CbapteP 2

깐얀7

Argument as Civil Conversation

In this chapte r; we show you how to build an argument out of the

answers to just five kinds of questions that we ask one another every
day.Then we show you how to use those questions to have a conversa-
tion with yourself to develop a written argument that your readers wi ll
judge to be thoughtful and persuasive.

The Questions of Argument

You make arguments so often that you probably never reflect on how you do it
You know that you have to support your claims , but do you know what to
support them with? What do you say to someone who cannot follow your
logic? to someone who says your support is irrelevant? How do you keep the
tone friendly, even when there is a lot at stake and others are asking challeng-
ing questions?
Some writers consistently make arguments that support their claims in
ways that we find convincing , or at least reasonable , while projecting an ethos
that strikes us not as aggressive or coercive , but cooperative and considerate
How do they do it? More important , how can you do it?
To write arguments that readers judge to be thoughtful , you have to do two
things
• You must build arguments that include all the elements of support that
readers look for in a sound argument.
• You must anticipate and respond to questions or objections that readers
would raise , were they there to talk with you
When we read such arguments , we feel we are working with a writer who has
earned our trust by meeting our expectations and respecting our views
It능 easier to earn that trust in conversation than in writing , because you
don't have to guess what questions to answer; others are there to ask them. If
you answer willingly and candidlχ you not only create the building blocks of
21
22 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

an argument but project the ethos of someone who makes reasonab1e argu-
ments that respect the views of others
It is harder to earn that trust when you are “ conversing" with a pad of
paper or computer screen , because then you have to ask those questions of
yourself. But that is a skill you must 1earn , because even a written argument is
a co11aborative dia10gue with other voices , rea1 ones when possib1e , but more
often a voice that you must imagine on your reader능 behalf.
Fortunate1y, there are on1y five kinds of questions , and you have asked and
answered them count1ess times. The first two are obvious
1. What능 your point? What are you saying , in a nutshe11? In short , what
are you claiming that 1 shou1d do or believe?
2. Why shou1d 1 agree? What reasons can you offer to support your claim?
When you answer those two questions , you create the core of your argumen t.
The f\ ext two questions are more cha11enging. They ask you to demonstrate
the soundness of your argument
3. On what facts do you base those reasons? How do we know they are
good reasons? What evidence do you have to back them up?
4. What ’5 your 10gic? What princip1e makes your reasons count as re1evant
to your claim? (We ’11 ca11 that princip1e a warrant , something we ’11
exp1ain in a momen t.)
To ask yourself the fina1 question , you must imagine your argument from your
reader능 point of view:

5. But have you considered . . . ? But what wou1d you say to someone who
sai dJobjecte dJargue dJclaimed . . . ? Do you acknowledge this alterna-
tive to your position , and how wou1d you respond?
When you ask and answer those five kinds of questions , you create the
substance of a sound written argument. In this chapter, we 100k at those ques-
tions as we ask and answer them in conversation , then discuss how to assem-
b1e their answers into a written argument that will encourage your reader to see
you as thoughtfu1 , judicious , and fair.

Argument ’s Roots in Civil Conversation

Here is a conversation among 5ue and Raj , two friends home on spring break
from different co11eges , and one of their high schoo1 teachers , Ann. After chat-
ting about Raj 능 schoo1 , Ann asks 5ue about hers
Ann: 50 what능 new at your schoo17
5ue: 1’ve been tied up with a student government committee working on
something we ’re calling a “ 5tudent Bill of Rights."
 Argument’s Roots in Civil Conversation 23

Ann: What능 that?

Sue: Well , it ’s an idea about how to improve life on campus and in class
Ann: What능 the problem?
Sue: We think the school is just taking us for granted , not giving us the
services we need to get a good education.
Raj : What ’s your idea?
Sue: We think the university should stop thinking of us only as students
and start treating us like customers.
Ann: Why customers? What’s behind that?
Sue: Well , we pay a lot of money for our education , but we don 't get near
the attention customers do
Raj: Li ke how?

Sue: For one thing , we can hardly see teachers outside of class. Last
week 1 counted office hours posted on office doors on the first floor
of the Arts and Sciences building. [She pulls a piece of paper out of
her backpack.] They average less than an hour a week , most of
them in the afternoon when a lot of us work. 1 have the numbers
right here.
Ann: Can 1 see?
Sue: Sure. [She hands the paper over.]
Ann: [reading] Well , you ’ re right about that one floor in that one build-
ing , but 1 wonder what a bigger sample would sho w.
Raj: 1 agree about office hours. We ’ve got the same problem at my
college . But 1 want to go back to something you said before. 1 don’t
see how paying tuition makes us customers. What ’s the connection?
Sue: Well , when you pay for a service , you buy it , right? And when you
buy something you ’ re a customer. We pay tuition for our education ,
so that means we ’re customers and should be treated like one.
Ann: But an education isn ’t a service. At least it능 not like hiring a
plumbe r. Doctors get paid for services , but patients aren’t
customers.
Raj: Does your idea mean that we just buy a degree? And what about the
saying , The customer ís αlways ríght? My test answers aren ’t always
right. 1 don’t want teachers pandering to me like advertisers do .
Sue: Nobody wants anyone to pander to us . We just want to be treated
reasonablχ
like better bus service from off-campus dorms or the
24 . CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

