Homer's 0dyssey
Focus 1: The mportance of the home and
hosptaty
Focus 2: Home and hosptaty n the 0dyssey:
the sgnfcance of food
Thess: In the 0dyssey, the frequent and detaed
attenton to food and the rtuas surroundng t
serve constanty to renforce a centra concern of
the poem, the vta cvzng mportance of the
home.
TS 1: Throughout the Odyssey, we wtness the
way n whch food taken communay can act as
a way of re-energzng human bengs, enabng
them to cope wth ther dstress. Ths, n fact,
emerges as one of the most mportant human
vaues n the poem. (Paragraph argues for the
restoratve vaues of food brought out repeatedy
n the poem)
TS 2: The rtuas surroundng food, especay the
mportance of wecomng guests to the feast and
makng sure everyone has enough, stress the
warmth and centra mportance of open human
nteracton. (The paragraph argues the
mportance of hosptaty as t s brought out by
the references to food and feastng)
TS 3: The occasons n whch food s consumed
are aso moments n whch the partcpants
ceebrate the artstc rchness of ther cuture. No
where ese n the poem s there so much
attenton pad to the sgnfcance of beauty n
varous forms. (Paragraph argues that a the
thngs assocated wth the food-the servng
dshes, the entertanment, and so on-refect
mportant vaues n the cuture)
147
Concuson: There s, of course, much more to
the poem than the descrpton of feastng, but
we need to recognze these moments as
especay mportant. (Paragraph restates and
summarzes the centra pont of the argument)
Essay $: *!ort Essay on a *!akespearean
,"ay
Genera Sub|ect: Shakespeare's /ichard ,,,
Focus 1: The mportance of Anne n the pay.
Focus 2: The frst scene between Anne and
Rchard (1.3)
Thess: Anne's roe n 1.3 s partcuary
mportant to the openng of the pay because t
reveas ceary to us not ony the devsh
ceverness of Rchard but aso the way n whch
hs success depends upon the weaknesses of
others.
TS 1: Rchard's treatment of Anne n 1.3 provdes
a very mportant ook at the compex motvaton
and stye of the pay's hero. (Paragraph goes on
to argue how the Rchard-Anne confrontaton
reveas mportant thngs about Rchard)
TS 2: More mportanty, perhaps, the scene
reveas |ust how Anne's understandabe
weaknesses enabe Rchard to succeed.
(Paragraph ooks at how Anne's response to
Rchard's advances revea mportant thngs
about her character)
TS 3: We can best apprecate these ponts by
consderng a key moment n the scene, the
moment when Rchard nvtes Anne to k hm.
(In an ustratve paragraph, the wrter takes a
detaed ook at fve nes from the scene, to
emphasze the ponts mentoned n the prevous
two paragraphs)
Concuson: In the wder context of the pay, ths
eary scene provdes Rchard wth a sense of hs
own power and thus confrms for hm that he
reay can acheve what he most wants.
(Paragraph sums up the argument n the context
of the entre pay)
The ponts to notce partcuary here are, frst, the
argumentatve nature of the thess, whch sets up an
148
nterpretatve cam and, second, the opnonated topc
sentences, whch contnue the argumentatve stye. They do
not degenerate smpy nto sectons of summary (reteng
what goes on n the story). And notce how each argument
depends upon an nta narrowng of the focus, so that the
argument s concerned wth ony one aspect of the narratve.
A $ommon Mistake in t!e *tru)ture o& An Argument
About 9iterature
An argumentatve essay on a work of terature s commony
askng you to focus upon a partcuar pattern n the work
(e.g., the deveopment of character, an mportant theme, a
pattern n the magery, the reatonshp of the narrator to the
fcton, and so on) and to present an nterpretaton of that
pattern. Ths requres you to construct an argument whch
presents the reader wth an organzed understandng of the
mportance of that pattern, ts sgnfcance n the wder
context of the fcton.
Be very carefu you do not turn such an essay nto a mere
cataogue of exampes of the pattern. Such a structure does
not advance the argument and usuay ends up teng the
reader what she aready knows qute we from havng read
the story.
For exampe, suppose you are organzng an nterpretatve
essay on .alet and you have decded you want to expore
some aspect of the prnce's character. So you decde you
wsh to make the case that an mportant part of Hamet's
dsagreeabe character s the way n whch he seems to
abuse the women n hs fe, verbay and physcay. Ths s
an nterestng and mportant aspect of the pay, and you can
certany umnate some key ssues at work by deang wth
t propery.
However, that umnaton w not occur f you structure the
essay merey as a st of exampes of Hamet's aggressve
buyng, as n the foowng st of topc sentences:
Hamet s very crue to Ophea eary on n the
pay. He s nsenstve to her dstress and uses a
very harsh anguage n takng to her.
Later n the pay Hamet s very hard on hs
mother. He attacks her physcay and verbay
and causes her great dstress.
Such a structure s tendng (as you can see) merey to re-
descrbe part of the pay and s not advancng our
understandng of the mportance of the pattern you are
ookng at.
To avod ths mstake, structure the essay, not as a seres of
exampes, but as a seres of nterpretatve assertons about
the pattern you are ookng at. Notce the dfference
149
between the topc sentences gven above and ones ke the
foowng:
The frst mportant pont to notce about
Hamet's treatment of women s that he refuses
to sten to them, as f he s afrad of what they
mght say. Characterstcay, he s, at the frst
encounter, verbay very aggressve to them,
puttng them at once on the defensve and
confusng them. Ths habt prompts some
mportant refectons on the prnce's character.
Hamet seems aso curousy prone to physca
voence aganst women, as f they ncte hm to
ash out aganst them. What makes ths a the
more curous, of course, s that both Ophea and
Gertrude ove hm very much (and he knows t).
Notce the key dfference here. In the atter topc sentences,
the focus s squarey on the sgnfcance of the pattern you
are exporng, not upon a partcuar exampe. In both
paragraphs based on these topc sentences you w
ntroduce evdence, and that evdence can come from
anywhere n the pay (ether Gertrude or Ophea or both)
'0(3 *tru)turing a *!ort Essay on t!e
Eva"uation o& an Argument
In certan academc dscpnes, a very common assgnment
nvtes the student to evauate part of a compex argument
presented n a cassc text (e.g., Hobbes's Leviathan, M's
0n Liberty, Pato's Meno, Descartes's Meditations, and so
on). There are many usefu ways to anayze arguments.
However, there are some characterstc ways n whch
essays evauatng arguments can go astray and some
mmedatey usefu thngs whch may hep to avod such
probems or to patch up essays whch suffer from them.
A ?ote on t!e ,ro)ess o& Eva"uating an Argument
In an essay whch seeks to evauate an argument (or a part
of t), the basc task s to focus on one aspect of a
characterstcay compex poston and to expore what the
vaues or the mtatons of ths part of the argument mght
be and how that mght umnate other parts of the
argument. In a short essay, you are not expected necessary
to pass fna |udgment on the entre argument.
In fact, t s probaby a bad dea to thnk that your task s to
dever a fna verdct on whether, say, Hobbes, Pato,
Rousseau, Descartes, and so on are worth readng or are
competent arguers. None of these thnkers s smpe mnded,
and f you fnd yoursef dsmssng the entre poston wth
one or two reatvey casua ponts, then you are probaby
mssng somethng centra n the argument.
150
In other words, as an evauator, begn wth a consderabe
respect for the person whose work you are addressng.
These books dd not become cassc works because they are
easy neutrazed or dsmssed; they are onto somethng
centra n an nterestng way. Ths fact does not mean that
you have to agree wth ther postons, of course, but t does
mean that you have to be carefu about conductng your
evauaton thoroughy. Thus, f you fnd yoursef wrtng them
off very easy, you are probaby, as I say, mssng an
mportant pont. Even f the argument we are deang wth s
from someone we have never heard of, t s a good dea to
gve her the beneft of the doubt at frst, and treat her case
as comng from someone serous and ntegent. We may
reverse that poston ater, but we shoud not do t too
qucky.
In any case, our task, as mentoned above, s not a fna yea
or nay on the entre poston. The task s somewhat humber,
but utmatey more rewardng: to expore one or two
aspects of the argument and to offer our refectons on what
s gong on n ths part of the text and the extent to whch
that s a fuy or ony partay usefu nsght nto the ssues.
In many cases, our evauaton of a text w be most usefu f
t smpy rases some awkward questons and expores how
ths thnker's poston mght dea wth them. Such a
procedure mght hep to confrm a very enthusastc
response to the text or to pont out some of the reasons for
our sense of dssatsfacton or puzzement wth the
argument. Ths stance, t shoud be cear, s very dfferent
from smpy nterpretng the busness of evauaton as
havng to determne whether or not the text has anythng
usefu to offer.
Thus, as a genera rue n evauatng arguments, thnk of
yoursef as seectng for cose scrutny a partcuar part of
the wrter's case, prasng strong ponts or exporng weak
ponts or questonng nadequaces or testng the method of
the thnker, rather than passng comprehensve |udgment.
Wth ths stance, t s not unkey that n many cases your
response to a partcuar part of a compex argument w
typcay be mxed: the wrter has an mportant hande on
part of the ssue and s qute persuasve wthn the
framework of partcuar assumptons; however, the
partcuar part of the argument whch you are consderng
rases questons whch create dffcutes (how mportant
those dffcutes are can, of course, vary consderaby and
w be an mportant factor n your evauaton of how
serousy mted ths part of the argument s).
At the same tme, remember the pont stressed above, that
an evauaton s not a summary. You are expected to brng
to bear upon a seected porton of the text your own
|udgment--an argumentatve stance. Ths may be pote, or
mxed, or strong, or questonng, but t s a persona
151
evauaton, not |ust a condensed revew wthout evauaton
of the argument you are addressng. Summares of
arguments have ther uses, but they are no substtute n an
assgnment whch requres an evauatve response (an
nterpretatve opnon about the argument, not smpy a
prcs of t).
Eva"uate Arguments &rom t!e Inside not t!e 4utside
A serous nadequacy n many student essays s that the
evauaton takes paces wthout any senstve entry nto the
text under consderaton. Here, for exampe, s a very
common form of essay from nexperenced wrters.
1. Thnker X (e.g., Rousseau, Arstote,
Machave, Hobbes, Pato, and so on) makes a
number of nta assumptons n deveopng hs
theory of the state. The most mportant of these
assumptons are A, B, and C.
2. But Thnker X s wrong, because the true
startng assumptons shoud not be A, B, and C,
whch are wrong (or nadequate), but M, N, and
P, whch are true.
3. Let's ook at some exampes of how Thnker X
s wrong. Exampe 1 shows that because Thnker
X does not beeve or consder M, N, and P, he s
wrong. If he had thought ceary about M, N, and
P, he woud have sad somethng dfferent.
The probem wth an argument ke ths s that s conssts of
tte more than mere asserton and does not dea at a wth
the nature of Thnker X's case. It may ndeed be true that
Thnker X's nta assumptons are thngs we no onger
beeve to be adequate or true (or do not wsh to be true),
but that does not necessary make hs argument worthess.
You need to examne hs case n the ght of hs own
assumptons.
In addton, f your ony case aganst Thnker X s a rva set
of assumptons (M, N, and P), and you smpy state these
bady wthout further ado, then we have no way of
assessng n any deta the vadty of Thnker X's poston,
except to recognze that you don't agree wth hm (and what
gves you the authorty to say that your nta unsupported
assumptons are any better than Thnker X's?).
I ca ths common tactc arguing fro the outside, because
t nvoves the comparatvey smpe and generay
unenghtenng procedure of brngng to bear on Thnker X
your own unproven assumptons and measurng a compex
argument by some smpe axoms that Thnker X has, at the
start of hs argument, not ncuded.
152
A ths process tends to acheve s to ndcate that you do
not agree wth hs or her nta assumptons, but t st
eaves the busness of evauatng the argument n any
further deta up to the reader wthout assstance from you.
It aso eaves you unabe to apprecate the vaue of
arguments whch are based on prncpes whch have been
repaced (e.g., the vaue of arguments about the nature of
the earth based on outdated theores of the earth's age).
Now, suppose you do fnd Thnker X's nta assumptons
probematc or you thnk they are ony partay correct
because they have omtted somethng that Thnker X needs
to take nto account. Rather than |ust bady contradctng
hs assumptons and nsstng upon the mportance of your
own, evauate what he does wth hs nta cams (from the
nsde) and rase ob|ectons, questons, and so forth at key
paces n the argument, so that your evauaton stems from
a perceved defcency or quaty n a sgnfcant deta of the
argument.
For exampe, suppose you are wrtng a paper evauatng
Hobbes's vews on soveregnty (about whch you have strong
reservatons or even an actve dske). Suppose further that
you recognze that one source of the probem may be n
Hobbes's nta assumptons about human psychoogy.
Rather than smpy denyng the vadty of those
assumptons, accept them hypothetcay and see what
Hobbes does wth them.
So, for exampe, you can trace the ogc of Hobbes's cam
that gvng a power to the soveregn s a ogca outcome of
hs vews of human nature, the state of nature, and the
formaton of the state. Now you can rase the awkward
queston: How does Hobbes propose to dea wth the ssue of
power corruptng? Based on hs own assumptons about
human nature, how w hs state protect tsef from what
Pato and Arstote, among others, ceary saw as a ma|or
danger to cv order? If the soveregn s a human beng, as
Hobbes's descrbes them, then how w the state be abe to
fuf ts functons, once he has a the power?
The next step woud be to expore what Hobbes has to say
about ths queston (because, as many good thnkers usuay
do, he has antcpated the ob|ecton). But how adequate are
hs responses (that a corrupt soveregn s better than a state
of nature, that the soveregn w not normay want to be
corrupt anyway, that the soveregn cannot come for your
fe)? And n your anayss of these responses ca attenton
to what you fee mght be ackng.
Notce what s happenng here. You are aways operatng n
drect contact wth the text, argung from the nsde, eadng
the reader to your basc ob|ectons about (or unease wth)
Hobbes through the detas of what Hobbes hmsef actuay
wrtes, so that as the reader goes through your essay, she s
153
earnng a great dea about Hobbes and about where you
sense partcuar aspects of the theory may be vunerabe.
Notce, too, what you are not dong: you are not smpy
mposng from outsde a preformed |udgment about what s
or s not the best way for human bengs to behave. You not
rasng ssues whch do not come drecty from the text tsef,
and whatever probems you have wth Hobbes are arsng
from his treatment of the sub|ect not from some deoogca
poston you prefer.
The same genera prncpes woud hod, for exampe, n an
examnaton of, say, the mportance of co-operaton and
Hobbes's apparent negect of t, Machave's treatment of
vrtue, Descartes's vew of anmas as machnes, Ptoemy's
treatment of the Phases of Venus, de Beauvor's sense of
femae sexuaty, or Pato's vew of the Soca Contract n the
Crto and so on. Tacke the argument through ts own
assumptons, expore how these ead to a partcuar
treatment of an mportant ssue, rase some questons about
the adequacy of that treatment (f you have any), and
evauate that treatment, f necessary by a reference back to
the nta assumptons. Thus, the reader comes to
understand your poston (approvng, mxed, or
dsapprovng) as arsng from your encounter wth the text
and not as smpy mposed by a fxed mnd set from outsde.
Ths process of argung from the nsde can be (very smpy,
perhaps too smpy) summarzed as foows:
1. Thnker X says that Y (some ssue) s to
understood n such and such a way.
2. Why does Thnker X make ths cam? (An
exporaton of the bass of the argument)
3. What s vauabe about ths anayss?
4. However, Thnker X's treatment here does
nvte one to rase some questons, aternatve
scenaros, counterexampes.
5. How woud Thnker X dea wth such
potentay awkward questons?
6. Ths seems ke a (satsfactory, unsatsfactory,
ogca, nadequate, straned, mted, and so
on) expanaton.
7. Ths pont, n fact, suggests an overa
probem wth the entre theory (or ndcates |ust
how ferte and usefu Thnker X's poston reay
s).
154
8. We can apprecate ths probem ceary by
consderng another pont (repeat process d to f).
Note that n the above structure you are gvng Thnker X a
good hearng n at east three respects:
1. You nk hs poston on a partcuar (and
perhaps controversa) ssue to the grounded
argument he makes from frst prncpes.
2. You concede the fact that there s somethng
n ths case (as there amost aways w be f you
are deang wth a thnker who s not thoroughy
smpe mnded).
3. When you rase an ob|ecton or an awkward
queston, you gve Thnker X the frst chance to
respond; n other words, you strve to
understand the probem n the terms defned by
the argument.
In the above structure, to a consderabe extent your
evauaton of Thnker X w therefore stem from the
appcaton of hs prncpes to a partcuar probem, rather
than from a rva set of assumptons. Of course you may
ntroduce rva assumptons, perhaps as a remnder that
there are aternatve ways of deang wth the awkwardness
n the argument, but do not make those unproven
assumptons carry more weght n your argument than they
can bear.
A of ths s very dfferent from smpy dsmssng Thnker X's
case because you cam you have better (truer) nta
assumptons than Thnker X does or because Thnker X ved
a ong tme ago, ong before the thngs we beeve are true
were known.
*e"e)t t!e +o)us $are&u""y
The evauatve structure outned above depends entrey on
your seectng a very specfc, cear, and mportant focus for
your essay. You cannot hope to provde a usefu evauaton
of the entre argument. What you want s a key pace n the
argument whch w enabe you, n a cose but restrcted
ook, to offer sgnfcant nsght nto the entre structure of
the argument.
In a sophstcated engthy argument there are a great many
potentay usefu entry ponts, but some may be more ferte
than others. So you need to gve carefu thought to what
specfc part of Thnker X's case s gong to provde the best
focus for your evauaton.
For nstance, f you are uneasy about, or puzzed by, or
supportve of Machave's concept of potca conduct, then
some sectons of hs argument mght be much more usefu
155
for an evauaton n a short essay than others (e.g., the
chapter on cruety or promses s probaby of more
mmedate use to you than, say, the dscusson of
fortfcatons or the secton on the unfcaton of Itay). If you
seect carefuy, you do not requre a very extensve part of
the text, but t must be one whch w enabe you to expore
those matters whch most concern you.
In any event, a cose ook at a carefuy seected focus s
amost aways better than a "scattergun" approach where
you roam throughout the entre text for exampes often not
obvousy cosey reated to each other. For f you can ca
nto queston certan ssues n key parts of the argument,
you w umnate through that method many other parts
whch you do not dea wth specfcay.
$!e)k $are&u""y Any Appea"s to $onte@t
Appeang the context s often a temptng way to dea wth
part of an argument. Ths s a rsky procedure, however, for
a number of reasons. In the frst pace, we often have no
way of knowng precsey what contextua or bographca
reasons prompt a wrter to construct an argument n a
certan way; thus, a good dea of often very questonabe
specuaton s frequenty nvoved. In the second pace, and
much more mportant, an appea to context often fas nto
the ma|or anaytca error of beevng that f one has
accounted for the possbe orgn of a part of the argument,
one has at the same tme adequatey deat wth the functon
of that part of the argument.
For nstance, many students are tempted to account for
Descartes's proof for God's exstence n the Meditations
merey as an attempt to fob off the regous authortes or as
an appea to the regous sensbtes of the readers. Havng
done ths, the wrter then moves on to other parts of the
argument, as f makng such an appea to context propery
deas wth the pace of the proofs of God's exstence n
Descartes's case.
But ths procedure s avodng the man ssue: What s the
functon of the proof of God n Descartes's argument and, no
matter what the orgn, how adequate s Descartes's
treatment of ths secton of the Meditations? The smpstc
appea to context has smpy brushed asde one of the
cruca stages of the centra case Descartes s presentng.
In a smar fashon, students w often wrte off Hobbes's
vew of potca obgaton merey as a product of Hobbes's
aeged devoton to captasm or to the growng nterest n
captasm n Hobbes's word. Once agan, such an anayss
msses the man pont: What s Hobbes's anayss of the
potca state and how satsfactory s t?
Appeas to context are often a very mportant part of very
detaed studes of the orgns of partcuar deas or artstc
works, and they can often usefuy expcate some thngs we
may fnd puzzng n the anguage. But n evauatng the
156
astng mert of a partcuar work, the wrter shoud be very
carefu that she s not smpy usng a reference to the
context as a means of by-passng the man chaenge of
evauatng how a part of the text functons n reatonshp to
the deveopng argument.
#se $ountere@amp"es Inte""igent"y
An mportant part of evauatng an argument s often the use
of counterexampes, that s, of speca scenaros or case
studes whch chaenge Thnker X's theory.