library to be open if we need to study late. And most of a11 , we want

teachers to be more available. A lot of us work when we ’re not in
class. Why should we have to take off work?
Raj: You ’re right about teachers . 1’ve had trouble seeing my psych pro f.
Ann: How about the idea of students as clients? When you go to a lawyer,
he doesn’t te11 you what makes you happy just because you pay
him . And good lawyers worry how you feel , so maybe it should be
the same with a university. Maybe a school should treat students
like clients
5ue: “ 5tudents as clients." Doesn ’t sound as catchy as students as custo-
mers , but it능 worth talking about. Thanks for the idea. 1’ 11 bring it up .
5ue , Ann , and Raj didn’t settle their questions once and for all. But they under-
stand one another능 views better, and they can think about those issues more
clearly because 5ue offered a claim and Raj and Ann helped her test and
develop it by asking her just five kinds of questions. Let ’5 look at that conversa-
tion from that point of 띠ew， as a developing argumen t.

Two Friendly Questions About What Sue Thinks

When Ann asks 5ue about what능 new at her school , 5ue raises the problem that
motivates the rest of the discussion:
Ann: 50 what ’5 new at your schoo l?
5ue: 1’ve been tied up with a student government committee working on
something we ’ re calling a “ 5tudent Bill of Rights. "
Ann: What능 that?
5ue: Well , it능 an idea about how to improve life on campus and in class .
Ann: What ’5 the problem?
5ue : We think the school is just taking us for granted , not giving us the
services we need to get a good education.
Ann and Raj then ask the two questions that elicit the gist of 5ue능 argument

What are you c/aiming?

Raj: What ’5 your idea?
5ue : We think the university should stop thinking of us only as students
and start treating us like customers. clairr따olution

What are your reasons?

Ann: Why customers? What ’5 behind that?
5ue: Well , we pay a lot of money for our education but don ’t get near the
attention customers do . reason
 Argument’s Roots in Civil Conversation 25

Most of us welcome those two questions , because they invite us to share what
we think and why we think it

Two Challenging Questions About the Basis of Sue ’sArgument

If at this point , Ann and Raj agreed with Sue능 position , they could let the
matter drop . Or if Ann felt defensive about criticism of other teachers , she
could counterattac k: That's silly! If, however , they weren’t convinced but still
thought that Sue ’:S problem was worth considering , they could ask two more
questions about the deeper basis of her argument , not to prove her wrong , but
to understand why she thinks she능 righ t.

On what evidence do you base that reason?