For exampe, you mght want, n an anayss of, say,
Machave, to offer counterexampes of Prnces who have
hed to a tradtona vew of vrtue and prospered (n
Machave's sense of prosperng) or of those who have hed
unswervngy to Machavean prncpes and faed. Or, n an
anayss of, say, Hobbes, you mght want to offer the
counterexampe of co-operatve behavour or an emphass
on communty. If the argument you are examnng rees
heavy upon exampes (as, for exampe, Machave's does),
then counter-exampes can be very usefu (or, f not specfc
counter-exampes, at east an examnaton of the adequacy
of the exampes n the argument).
Such counterexampes are, n themseves, never very
satsfactory refutatons of any compex poston. However,
they are often reay usefu ways of exporng the adequacy
of Thnker X's poston. So the vaue of counterexampes
comes from how you use them to hghght strengths and
weaknesses of Thnker X's case.
It s, of course, partcuary mportant that, when you
ntroduce a counterexampe, you frst appy to t Thnker X's
method of anayss. How mght Thnker X respond to what
you are puttng on the tabe? And then, n your anayss of
that response you can ustrate the strengths or weaknesses
or mtatons of Thnker X's poston. Obvousy, f you can
come up wth a cogent counterexampe whch drecty
contradcts Thnker X's poston or whch hs argument
smpy cannot expan, then you have a strong case for
chaengng the assumptons and the ogc whch have
created that stuaton (provded, of course, that your own
assumptons and ogc are sound).
Be very carefu n ths process that you gve Thnker X a far
hearng, because n some cases the probem may not be
wth Thnker X's case n tsef but wth the exampe. For
nstance, f you seect an extreme counterexampe of a
corrupt soveregn n order to chaenge Hobbes's cam that
the corrupton at the top s preferabe to the aternatve (say,
for exampe, Hter's treatment of the German |ews), then
you w at east have to consder the pont that that exampe
mght, n Hobbes's vew, endorse hs poston rather than
dsprove t, snce Hobbes s very cear that your obgaton to
obey ceases when the soveregn comes for your fe and that
you have then the rght to fght back by any means at your
157
dsposa (.e., f the |ews had broken ther contract to obey
and acted as f they were n the state of nature, they mght
not have ded n such staggerng numbers and the soveregn
mght have faen; Hobbes argues that they had a fu rght
to do so). Ths extreme exampe, I shoud add, mght be
deveoped further nto a sgnfcant crtque of Hobbes's
poston, but by tsef t s not necessary a very strong case,
unt you have deat wth the way Hobbes's argument treats
t.
In other words, when deang wth counterexampes, thnk
very carefuy about whether ths nstance s a chaenge to
the bass of Thnker X's argument or whether t mght not be
smpy an exampe of an nsuffcenty rgorous appcaton of
hs poston.
Counterexampes can come from varous sources. For
exampe, other wrters w often be a usefu source (what
about Arstote's noton of communty n a consderaton of
Hobbes's state or Harvey's notons of expermenta evdence
n a consderaton of Descartes's method, and so on). That s
the reason comparatve essays are often so usefu: one
wrter serves as a counterexampe to the other.
Aternatvey, counterexampes can come from hstorca
events (for exampe, the defeat of the Athenans n the
Peoponnesan War as a counterexampe to Machave's
advce, modern communa soca experments as a chaenge
to Hobbes's atomsed state, and so on). Be very carefu of
hstorca exampes, however, snce they are amost aways
compex and nherenty ambguous, there beng many
dfferent nterpretatons of what reay happened and why.
Counterexampes can aso be made up as mn-thought
experments. These are often the most nterestng and
usefu. For nstance, to expcate Descartes's frst proof for
the exstence of God you mght want to ask the reader to
consder the magnary case n whch you fnd your eght-
year-od chd competng a drawng of a hghy sophstcated
computer network. Ths, n fact, never happened, but you
want to use the exampe to eaborate and expore
Descartes's noton that some events must have a cause
whch contans at east as much reaty as the event (.e., t
s reasonabe to concude that the source of the drawng s n
a much more sophstcated mnd than the chd's).
Whatever counterexampes you come up wth (and t s a
very good technque to practce), remember that you are
ntroducng them ony to throw nto reef partcuar features
of the text you are consderng. In other words, the
counterexampes themseves prove nothng about the text
or the word n genera. They can, however, hghght certan
questons about or probems wth a part of the argument you
are consderng, so that f you then use the counterexampe
to see how Thnker X mght dea wth t, you can often
158
umnate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Thnker
X's poston n varous ways.
You can ony do ths, however, f you gve Thnker X a proper
chance to dea wth the counterexampe. Notce the
structure of the foowng paragraph n ths connecton
(whch eaborates on the chd's computer drawng
ntroduced above, a summary pont made by |ohn
Cottngham):
Now, Descartes's frst proof for God's exstence
does have some nta pausbty. For exampe,
f I dscovered my ten-year-od daughter had
drawn an apparenty accurate dagram of a very
sophstcated computer system, I woud qucky
nfer that some mnd other than the chd's (and
one much more nformed about computers) had
been at work (or ese another dagram produced
by such a mnd) and was, n fact, the source of
the dea. The anaogy here seems cear and
dstnct enough, snce obvousy the chd's mnd
coud not have produced the dagram unaded.
So to that extent Descartes's argument that the
dea of God's perfecton n an mperfect creature
must come from a dvne source seems far
enough. But, of course, there's a probem here,
because Descartes's dea of God may not be a
that smar to a compex computer desgn.
Consder the same case of my chd's drawng,
but ths tme I fnd a pcture of a back square
box and a abe "Very bg computer" underneath
t. In that scenaro, I woud be far ess key to
have a cear and dstnct percepton that some
mnd greater than the chd's produced the
mage. Descartes mght deny that hs concepton
of God s ndeed ke ths smpe dagram;
however, f ths second scenaro s a better
anaogy to Descartes's noton of God than the
frst, then, for a the nta pausbty,
Descartes's frst argument for the exstence of
God does not appear a that sound.
Notce here that fndng a potenta weakness through
appyng a counterexampe does not entte one mmedatey
to chuck out the entre argument. You have dentfed a key
probem and w go on to expore how that affects your
response to Descartes's case (or whatever part of t you
have seected to focus upon), but you are not at once
dsmssng Descartes as a thnker no onger worth attendng
to.
159
'0(6 *ome *amp"e 4ut"ines &or *!ort Essays
Eva"uating Arguments
Here are some sampe outnes for argumentatve and
nterpretatve essays on texts whch present arguments. The
assumpton s that these are short essays of about 1000
words (.e., four or fve paragraphs). Notce, as before, how
the outne narrows the focus to somethng very specfc,
how the thess presents an argumentatve opnon about
that focus, and then how the topc sentences (other than the
ones mmedatey after the ntroductory paragraph whch
defne the ssue further) a deveop that thess (and do not
smpy rete the argument).
Essay A
Genera Sub|ect: Hobbes's argument n the
Leviathan
Focus 1: Hobbes's concept of soveregnty
Focus 2: Hobbes concept of soveregnty: the
dangers to the state of a corrupt monarch.
Thess: One of the ma|or questons one wants to
rase about Hobbes's vson of the modern state
s hs nsstence that the tota power beongs to
the soveregn. Ths woud seem, on the face of t,
a dangerous dea whch woud ead away from
the very thngs Hobbes beeves |ustfy the
estabshment of the commonweath n the frst
pace.
TS 1: Before anayzng Hobbes's vew of
soveregnty, we shoud qucky revew how he
comes to defne t the way he does. (Paragraph
defnes Hobbes's concept: ths paragraph s
defnng the ssue, not startng the argument)
TS 2: Ths concept obvousy has some merts
wthn the context of Hobbes's argument.
(Paragraph argues that ths concept makes
sense n some respects)
TS 3: However, the frst queston one woud want
to rase about t s ths: How s the
commonweath to be protected from the
corrupton of the soveregn? (Paragraph goes on
to argue that ths s a rea danger, especay
gven Hobbes's vew of human nature)
TS 4: There are two reasonabe ways n whch
Hobbes seeks to answer ths charge. (Paragraph
160
goes on to argue that Hobbes's case takes care
of ths ob|ecton to some extent).
TS 5: However, these aspects of Hobbes's
argument are probematc. (Paragraph goes on
to argue that Hobbes's defence of ths charge
woud not be entrey satsfactory)
TS 6: To apprecate these probem et us
consder a typca case of a corrupt soveregn.
(Paragraph uses a counterexampe to
consodate the ponts made above).
Concuson: The dangers of a corrupt soveregn
are ceary somethng Hobbes takes nto
account. However, we have good reason to
wonder about how satsfactory hs treatment of
ths potenta ob|ecton mght be. (Paragraph
sums up the argument)
Essay 2
Genera Sub|ect: Pato's /epublic
Focus 1: Pato's vews on art n Book X
Focus 2: Pato's vews on art: censorshp by the
state
Thess: Pato's dscusson of censorshp of art s
of partcuar nterest. It rases some key ssues
about the corruptng nfuence of certan forms
of art, questons as much ave today as at the
tme ths text frst appeared.
TS 1: One key ob|ecton to certan forms of art
rased by Socrates s that t encourages those
aspects of the human psyche detrmenta to the
harmony necessary to proper vng. Ths pont
arses naturay out of Socrates's concepton of
the human sou and, from a common sense pont
of vew, s qute persuasve. (Paragraph argues
that ths pont about art has a certan
|ustfcaton for the reasons Socrates brngs up)
TS 2: A second reason for censorshp s the
partcuary nterestng pont that debased art
corrupts the understandng. Agan, ths pont has
consderabe mert. (Paragraph argues that ths
defence of censorshp s aso persuasve)
TS 3: Most of us woud st have some troube
agreeng wth such censorshp. (Paragraph
161
brngs to bear some ob|ectons to Pato's
recommendatons)
TS 4: However, f we reca the nature of those n
charge of the censorshp n Pato's /epublic,
perhaps we woud fnd t much easer to accept
the practce. (Paragraph gves Pato a chance to
argue a response to the ob|ectons gven n the
prevous paragraph)
Concuson: Many dscussons of the queston of
censorshp today contnue to take pace wthn
the framework defned by Pato n ths secton of
the /epublic. (Paragraph goes on to summarze
the argument and restate the thess)
Essay $
Genera Sub|ect: |ohn Stuart M's 0n Liberty
Focus 1: M's concept of open free dscusson
Focus 2: M's concept of open free dscusson:
some probems
Thess: Whe |usty famous as an eoquent
statement of bera prncpes, M's key concept
of free and open dscusson rases some
mportant questons whch M does not address.
TS 1: The frst and most obvous queston s ths:
Where are such free dscussons to take pace?
(Paragraph argues that M's socety does not
have enough open paces for dscusson).
TS 2: A reated crtcsm cas attenton to those
who are excuded from such forums. M's
argument does not seem to have much pace for
them. (Paragraph argues that many peope w
ack the quafcatons to take part).
TS 3: In defense of M, one mght argue that
these two ob|ectons are not etha: there are
ways of deang wth them n the context of hs
presentaton. (Paragraph acknowedges the
opposton and tres to answer the ob|ectons
usng M's theory).
TS 4: Ths sounds a very we n theory, but n
practce many peope are gong to be excuded.
That s cear from the way M nssts the
debates shoud take pace. (Paragraph argues
162
that the defense of M n the prevous
paragraph s not adequate).
TS 5: It doesn't take much magnaton to
vsuaze a socety whch mpements M's
recommendatons and yet excudes a ma|orty of
ts ctzens from pubc forums. (Paragraph uses
a counterexampe).
Concuson: The strength of M's case s the
appea of a ratona bera democracy, but ts
weaknesses stem from the same source.
(Paragraph goes on to sum up the argument)
'0(7 Writing *!ort Arguments About 9yri)
,oetry
An assgnment students often have partcuar dffcuty wth
s a short essay on a yrc poem. Ths creates probems
because yrc poems do not usuay dea wth
characterzaton, argument, or narratve, the three most
common entres nto a work of terature. In order to carfy
what such an assgnment cas for we need frst to revew
qucky what a yrc poem s and how we are expected to
read t.
Reading a 9yri) ,oem
Typcay a yrc poem s a short refectve or medtatve
passage by a speaker, the voce utterng the words (who s
not to be automatcay dentfed as the poet). Ths speaker
may or may not have a cear dentty (.e., the poem may
provde some detas about hm or her, or t may not). In
your essay, you shoud aways refer to the speakng voce of
the poem as the speaker (not as the author) and never
nterpret the poem smpy as a bographca nsght nto the
author. Generay t s a good dea to pretend that you do not
know who the author s.
In the yrc, the speaker s typcay medtatng on some
aspect of fe, tryng to communcate a feeng or a range of
feengs about a common experence. The quaty of the yrc
poem w normay depend upon the extent to whch the
yrc communcates n an magnatvey movng way some
nsght nto that experence. If you remember that popuar
songs are yrc poems and thnk about why you ke some
song yrcs better than others, you w sense better what a
yrc poem s and why some are better than others.
The frst task n readng a yrc poem s to carfy the tera
eve of the poem. Ths w take severa readngs. But you
must deveop some answers to the foowng questons: Who
s the speaker of the poem (detas may be few here, but
earn as much as you can: age, gender, stuaton)? Where s
the speaker (n the cty, the country, ookng at somethng)?
163
What genera experence s the speaker thnkng about (ove,
tme, oss, nature, growng od)? Is the poem ookng
backward nto a memory or forward nto a future or
remanng fxed n the present, or, most mportanty, does
the speaker's attenton shft from the present to the past
and the future? Is the speaker addressng anyone n the
poem (a over, God, another part of hmsef)?
You cannot proceed to organze an nterpretatve argument
unt you are as cear as you can be about a these tera
detas. If you fnd a poem's tera detas confusng or
ambguous (and that's not uncommon), then dscuss t wth
someone ese, so that you arrve together at some
understandng of the tera detas of the poem. If you come
across words you do not understand exacty, make sure you
ook them up n a dctonary.
Once you have a sense of the tera detas of the poem,
search out the answer to ths key queston: What feengs or
range of feengs s the speaker exporng about the
experence he or she s deang wth? Ths s the cruca pont
of a yrc poem. As wth popuar songs, yrc poems generay
dea wth one of a short st of genera sub|ects: ove,
memores, death, oss, nature. What dstngushes yrc
poems from each other s the way n whch the speakers
respond to these common experences.
In tryng to sort out the speaker's feengs about the
experence she s deang wth, pay partcuar attenton to
any changes n feengs or contradctons n feengs. Does
the speaker's mood shft from despar to |oy, from happness
at a past memory to resgnaton at future prospects? If ths
s a ove poem, what s the fu range of the speaker's
feengs about the experence (|oy, btterness, frustraton,
gut, anger, despar, meanchoy or some combnaton)?
Lyrc poems (ke songs) are often ambguous, expressng
contradctory and shftng feengs, and often they do not
ead to a resouton of those feengs. They are not ke
ratona arguments, whch seek a near carty and cosure.
As often as not, the speaker may be questonng her own
feengs, unsure of what they a mean exacty.
As you nterpret the poem, do not get confused about the
tme shfts. Pay attenton to the verbs; these ndcate
whether the speaker s takng about the past, the present,
or the future. Ths s partcuary mportant n some
medtatve yrcs where comparng the past and the present
s the centra ssue. In fact, f there s a shft back and forth
ke ths, then that s amost certany an mportant key to
understandng the poem (e.g., the speaker recas wth |oy
the exctement of beng young, turns to the present wth
sadness because that exctement s gone, and ooks ahead
to the future wth despar: ths tempora structure s very
common n yrc poems and s especay common n rock 'n'
164
ro, especay wth Dyan, Sprngsteen, Wats, and many
others).
*tru)turing a *!ort Interpretative Essay on a 9yri)
,oem
Once you have read and re-read the poem suffcenty to
have a frm sense of the above ssues, you can then move to
organzng an essay whch nterprets the yrc or part of t.
Remember that the functon of ths essay s to assst the
reader to apprecate the poem. So you are gong to present
an argument (as you woud n a fm revew), cang
attenton to somethng whch, n your vew, gves ths poem
a certan quaty (good, bad, mxed, or whatever). The
centra ssue to address n such an essay s ths: How do one
or more partcuar features of the stye of the poem
contrbute to the quaty of the exporaton of feeng whch s
gong on n the poem?
Generay speakng t s a good dea to start n the usua way
wth a Sub|ect-Focus-Thess paragraph. Ths w dentfy the
poem you are deang wth, ca attenton to the speaker and
the experence he s exporng, and estabsh a thess whch
argues for a certan nterpretatve |udgment about the
poem. The man part of the argument (three or four
paragraphs) w seek to persuade the reader of that thess
by takng a very cose ook at certan eements n the stye,
that s, n the way the anguage of the poem makes t work
we or poory.
Here's a sampe ntroducton whch foows the standard
openng for a short, argumentatve essay, wth some topc
sentences for the argumentatve paragraphs:
*amp"e Introdu)tion and 4ut"ine &or Essay
A on a 9yri) ,oem
In Sonnet 73 Shakespeare returns to one of hs
favourte poetc themes, the dsappontments of
ove. Here the speaker, addressng a over or a
dear frend, s ceary fed wth a sense that
somethng s comng to an end n ther
reatonshp. It may be that he s od and tryng
to come to terms wth hs approachng death or
that he s |ust feeng od and tred, emotonay
empty and dead. In ether case, the predomnant
mood of the poem, from start to fnsh, s a quet
resgnaton, a tred acceptance of the
nevtabty of what s happenng. The stye of
the poem brngs out repeatedy the speaker's
sombre, unexcted, even passve
acknowedgement that he s, emotonay or
physcay, about to de.
165
TS 1: We get a cear sense of ths prevang
mood argey through the magery (The
paragraph goes on to dscuss how the sequence
of mages renforces ths sense).
TS 2: The anguage, too, evokes a sense of
resgned acceptance whch speaks eoquenty of
the prevang mood. (Paragraph goes on to
nterpret partcuar words and phrases to
estabsh ths pont)
TS 3: What s most remarkabe n ths evocatve
and sad mood s that the speaker does not
bame anyone, not even hmsef. The constant
emphass on natura processes and the subdued
anguage suggest that the end s nevtaby
fated. (Paragraph dscusses ths pont)
Notce how the man emphass n ths argument s not the
experence the speaker s descrbng (the death of the
reatonshp) but rather the speaker's response to that
experence, the range of moods he goes through, as these
emerge from the anguage, magery, and rhythms of the
poem.
To wrte a successfu argumentatve nterpretaton of a yrc
poem, you must grasp ths prncpe that the nterpretaton
ooks at how the anguage of the poem reveas thngs about
the quaty of the speaker's response. Ths s not easy at
frst, but uness you commt yoursef to dong t, you w not
be nterpretng the poem. And pease note, as before, that
none of the paragraphs above s summarzng the detas of
the poem (that s, |ust transatng t nto another anguage).
Do not smpy recast the poem nto your own words (frst the
speaker says ths. . . . ; then the speaker says that. . . . ).
Here s another sampe. Notce once agan the characterstc
emphass n the argument nkng aspects of the stye of the
poem to the range of feengs of the speaker.
*amp"e 4ut"ine &or Essay 2
Sub|ect: Frost's "Mendng Wa"
Focus: The ambguty of the speaker's feengs
about the process of mendng the wa.
Thess: Frost's anguage and, n partcuar, hs
magery create throughout the poem a sense of
the speaker's dvded feengs about what he and
hs neghbour do every sprng. The resut s an
ntrgungy compex yrc.
166
TS 1: The mages of sprng and the speaker's
nterest n them evoke a feeng that he senses
that there s somethng unnatura about the wa
he and hs neghbour are budng. He s, to some
extent, dssatsfed wth the procedure.
(Paragraph dscusses one or two exampes of
these mages to brng out the pont)
TS 2: At the same tme, however, the way he
descrbes the wa and the process of rebudng
t suggests ceary that he fnds the rtua
en|oyabe, amost magca, and, n a curous way,
necessary. (Paragraph takes a detaed ook at
another part of the poem to estabsh ths pont)
TS 3: Partcuary sgnfcant n the yrc s the
descrpton of the neghbour. Ths n|ects nto the
poem a sudden feeng of how the speaker s
both fascnated and afrad of hs co-worker.
(Paragraph goes on to ook at the descrpton of
the neghbour n deta).
*ome .oBs and .onBt +or Essays on 9yri) ,oems
Here are some ponts to consder as you thnk about
structurng an outne for a short essay on a yrc poem:
1. Never smpy transate the surface detas of
the poem nto a prose summary of your own.
Assume the reader of your essay has read the
poem and needs hep n understandng t. She
does not need to be tod what the poem
contans; she wants to know the sgnfcance of
parts of t, what the yrc adds up to.
2. Do not eap to nstanty aegorca
nterpretatons n whch you smpy transate the
mages nto some symboc equvaent. Dea wth
the poem on a tera eve frst: expore what t
has to revea about the feengs of the speaker,
takng the mages qute teray frst (e.g., the
tree s a tree, the sun s the sun, and so on). You
can expore the wder symboc possbtes (and
you shoud) ater n the essay.