Raj 능
first question is about facts , and Sue offers some
Sue: Well , we pay a lot of money for our education , but we don ’t get near
the attention
~~~ -~---~~~-~- reason
- ~.

Raj: Like how? [Wh at evidence do you bαse thαt reαson on?]

Sue: For one thing , we can hardly see teachers outside of class. Last
week 1 counted office hours posted on office doors on the first floor
of the Arts and Sciences building. [She pulls a piece of paper out of
her backpac k.] They average less than an hour a week , most of
them in the afternoon when a lot of us work. 1 have the numbers
right here. summary of evidence
Ann: Can 1 see? [Wh at hard evidence do you base your summary on?]
With that last question , Ann verges on seeming uncivil , because she
implies that she does not trust the factual accuracy of Su앙 report. But she is
not overtly disαgreeing with Su얀 claim, only assuring herself that Sue has a
good basis for it. Sue agreeably offers Ann her data

Sue: Sure . [She hands the paper over.]

With a little help from her friends , Sue has assembled the core of her argu-
ment and tethered it to the first of two anchors that every argument needs: the
evidence on which she bases her reason.

Claim because of Reason based on Evidence

How does your reason support your c1aim?

Every argument needs one anchor in sound evidence and another in sound
reasoning. When , however, Ann and Raj ask for that second anchor, how her
reason supports her claim , they seem to challenge Sue even more sharply than
26 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

when they asked for evidence , because they ask for something more funda-
mental; now they want to understand the logic behind her reasoning

Raj: 1 agree about faculty hours. We ’ve got the same problem at my
co11ege. But 1 want to go back to something you said before . 1 don’t
see how paying tuition makes us customers. What능 the connection?

Sue may be factua11y correc t: Students do pay good money for their education ,
but R히 doesn’t see how that fact is relevant to her claim that they are therefore
customers. R에 questions why Sue thinks her claim follows from her reason.
To answer , Sue has to analyze her own thinking , to find a general principle
that explains why she thinks her reason is relevant to her claim.

Sue: We11 , when you pay for a service , you buy it , right? And when you
buy something you ’ re a customer. general principle We pay tuition for
our education , reason so that means we ’ re customers and should be
treated like one . claim

There are technical terms for the principle that connects a reason to a
claim. Logicians ca11 it a premise , others an assumption. When that premise is
explicitly stated , we ca11 it a warrant. Li ke a11 warrants , Sue ’s has two parts

(1 ) a general circumstance , which lets us draw

(2) a general inference

Graphica11y, a warrant looks like this

( 1) General circumstance - lets us draw• (2) General inference

Sue offers this general warrant:

( 1) person pays for service reason 50 (2) per50n i5 a custome仁 élaim

If Raj and Ann believe Sue능 warrant , Sue can apply it to her specific circum-
stance and draw her specific claim

When a person pays for a service , that person is a custome仁 wa때nt

ßecause we pay for our education , 연ason we are customers. , 1
(I al π1

Warrants do more than state static facts . They state the principles of
reasoning that justify (warrant) our conclusions. Warrants usually justify us in
connecting a reason to a claim , but as we ’11 see they can also justify the connec-
tion between evidence and a reason. We should alert you that warrants are hard
to understand. Everyone struggles with them-including the two of us. (We
explain them in more detail in Chapter 7.)
 Argument’s Roots in Civil Conversation 27

The Most Challenging Question: But What About ... ?

The answers to the first four questions create the framework for an a1most
comp1ete argument: A claim is supported by a reason; the evidence backs
up the reason; and the warrant links the reason to the claim (another links
the evidence to the reason). But those four e1ements a10ne cannot guarantee
that your argument will succeed , because readers bring to arguments their
own views. 50 they are likely to see things differently-draw different conclu-
sions , think of evidence you didn ’t , and so on. And their different views moti-
vate the fifth-and toughest-question: But what about ... ?
In face-to-face arguments , we have the advantage of hearing another
person능 point of view direct1y, and we can answer then and there. But when we
write , we must imαgine our readers' questions , objections , and a1ternative views
by creating a voice in the back of our mind insistent1y asking , But what
about . .. ? But what would you say to someone who argued ... ? If you cannot
imagine your readers' questions and then acknow1edge and respond to them ,
you will seem unwilling or unab1e to examine your own ideas critically and
readers will judge your ethos and the quality of your mind according1 y. It may
seem paradoxica1, but readers have more confidence in your argument when
you show them that you recognize its limitations.
Here are some of the questions and objections that Ann and R갱 offered ,
not all of which 5ue answered
• Ann questioned the quality of 5ue능 evidence about office hours:

Well , you ’ re right about that one floor in that one building , but 1 wonder
what a bigger sample would sho w.

• Raj points out a cost of accepting 5u앙 claim ， onε perhaps greater than
the cost of the existing prob1em:
Does your idea mean that we just buy a degree? And what about the
saying , The customer ís αlways ríght? My test answers aren ’t always righ t. 1
don’ t want teachers pandering to me like advertisers do
• Ann offers an a1ternative solution and a bit of an argument of her own:
How about the idea of students as clients? When you go to a lawγer， he
doesn’t tell you what makes you happy just because you pay him

Raj and Ann cou1d have asked 5ue more questions

Exact1y what do you mean by “ enough" office hours?

Do you have other reasons to think you aren’t being treated well?
What do you think teachers 、iVou1d say about that? Or parents?
Do you think you cou1d actually get the schoo1 to adopt that policy?
But each of those questions is just a variation on one of the others: Wh at do y ou
mean by asks you to state a claim or reason more clear1y; Do you have any other
28 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

reasons asks for more reasons; 찌!hαt do you think teachers would 5띠 . . . ralses
another 0비 ection