3. For the same reason, do not transate the
poem nto an autobographca comment on the
author's fe. There may be mportant
connectons between the wrtng of the poem
and the author's fe, but treat the poem n your
essay as a work ndependent of ts author.
167
Agan, that s a pont you can come back to, f
you have to, near the end of the essay.
4. Be carefu of your anguage when you are
dscussng a poem. Notce that there s an
mportant dfference between "a dsgustng
mood" and "a mood of dsgust." The frst means
that you personay fnd the speaker's atttude
repusve (.e., t reay offends you); the second
means that you sense that the speaker s
reactng wth dsgust to the experence she s
exporng.
5. Remember, too, that you are not n your essay
tryng to fx the exact meanng of the yrc. You
are exporng possbe nterpretatons. So don't
be too ham-fsted n your anguage. Usuay t's
better to avod phrases ke "Ths ne means . . ."
or "The symbo obvousy represents . . ."
Generay speakng words ke "suggests,"
"rases the possbty," "evokes a sense of,"
"expresses" and so on are more effectve n
conveyng a sense of the emotona range of the
speaker. Ths pont s connected wth the
probem of overstatng the concuson of an
nductve argument.
6. Never |ust quote a secton from the poem and
move on, wthout ndcatng n some deta why
those nes or words hep to estabsh what you
are argung as an nterpretaton n the
paragraph.
7. Do not make the paragraphs of the essay
smpy a cataogue of exampes ("There are
some nce mages n the frst stanza," "There are
more mages of trees n the thrd stanza," and so
on)
'0(8 *amp"e Essay on a 9yri) ,oem
Here s a sampe of a short essay on a yrc poem. Notce
that the essay does not summarze the poem. Instead t sets
up an opnon about the poem (the thess) and then
paragraph by paragraph dscusses a partcuar part of the
poem n order to substantate that thess.
2ob .y"anBs E%!e %ambourine ManE: An
Interpretation
168
Bob Dyan's poem "The Tambourne Man"
expores the feengs of a person who wants to
escape from a fearfu word n whch he fees
trapped, wthout the abty to move away or to
magne as he woud ke. The poem s bascay a
pea for hep n escapng hs present condton, f
ony temporary. Athough much of the work
expresses a rather sentmenta wsh to dea wth
pan by mmedate escape and athough much of
the magery s a bt fuzzy, on the whoe the
poem, and especay the magery and sound
patterns, succeed n conveyng we the
attractve ongng of the speaker for magnatve
reease.
Much of the anguage n the poem suggests that
the speaker fnds no satsfacton n any past
achevements and s seekng, even desperate
for, some way out of an unwecome present. As
a resut he fees trapped and unwng to face
the word n whch he fnds hmsef. For exampe,
words ke "vanshed," "bndy," "wearness,"
"empty," "strpped," "numb," and so on
constanty renforce the sense that the speaker
fnds nothng en|oyabe or creatve n hs present
stuaton, argey because hs nervous system
and senses have ceased to functon as he woud
ke. Some of these expressons of dssatsfacton
are rather puzzng. There s no mstakng the
mood, but the precse stuaton remans eusve.
Notce, for exampe, the foowng nes:
Though I know that evenn's empre
has returned nto sand
Vanshed from my hand,
Left me bndy here to stand
But st no seepn'.
I'm branded on my feet,
I have no one to meet,
And the ancent empty street's
Too dead for dreamn'. (5-13)
Ths passage s fu of words evokng the
speaker's sense of pan, oss, and frustraton
("vanshed," "ancent empty," and so on), but
there s no precse sense of a partcuar reason.
The ntrgung mage of "Evenn's empre has
returned nto sand" suggests somethng about
the coapse of an experence that was truy
rewardng, somethng that temporary
transformed hs fe from a desert nto somethng
169
much rcher. The fna ne, "Too dead for
dreamn'," brngs out a sense that the root cause
may be some magnatve faure, so that he has
become the vctm of an ncapacty to respond
as he woud ke. The noton of brandng n ne 9
renforces ths noton that the speaker fees ke
a prsoner of some sort. Later n the poem the
most evocatve anguage descrbes the
speaker's fear of remanng where he s; he
wants to move "Far from the twsted reach of
crazy sorrow." Ths mage presents a graphc
and threatenng sense of what he wants to
escape from, a magnant and rratona creature
whch, f t ever catches hm, w cose hm
nexoraby n sorrow. The mage n|ects a note of
rea urgency nto hs desre for reease.
The magery, whch s often a bt fuzzy,
emphaszes that the speaker desres an
mmedate reease from hs present reaty. Here
the essentay escapst and sentmenta nature
of the poem show through ceary. For many of
the mages whch express hs desres are rather
mprecse: "Magc, swrn' shp," "the smoke
rngs of my mnd," and "the crcus sands," for
exampe. These phrases evoke a sense of how
much the speaker wants to dscover a ream of
magnatve reease, but they are very cose to
cchs and do not ceary defne what t s
exacty that the speaker wshes to fnd. What, for
exampe, does he mean by "I'm ready for to
fade/ nto my own parade." The wsh s rea
enough, but t reay does not convey anythng
much more precse than a vague wsh to escape
nto hs own persona feengs. The most
domnant mage, that of the Tambourne Man
hmsef, to whom the poem s addressed,
carfes thngs somewhat. It gves us the
mpresson that the speaker may be n need of
some energzng rhythm (of the sort provded by
a tambourne), so that he can "dance," that s,
fnd wthn hmsef the co-ordnatng energy to
express a sense of hs |oy n fe.
One feature of the stye makes ths yrc, no
matter how escapst parts of t may be, reay
memorabe: the tona quates of the anguage.
Dyan succeeds here n conveyng an nfectous
sense of the attractons of the rhythmc dance
he wants the Tambourne Man to provde. Ths
quaty s obvous enough f one stens to the
song, but t s aso cear n the yrcs on the page.
For nstance, the nes contan a good dea of
170
ateraton: "|nge, |ange," "swrn' shp,"
senses . . . strpped," "for to fade," and so forth.
Ths characterstc, combned wth the very
strong and obvous rhyme scheme throughout,
gves to the nes an emphatc and attractve
energy, so that as we read we can sense how
the speaker's mood of frustraton and fear about
the word he has been n s beng transformed
nto somethng energzng and attractve.
Athough much of the poem contans magery
suggestng the panfu desoaton of the rea
word, the tone of the poem s not mournfu, for
the energy n the anguage, and especay n the
sound patterns of ateraton, rhythm, and
rhyme, convey a sense that the speaker has not
gven up. He s fu of hope that the Tambourne
Man's gft of musc w, n fact, berate hm.
"The Tambourne Man," ke so many popuar
songs, s bascay qute thn, answerng to the
speaker's (and perhaps to the reader's) desre to
resove the panfuness of fe by a temporary
escape nto a |oyous energy, a sotary dance far
removed from present surroundngs. What
precsey the Tambourne Man represents s not
cear, but t seems that he offers the speaker the
energzng |oys of musc. He w not resove the
dffcutes of the speaker's fe, but he w, at
east for a tme, hep the speaker to forget about
them. What sets ths poem above so many
smar ones s the sk wth whch the poet has
organzed the words-especay the mages and
the sounds-to convey a memorabe sense of the
powers of the Tambourne Man. It may be
escapst, but t's hard to resst.
?otes on t!e *amp"e Essay
Make sure you recognze the foowng ponts about the
essay above.
1. The above essay s approxmatey 1000 words
ong. It conssts of ony fve paragraphs: one
ntroductory paragraph (wth the sub|ect-focus-
thess format), three paragraphs of argument,
and a fna concudng paragraph.
2. The openng paragraph begns by dentfyng
the poem and estabshes ceary the focus of the
essay (the magery and sound patters n reaton
to the speaker's feengs about fe) and set up a
ceary opnonated thess (whch s an
nterpretatve opnon).
171
3. Notce partcuary that the ntroductory
paragraph gets rght down to the pont, wthout
dgressng nto detas of the author's fe and
tmes. And the openng drects our attenton
away from the poet onto the centra ssue: the
feengs of the speaker.
4. Each argumentatve paragraph (.e.,
paragraphs two, three, and four) dentfes an
nterpretatve pont n the openng topc
sentence and then offers some exampes,
sometmes by quotng a few nes, sometmes
|ust by cang attenton to snge words. And,
once the wrter has ntroduced such evdence,
she then goes on mmedatey to nterpret t;
that s, she dscusses how that partcuar
matera estabshes the pont she s makng n
the topc sentence. She never |ust quotes
matera and moves onto somethng ese.
5. Nowhere does the essay attempt to
summarze the poem. It assumes that the reader
s aready very famar wth the poem. And she
deas wth the magery teray; she does not
transate t nto somethng ese (e.g., the
Tambourne Man must be a drug deaer, the
experence the speaker wants s to get totay
hgh on narcotcs).
'0('0 Writing Revie=s o& +ine and ,er&orming
Arts Events
A revew s, ke the norma coege essay, an expostory
argument. You are presentng your opnon of what you have
seen and are seekng to persuade the reader to share that
opnon. Lke any argument, a revew must have a cear ogc
(based on a frm opnon, or thess), wth an ntroducton and
a sequence of paragraphs presentng we organzed
evdence. The foowng notes may hep you produce a
better revew. There s a sampe short revew at the end of
these notes.
1. Frst of a, remember that you are wrtng the
revew for someone who s thnkng of gong to
the event and woud apprecate some advce
and for someone who has seen the show and s
nterested n readng what someone ese thnks
about t. Nether of these peope needs a
descrptve rehash of the event. What they are
ookng for s an evauaton.
172
2. It s customary to open a revew by ndcatng
the name, pace, and tme of the event you are
revewng. Identfy those responsbe for puttng
on the event, ndcatng (usuay) the genera
content of the show. You shoud do ths brefy,
wth no dgressons. The ntroducton normay
coses wth the wrter's overa opnon of the
event (the centra opnon), whch s, n effect,
the thess of the revew.
3. Your coordnatng opnon at the end of the
ntroducton must present your consdered
opnon of the whoe experence. Normay ths
opnon w fa nto one of three categores: (a)
unequvoca prase (everythng s spenddy
successfu), (b) unequvoca crtcsm (everythng
s a mess), and, most commony, (c) a mxed
opnon (some thngs work we, but there are
aso some probems). A statement ndcatng
your reacton must appear eary n the revew (at
the end of the frst paragraph).
4. Once you have ntroduced the event and your
opnon, n the sequence of paragraphs whch
foows (the argument), you w dscuss one
eement of the event at a tme, seekng to
ndcate to the reader why you fee about the
producton the way you do. You w not be abe
to cover a aspects of the event, so seect the
three or four most mportant features whch
heped to shape your reacton most decsvey.
5. Remember that the purpose of the revew s
not (repeat not) smpy to descrbe the event or
the background to t (e.g., to rete the story of
the pay, to provde detas about the pantngs,
to gve a hstory of the author or the
organzaton sponsorng the event): your task s
to descrbe why you fee about t the way you
do. A very common mstake wth revew
assgnments s for the wrter to dgress nto a
sorts of other matters. So f you fnd yoursef
reteng the story of the pay or takng at ength
about the wrter or panter or anythng not
drecty reevant to the argument, the revew s
gong astray).
6. Be partcuary carefu wth pays. The revew
s not a terary nterpretaton of the text
(athough that may enter nto t brefy). The
revew s an evauaton of the producton, whch
173
s an nterpretaton of the pay (note that the
terms play and production mean sgnfcanty
dfferent thngs: the producton s what you are
concerned wth, so n your revew refer to the
event as the production, not the play-uness you
wsh to say somethng about the scrpt).
7. Dscuss ony one aspect of the event n each
paragraph. Begn the paragraph by announcng
how ths aspect affected your response (e.g.,
"One reay successfu part of ths pay s the set
desgn, whch reay brngs out we the compex
mood of the pece" or "Many of the pantngs,
however, are not very nterestng, wth bana
sub|ects very conventonay presented"). Then
n the paragraph dscuss ony that announced
sub|ect. Do not change the sub|ect n md
paragraph. If you want to change the sub|ect to
dscuss another aspect of the event, then start a
new paragraph.
8. Once you have ntroduced the sub|ect of the
paragraph, then you must ntroduce evdence
from the show and argue how that evdence
shaped your reacton. The quaty of the revew
stems n arge part from the way n whch you do
ths. If, for exampe, you start the paragraph by
sayng that the supportng actors are not very
good, then you must provde evdence (facts)
from the producton. And that evdence must be
detaed (see the next pont).
9. The queston of deta s a mportant. For
exampe, f you say somethng ke "The man
actress s very good, but the mae ead s not up
to her standard," you have expressed an
opnon, but we need more deta. What does the
man actress actuay do on stage whch makes
you thnk ths way about her performance? What
does the mae ead do or not do whch makes
you thnk ths way about hs performance? Note
the dfference between the above statements
and the foowng:
The man actress s very good,
especay n the way she contros
her gestures and her voce at the
key moments of the producton. Ths
s especay apparent n the fna
scene, where she sts down
throughout, yet manages wth the
174
gestures and the controed anger n
her voce to convey fuy |ust what
the character s experencng. The
mae ead s not up to her standard.
He moves much too woodeny and
speaks as f he s havng troube
rememberng hs nes. He needs to
n|ect some rea feeng nto many
passages, partcuary n hs
decaraton of ove n Act II.
10. Notce that n ths second exampe, there s
enough deta for the actors whom you are
prasng and crtczng to understand why you
fee the way you do, so that, f they wanted, they
coud do somethng about ther performances
(whereas f a you say s "good" or "not so good"
they have very tte to go on). Your revew w
not be successfu f you do not get nto ths sort
of deta. Ths means that you shoud dscuss
fewer thngs n a revew than you mght want to
n order to gve a fu treatment to what you do
dscuss.
11. Ths eve of deta appes aso when you are
revewng art. Don't |ust sum up a panter or a
work of art wth a word or two of genera prase
or censure. Provde the suppementary detas
(taken drecty from the works you are ookng
at) so that the reader understands the
partcuars out of whch your opnon arses.
What ths means, n practce, s that the revew
shoud consst of reatvey few but substanta
paragraphs rather than of many short
paragraphs (n a 1000 word revew, for exampe,
you mght have room for perhaps three
paragraphs of argument after the ntroducton).
12. In organzng the revew, you can choose to
dscuss what you want to. And remember that
many thngs enter nto the event apart from the
most mmedatey obvous: the settng (the
arrangement of the space), the prce, the
treatment of the audence or vewng pubc, the
audence, the ncdenta musc, the hangng of
the pantngs, the acoustcs, and so on. At tmes
these mght be worthy of menton (f they
affected your response sgnfcanty). However,
some ssues are centra to the event, and you
can hardy choose to gnore them. For nstance,
n a revew of a pay, you must make some
detaed menton of the actng. In an art show,
you must spend consderabe space dscussng
175
specfc pantngs (even f you cannot dea wth
them a). In a revew of a musca performance,
you must dscuss the quaty of the payng or
sngng or both.
13. As you wrte the revew, dentfy the peope
nvoved as you dscuss them. "Mona Chsom,
who pays the herone |ance, s we matched
wth Brad Ashey, n the roe of Fred. . ."; "The
drecton, by Ace McTavsh, s crsp and
effectve. . ."; "The frst von, Mchae Tsdae,
has dffcuty n some paces. . . ." You do not
need to dentfy everyone n the producton, but
dentfy those artsts you do dscuss.
14. It s customary n many revews to keep to
the present tense when you are dscussng what
s gong on n the producton (even though you
saw t n the past). So, for exampe, when you
dscuss what the actors dd, keep to the present
tense: "In the openng scene the actors seem
qute nervous, but they gather confdence as the
pay progresses. The drector needs to pay some
attenton to mprovng ths part of the
producton." Smary, n dscussng works of art,
stay n the present tense when you are
dscussng what s n partcuar works: "The
coours n ths work cash unexpectedy, but ths
makes the pcture, n a curous way, effectve,
because t hghghts the centra focus." Use the
past tense to dscuss when you saw the pay
(.e., n the openng paragraph), but stay n the
present tense throughout the dscusson of the
work or works.
15. It s customary to offer a short concuson n
whch you represent your overa opnon,
together wth some facts about the contnung
run of the producton.
16. One fna pece of advce. A revew s much
easer to wrte f you attend the event wth some
others and dscuss what you have seen together
mmedatey after the experence. Your
confdence n your own opnons and your
command of the partcuar detas needed to
back up your feengs w grow fast, f you take
the tme to dscuss your reactons wth others.
*amp"e *!ort Revie= o& a .ramati) ,rodu)tion
[Note that this is a revie% of an iaginary production" 7ay
particular attention to the %ay in %hich the %riter introduces
the revie%, establishes a central coordinating opinion, deals
%ith one aspect of the production in each paragraph, and
provides particular details to support the opinions %hich
176
appear in the opening of each paragraph" Note also the use
of the present tense in discussions of %hat goes on)
Ths week at Maaspna Unversty-Coege
Theatre, Mountan Vaey Theatre Company s
offerng ts atest producton, No Tie Li'e the
7resent, an engagngy wrtten and, for the most
part, successfuy devered comedy wth some
btter sweet overtones. The pay s somethng of
a gambe for ths young company, because the
producton stye s mdy expermenta n paces,
but, n spte of some unevenness n the payng
and a few dffcutes here and there, the
producton s we worth seeng.
The man asset n ths producton s the actng of
the eadng payers. As Montague |ack, a mdde-
aged drfter down on hs uck, |m Beam provdes
an entertanng charm and a eve of assured
sk, both of whch estabsh the character
convncngy. Hs sow draw and azy, gracefu
movements, whch expode nto an extraordnary
athetc energy n the braw n Act II, keep our
attenton and provde an mportant dramatc
quaty to the producton. Hs performance s
matched by Nora Roberts, who pays Ace, the
owner of the oca saoon. She estabshes, above
a wth her wonderfu faca expressons and her
gravey voce, an authentc sense of someone
who has seen t a but s ready for more. I
partcuary ke the openng conversaton
between them n Act I, where they both
convncngy come across as two experenced
road warrors testng each other out n fu
knowedge of what they are dong. The easy
pace and sgnfcant physca nteracton
between them (for exampe, n the busness of
the whskey botte) evoke the characters and the
mood perfecty.
The quaty of these two eadng payers carres
the man weght of the expermenta dream
sequences, when for a moment the acton s
suspended and we are taken drecty nto the
bured fantases of peope who have amost
forgotten how to dream. Ms Roberts s
partcuary good at conveyng the yrca quaty
of her monoogue: the ntense ongng n her
voce and body movements generates a
powerfu sexua tenson whch suddeny
umnates the compexty of a character we
177
may have been tempted to take too ghty. Mr.
Beam devers the goods here, too, athough he
has ess to work wth. The quaty of hs
expressons as he works through hs memores
and hopes s very mpressve.
The supportng cast s not up to the quaty of
the prncpa payers. Too often the actng s
rather wooden (partcuary n the case of Aan
Bake, as the Sherff, who moves as f he s
reuctant to be there and speaks n a monotone).
The esser payers seem to have some troube
estabshng convncng accents (whch move
from the Southern States to Ireand and back to
New Engand va Scotand). However, |ennfer
Braxton gves a wonderfu but a-too-short
cameo appearance as Wma the nebrated
snger. The quaty of her voce reay does
suggest that she coud dever the goods f her
neurons were a frng correcty, and she refuses
to ham up the drunkenness, so that the comedy
s aways surgcay precse (and a the funner
for that).
The drecton (by Terry Stapeton) s, for the
most part, deft. There are paces, however,
where the pace needs pckng up (for exampe,
n the ong scene at the openng of Act II). And
the bockng does get occasonay repettve.
Why, one wonders, are the chars aways
arranged n the same poston? There s room for
consderaby more vsua varety than we get.
The sowness of the scene changes s aso
rrtatng. However, the comc scenes are we
managed, and there s a good dea of very
nterestng busness n the use of varous props
(e.g., the fake sx gun and the od gutar). And I
partcuary ke the way n whch the drector has
controed the tone of the pece, aowng the
ronc resonance to manfest tsef wthout
overwhemng the comedy. We reay do get a
sense of how rdcuous these peope are, and
yet we aso care about them.
The ma|or technca aspects of the producton
are good. The set (by Rye Cannon) s spenddy
evocatve of a seedy od saoon. The coour of
the wood and, above a, the foor provde |ust
the rght sense of a pace whch saw ts best
days ong ago. I do wonder a bt about the stuff
on the was; the pcture of the footba team
178
seems qute out of pace and the anters don't
ook as f they come from South Texas. Maybe
I'm beng too pcky here. Lghtng (by Patrca
Foudy) s functona but unexctng (except n the
dream sequences where the backghtng s
spectacuary effectve).
Other aspects of the producton, n genera, work
very we. The costumes (by Chrstne
Thompson) are reay spendd, especay the
shoes. The ncdenta musc (composed by
Cauda Smth and payed by Wes Matchoff and
Gora Mnoff) provdes |ust the rght ntroducton
to the pay and adds nterest to the excessvey
engthy scene changes. Lke the producton
tsef, the buesy-funk stye estabshes some
entertanng ambgutes, and Gora Mnoff's
voce s very easy to sten to. I have some
reservatons about the make up on the oder
towns peope (Mabe Courtenay, n partcuar),
whch seems to hghght the fact that these are
young actors pretendng to be oder foks (dtto
for the har).
No Tie Li'e the 7resent, for a the crtcsms
one mght ke to make about ths or that aspect
of the producton, s we worth the prce of
admsson. It w make you augh and yet eave
you wonderng about the way n whch
underneath the aughter there may be, as n
much of fe, a sgnfcant sadness urkng. The
producton contnues ts run at Maaspna
Unversty-Coege Theatre for the next two
weeks.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;

Essays and Arguments, *e)tion E"even
[This text, %hich has been prepared by ,an -ohnston of
Malaspina University(College, Nanaio, !C, is in the public
doain and ay be used, in %hole or in part, %ithout
perission and %ithout charge, released May #$$$)
179
''(0 *AM,9E 4#%9I?E* +4R E**AD* A?.
RE*EAR$H ,A,ER*
The foowng pages contan a number of sampe outnes n
the format we have stressed n ths book. Many of these
outnes appear n earer sectons. If you are an
nexperenced essay wrter, fee free to mode your outnes
cosey on some of these modes.
A( *!ort 2ook Revie=
Sub|ect: Book revew of 0f Lice and 8en: The
Slocan 6alley Counes by |ane Doe
Focus: A short revew for someone who has not
read the book
Thess: 0f Lice and 8en presents an ntrgung
and usefu ook at the fe of some poneer Brtsh
Coumba fames. On the whoe, the book s a
very good read, athough t does suffer from
some faws whch mt ts usefuness as an
undergraduate text.
TS 1: In 0f Lice and 8en |ane Doe sets out to te
the story of Anne and Hank and a group of ther
frends, who try ate n the nneteenth century to
estabsh a communa experment n the Socan
Vaey. (Paragraph defnes the content of the
book for those who have not read t; ths s not
part of the argument and woud not be
necessary f the revew was beng wrtten for an
audence whch had read the text)
TS 2: Partcuary nterestng s Doe's scrupuous
attenton to the everyday detas of fe on the
farm. Ths reay makes the stuaton come ave
for the modern reader. (Paragraph presents
evdence and nterpretaton to back up ths
pont).
TS 3: And the author's stye s very readabe,
wth penty of good humour and cear
descrptons. (Paragraph presents evdence and
nterpretaton to back up ths dea)
TS 4: However, the tota ack of ustratons, ke
photographs and maps, and the poor quaty of
the prntng and edtng create rrtatng
180
obstaces. (Paragraph presents evdence and
nterpretaton to back up ths cam).
Concuson: These fauts are a shame, because
n many respects Of Lce and Zen s an exceent
book. However, ts mtatons w prevent t from
beng the best choce for an undergraduate text.
(Paragraph concudes the argument by summng
up)
Ths essay presents a three-paragraph argument, wth one
defnton paragraph after the openng. Each of the
argumentatve paragraphs ooks at one partcuar aspect of
the book and expans how that has affected the wrter's
opnon of t. Notce that the thess of ths essay s a mxed
opnon (some good thngs and some probems).
2( *!ort Essay Revie=ing a 9ive .rama
,rodu)tion
Sub|ect: A revew of a ve performance of The
7ure 7roduct
Focus: A short revew of a performance for those
who have not seen the producton.
Thess: The producton provdes a stmuatng
evenng of theatre n spte of some erratc
wrtng and the very uneven drectng.
TS 1: The 7ure 7roduct s the story of a rock 'n'
ro has-been, now on the comeback tra.
(Paragraph acquants the readers who have not
seen the producton wth a few detas of the
story; ths s not startng the argument but
defnng the sub|ect matter)
TS 2: The naturastc stye demands a hgh
cabre of actng from the performers. And the
two eadng actors come through extremey we.
(Paragraph provdes evdence and nterpretaton
to back up ths cam)
TS 3: Unfortunatey, the same eve s not
mantaned n the esser roes. In part ths s due
to some soppy wrtng and drectng.
TS 4: Techncay the producton s very
mpressve.
181
Concuson: Thus, n spte of some rrtatng
probems, the evenng s, on the whoe, a great
success.
Notce that ths revew does not try to dea wth a aspects
of the producton. The wrter has seected the three key
eements whch shaped hs response more than anythng
ese.
$( *!ort Essay on a ,rose +i)tion (*!ort *tory)
Sub|ect: |ohn Stenbeck's short story "The
Chrysanthemums"
Focus 1: Esa's character
Focus 2: Esa's character: her nsecure sense of
her femnnty
Thess: Esa thnks of hersef as strong, but she
s, n fact, a very vunerabe woman. She may be
vta enough to have strong ambtons, but she s
so nsecure about her own femnnty that she s
fnay unabe to cope wth the stran of
transformng her fe.
TS 1: When we frst see Esa we get an
mmedate sense that she s hdng her sexuaty
from the rest of the word. (Paragraph examnes
the openng descrptons of Esa and nterprets
key phrases to pont out how she appears to be
conceang her rea sef)
TS 2: The speed and energy wth whch Esa
ater seeks to transform hersef reay brng out
the extent of her dssatsfacton wth the roe she
has been payng. (Paragraph dscusses what
happens as Esa starts to respond to the crss,
nterpretng detas of the text to show how she
s changng)
TS 3: But Esa's new sense of hersef does not
ast, for she has nsuffcent nner strength to
deveop nto the mature, ndependent woman
she woud ke to be. (Paragraph ooks at the
fna secton of the story, n whch Esa fas to
mantan her new sef)
Concuson: Ths story narrates an everyday
seres of events, but the emotona drama Esa
goes through s very sgnfcant. (Paragraph
182
restates the argument n summary form,
reaffrmng the thess)
Ths structure s a usefu one to ook at f you are wrtng on
a character n a short story who s faced wth a persona
crss. In many stores, one of the chef ponts s the way n
whch a character earns or fas to earn from (or to adapt
to) a crss n hs or her persona fe. If the essay s argung
about the sgnfcance of what has been earned or not
earned, then ths structure, whch ooks at Esa at the
begnnng, durng the key transformng process, and at the
end, s often usefu.
.( *!ort Essay on a 9ong +i)tion
Genera Sub|ect: Shakespeare's /ichard ,,,
Focus 1: The mportance of Anne n the pay.
Focus 2: The frst scene between Anne and
Rchard (1.3)
Thess: Anne's roe n 1.3 s partcuary
mportant to the openng of the pay because t
reveas ceary to us not ony the devsh
ceverness of Rchard but aso the way n whch
hs success depends upon the weaknesses of
others.
TS 1: Rchard's treatment of Anne n 1.3 provdes
a very mportant ook at the compex motvaton
and stye of the pay's hero. (Paragraph goes on
to argue how the Rchard-Anne confrontaton
reveas mportant thngs about Rchard)
TS 2: More mportanty, perhaps, the scene
reveas |ust how Anne's understandabe
weaknesses enabe Rchard to succeed.
(Paragraph ooks at how Anne's response to
Rchard's advances revea mportant thngs
about her character)
TS 3: We can best apprecate these ponts by
consderng a key moment n the scene, the
moment when Rchard nvtes Anne to k hm.
(In an ustratve paragraph, the wrter takes a
detaed ook at fve nes from the scene, to
emphasze the ponts mentoned n the prevous
two paragraphs)
183
Concuson: In the wder context of the pay, ths
eary scene provdes Rchard wth a sense of hs
own power and thus confrms for hm that he
reay can acheve what he most wants.
(Paragraph sums up the argument n the context
of the entre pay)
Notce how ths essay drastcay narrows the focus to one
very short scene from a ong pay. You have to go through
such a narrowng of the focus to construct a persuasve
argument, because you smpy do not have the space to
argue about the entre work.
Note the use of the ustratve paragraph (n TS 3). Ths s
very common n essay nterpretng terature. It w not
ntroduce any new ponts but w go nto great deta about a
few nes of text n order to consodate the ponts aready
made.
E( *!ort Essay Eva"uating an Argument in
Anot!er %e@t
Genera Sub|ect: |ohn Stuart M's 0n Liberty
Focus 1: M's concept of open free dscusson
Focus 2: M's concept of open free dscusson:
some probems
Thess: Whe |usty famous as an eoquent
statement of bera prncpes, M's key concept
of free and open dscusson rases some
mportant questons whch M does not dea
wth satsfactory.
TS 1: The frst and most obvous queston s ths:
Where are such free dscussons to take pace?
(Paragraph argues that M's socety does not
have enough open paces for dscusson).
TS 2: A reated crtcsm cas attenton to those
who are excuded from such forums. M's
argument does not seem to have much pace for
them. (Paragraph argues that many peope w
ack the quafcatons to take part).
TS 3: In defense of M, one mght argue that
these two ob|ectons are not etha: there are
ways of deang wth them n the context of hs
presentaton. (Paragraph acknowedges the
opposton and tres to answer the ob|ectons
usng M's theory).
184
TS 4: Ths sounds a very we n theory, but n
practce many peope are gong to be excuded.
That s cear from the way M nssts the
debates shoud take pace. (Paragraph argues
that the defense of M n the prevous
paragraph s not adequate).
TS 5: It doesn't take much magnaton to
vsuaze a socety whch mpements M's
recommendatons and yet excudes a ma|orty of
ts ctzens from pubc forums. (Paragraph uses
a counterexampe).
Concuson: The strength of M's case s the
appea of a ratona bera democracy, but ts
weaknesses stem from the same source.
(Paragraph goes on to sum up the argument)
Note that no paragraph n ths essay summarzes M's
argument. The assumpton s that the reader of the essay s
aready famar wth t. Hence, the paragraphs make
argumentatve nterpretatve ponts about M's text. Notce
the use of a counterexampe n TS 5.
+( 9onger Essay or Resear)! ,aper on a *o)ia"
Issue
Sub|ect: The Mnstry of Heath and Wefare
Focus 1: The Wefare System
Focus 2: The dstrbuton of wefare
Focus 3: The dstrbuton of wefare n BC:
probems wth the present system
Thess: Our system of dstrbutng wefare s
gravey nadequate, because t s creatng a
great many serous probems and fang to
address as t shoud those concerns t was
orgnay meant to aevate.
TS 1: How exacty s wefare dstrbuted under
present arrangements n BC? (Paragraph goes
on to descrbe the present process; ths s part of
the ntroducton, an anayss of the present
process, whch a readers may not understand)
TS 2: Ths system obvousy requres a compex
bureaucracy for ts admnstraton. (Paragraph
goes on to anayze the structure of the
185
admnstraton of wefare, makng sure the
reader w understand the key offcas and
offces whch the essay w ater refer to. Agan,
ths s part of the ntroducton, provdng
necessary background nformaton)
TS 3: The frst ma|or probem wth ths system s
that t s excessvey expensve to admnster.
(Paragraph starts the argument here wth a
cause-to-effect paragraph, n whch the wrter
brngs n evdence and nterpretaton to argue
the excessve expense of the system)
TS 4: A second probem s the whoe concept of
confdentaty. (The paragraph goes on to argue
the mportance of ths probem).
TS 5: Some peope argue, however, that
confdentaty s such an mportant prncpe that
we smpy have to put up wth these dffcutes
n order to protect the rghts of the wefare
recpent. (Paragraph here acknowedges the
opposton, presentng an argument aganst the
thess)
TS 6: However, there are ways to protect aganst
dscrmnaton and, at the same tme, to dea
wth the probems created by the present
treatment of confdentaty. (Paragraph goes on
to answer the opposton's pont n the prevous
paragraph)
TS 7: The present system aso creates many
dffcutes for those who have to dea wth
wefare recpents, especay for andords.
(Paragraph goes on to dscuss some of the
probems andords face because of the present
system)
TS 8: Consder, for exampe, the stuaton of |ean
Smth, who runs a roomng house for the
unempoyed and most of whose cents are on
wefare. (Ths paragraph offers an ustraton,
not advancng the argument, but consodatng
the prevous pont by a detaed ook at a specfc
exampe).
TS 9: We coud easy remedy the probems Ms
Smth and others ke her face every day f we
were prepared to make some smpe changes n
the system of dstrbuton. (The paragraph goes
186
on to argue for two mportant changes to the
present system).
TS 10: What woud a ths cost? Estmates vary,
but nformed studes suggest that we mght
actuay save money and, at the same tme,
assst the wefare recpents to better housng.
(Paragraph gves an economc anayss, showng
the vabty of the suggested reforms)
TS 11: In addton to these changes, we coud
aso encourage a new atttude n the soca
assstance offcas who dea drecty wth wefare
recpents and wth those who provde housng
for them. (The paragraph suggests how ths
mght be done and what advantages t woud
brng).
Concuson: Ceary, t s tme we dd somethng
to reform an neffcent wefare dstrbuton
system. If we contnue to do nothng, the
probems mentoned above w get worse. (A
concudng paragraph makes some specfc
recommendatons, repeatng ponts made n the
argument).
Notce how n ths onger research paper the wrter takes
tme to ntroduce the sub|ect matter thoroughy before
aunchng the argument. The second paragraph nforms the
reader about the present system (whch the wrter wants
reformed), and the thrd paragraph gves the reader a basc
understandng of the varous departments and offcas
nvoved, so that the essay can refer to them ater n the
knowedge that the reader understands the present
stuaton.
Uness you are wrtng for a very partcuar audence about
whose knowedge of the sub|ect you are we nformed and
can count on, you shoud normay not assume n the reader
the specfc background knowedge essenta to
understandng your paper. Therefore, you must devote some
tme n the ntroducton to provdng the necessary
nformaton.
The ffth paragraph (TS 5) gves an exampe of the technque
of acknowedgng the opposton, and the paragraph
mmedatey after than answers those ponts. The eghth
paragraph (TS 8) consders a specfc ustraton n deta.
>( 9onger Essay or Resear)! ,aper on t!e
Histori)a" *igni&i)an)e o& an Idea, 2ook, ,erson,
Event, or .is)overy
187
Sub|ect: Warfare and Technoogy
Focus 1: Modern weapons
Focus 2: The machne gun
Focus 3 The machne gun n Word War I and
Word War II
Focus 4: The ong-term sgnfcance of the
machne gun: how t has transformed our
thnkng about warfare.
Thess: No modern technoogca nventon has
had such a revoutonary mpact on warfare as
the machne gun, whch has totay transformed
our thnkng about and conduct of human
combat.
TS 1: What exacty s a machne gun? (Paragraph
goes on to defne ceary and at ength exacty
what ths centra term means).
TS 2: Curousy enough, ths weapons of
destructon was orgnay nvented n order to
mnmze the destructveness of war. (Paragraph
provdes hstorca background on the nta
deveopment of ths weapon)
TS 3: Tradtona mtary thnkers were not a
enthusastc about ths formdabe nventon; n
fact, many at frst re|ected the weapon.
(Paragraph puts the nventon nto a hstorca
context; ths paragraph s st provdng
background)
TS 4: However, for a these ob|ectons, the
mtary found t fnay mpossbe to resst such
an effcent kng machne. (Paragraph
contnues to provde hstorca background
nformaton on the adopton of the weapon)
TS 5: The frst effect of ths machne n Word
War I was enormousy to mutpy the casuates,
to the pont where peope had to deveop a new
understandng of the cost of war. (Paragraph
gves statstcs from Word War I and nterprets
the response to argue ths pont).
TS 6: These sorts of statstcs revoutonzed the
reates of hand-to-hand combat, dong much to
188
destroy tradtona vews of chvary and knghty
warrors. (Paragraph argues ths pont)
TS 7: Once the machne gun became an ntegra
part of the armament of hecopters and
warpanes, ths transformng nfuence ncreased
exponentay. (Paragraph argues how ths pont
reay changed our atttudes to war)
TS 8: Ths acceeratng mechanzaton of the
kng power of war, whch the deveopment of
the machne gun ntated, may be eadng to a
word n whch tradtona batte s
psychoogcay dffcut, f not mpossbe.
Concuson: Nowadays we have become
accustomed, perhaps even numbed, by the
destructveness of warfare. It seems ronc that
the machne whch has done the most to
promote ths deveopment was orgnay
ntended to reduce the destructveness of war.
The above structure provdes some gudance for a wrter
tryng to organze a ong essay on the hstorca sgnfcance
of somethng. Notce the cear dvsons nto whch such a
report fas. Frst (after the ntroductory paragraph, the
wrter defnes ceary the thng, person, dea, event the
essay s dscussng. Normay ths shoud be done as qucky
and succncty as possbe (t shoud not take over the
essay). Then the wrter provdes some hstorca context, so
that the reader can understand the nventon n terms of the
mmedate stuaton at the tme of ts nventon.
H( Resear)! ,aper on a $u"tura" Movement
Genera Sub|ect: Modern poetry
Focus 1: Imagsm
Focus 2: The sgnfcance of the stystc
nnovatons of Imagsm
Thess: Imagsm s the most sgnfcant
deveopment n modern poetry; n fact, ths
movement marked the start of what has come to
be caed the modernst movement n Engsh
terature, whch marked a decsve break wth
tradtona ways of wrtng poetry.
TS 1: How dd ths new movement begn? We,
ke many artstc movements t started as a
189
sma experment n the hands of a few young
artsts. (Narratve paragraph, gvng background
hstorca detas to the orgn of the term)
TS 2: The most remarkabe contrbutor to these
new deas was a young expatrate Amercan,
Ezra Pound. (Narratve paragraph, gvng
background detas of Ezra Pound)
TS 3: Pound and hs frends were reactng very
strongy aganst the prevang styes of popuar
poetry n Engand, partcuary the Georgan
poets. (A paragraph of anayss and defnton,
provdng specfc detas of the sort of poetry
whch these young poets found ob|ectonabe)
TS 4: In contrast to ths stye, the new schoo
demanded adherence to a vta new prncpe,
the overrdng mportance of cear evocatve
magery. Ths was a partcuary sgnfcant pont.
(Argument starts here wth the frst pont about
Imagsm)
TS 5: One can get a sense of what ths prncpe
meant n practce by ookng cosey at the poem
"Oread" by HD, a work much admred by the
Imagsts. (Ths s an ustraton, provdng a
detaed ook at |ust one short poem n order to
consodate the prevous pont and make t more
nterestng)
TS 6: Another, and more mmedatey startng
change was Imagsm's re|ecton of tradtona
verse forms. (Ths paragraph contnues the
argument about the nature of Imagsm)
TS 7: Not surprsngy, many readers found the
new stye dffcut, and Imagsm drew many
hoste and often sarcastc responses from
Engsh crtcs. (Ths paragraph s acknowedgng
the opposton-ettng those who dsked the new
stye have a chance to enter the argument)
TS 8: Whe these ob|ectons have some obvous
force n the case of many poems, they were
answered decsvey by the one great poet
Imagsm produced, T. S. Eot. Before consderng
Eot's contrbuton, however, t s nterestng to
examne brefy hs orgns. (Paragraph breaks
the argument to provde some background
detas of T. S. Eot)
190
TS 9: Eot's eary poetc stye demonstrated the
fu power of Imagsm n the hands of a great
artst. (Paragraph contnues the argument by
argung for the quaty of Eot's stye)
TS 10 A second vta contrbuton Eot made was
that he overcame the nherent dffcuty of
wrtng a ong Imagst poem. (Paragraph
contnues the argument about the quaty of
Eot's poetc stye)
TS 11 These quates n Eot's eary poems
cumnated n the greatest poem of the century,
The 5aste Land. (Paragraph offers an anayss of
one poem to consodate the prevous ponts:
ths anayss mght be extended nto severa
more paragraphs, f there s suffcent space)
TS 12 Eot's nfuence was decsve on a seres of
young poets. (Paragraph provdes evdence for
ths asserton)
TS 13 Even today, ong after the death of Eot
and Pound and the other orgna Imagst poets,
the evdence of ther revoutonary redefnton of
poetc stye can be seen n any anthoogy of
modern poetry. (Concudng paragraph,
summng up the argument. Ths mght be
extended wth exampes)
Notce, once agan, the use of varous paragraphs, some
advancng the argument, some provdng background
nformaton, some provdng detaed ustraton. Ths
structure mght provde some usefu advce for those
pannng a research paper on a partcuar artstc movement
n poetry, drama, or fne arts.
:2a)k to %ab"e o& $ontents;
:2a)k to <o!nstonia Home ,age;
191