Some students question why they should risk exposing themselves to
contrary views: Why should 1 imagine other views and maybe let them change my
own? Isn ’t my job to stand up for my own beliefs? True enough , but when you
address a serious problem , it is in your own best interests to find its best solu-
tion , regardless of the one you prefer. Furthermore , in conversation , you would
seem not just arrogant to ignore objections but foolish. You carry the same ethi-
cal burden when you write. What makes it so heavy in a written argument is
that you must not only write in your own voice, but listen to those of others

Review: Modeling an Argument

You might better grasp how those five questions work when you see how their
answers combine into the structure of a complete argument , the way that
atoms combine into molecules . Since some of us understand a structure better
when we can picture it, we ’II offer diagrams showing how the elements of argu-
ment work togethe r.

The Core of an Argument: Claim + Support

In its simplest form , an argument is just a claim and its support:
Because maj or college sports have degenerated into a corrupt , money-making
sideshow that erodes the real mission of higher education , reason they must be
reformed. claim
We can represent the relationship between a claim and its support like this:

Reason therefore Claim

That diagram does not represent the only order of those elements. We could
reverse them:

Claim because of Reason

Major college sports must be reformed , claim because they have degenerated
into a corrupt , money-making sideshow that erodes the real mission of higher
education. reason
To keep things simple , we ’ II regularly put the reason on the left and claim on
the right. In real arguments , they can occur in either order

Distinguishing Claims and Reasons

Some students puzzle over the difference between claims and reasons , point-
ing out that reasons also seem to make claims. They ’ re right; those terms can
be confusing. In fact , every sentence you write makes a claim in some sense
of the word. But in order to keep the parts of argument distinct , we’ II use
 Review: Modeling an Argument 29

claim and reαson not in their 100se , ordinary sense but as specific , technica1
terms :
• We ’11 use the term main cI aim to refer to the one claim that states the
solution to the prob1em that the whole argument addresses . It is a1so the
mαin point of the who1e argument , the statement the rest of the argu-
ment supports (in high schoo1 , you may have ca11ed it a thesis)
• We ’11 use the term CIαim to refer to αny statement supported by a reason.
• We ’ 11 use the term reason to refer to a statement that supports any claim ,
whether it is the main claim of an argument or a subordinate claim
What a11 that means is that before you can decide whether a particu1ar
statement is a claim or a reason , you have to know how it is used. Here is a
statement used as a claim:
Children who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to become violent
adults , claim because they slowly lose their ability to distinguish between real-
ity and fiction . reason
And here is that same statement used as a reason
Violence on television and in video games should be moderated 떠m because
children who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to become violent
adults. reason
But there is one more complication: A statement can be both a reason and a
claim αt the sαme time if it supports some 1arger claim but is a1so supported by
its own reason. Here is that statement used as both at the same time:
Violence on television and in video games should be reduced 이aim 1 because
children who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to become
violent adults. reason 1_ supporti g clailp l/claim? supP'?rted by reason 2 They become s~ ~s~d
r_:t

to constant images of cåsuar vi이ence that 'they àssume it is just part of daily
life . reason 2
This can get confusing when you try to ana1yze a comp1ex argument down
to its sma11est parts. But when you are dealing with your own arguments , you
have on1y to remember that reasons support claims.

Anchoring the Core: Evidence and Warrants

In casua1 conversation , we might support a claim with just a reason
Larry: We ’ d better stop for gas here. claim
Curly: What reason do you have for saying that?
Moe: Because we ’re almost empty reason
This is so trivia1 a matter that Cur1y is unlikely to respond , whαt evidence do you bαse
that reason on? or Why should the Jact that we ’ re almost empty mean that we should stop
Jor g따? But when an issue is contested , readers usually want to know both that
you’ve based your reason on sound evidence and that your reason is re1evant to
your claim: you satisfy that need to know by offering evidence and a warrant
30 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

Evidence
ln that argument about college athletics , the issue is serious enough that read-
ers would expect some evidence:
Major college sports must be reformed , claim bεcause they have degenerated
into a corrupt , money-making sideshow that erodes the real mission of higher
education. reason In the last three years , we have had forty-six reports of
athletes receiving money and 121 of athletes being exempted from aca-
demic requirements that other students must mee t. evidence
Reasons and evidence might seem to be just diff，εrent words for the same
thing , but they are no t:
• We think up reasons
• We don’t “ think up" evidence; it must seem to come from “ out there" in
the world , something wε can point out to our readers .
For example , we couldn ’t point to athletics degenerating into a sideshow,
but we could point to somεone handing athletes money or exempting them
from academic requirements. (We discuss the difference between reasons and
evidence in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6.)
To emphasize the difference between reasons and evidence , we represent
the core of an argument like this

Claim becQuse o( Reason based on Evidence

Think of evidence as anchoring your argument in facts.

Warrants
Readers may agree that you based a reason on good evidence , but still deny that
it supports your claim because they do not understand how it is relevant to that
claim and so doesn ’t “ count" as a reason . In that case , they want you to state a
principle that connects your reason to your claim , what we ’ve called a wαrrαnt.
Here ’5 an example ,
When an institution has its most eminent faculty teach first-year classes , it
can justly claim that it puts its educational mission first. warrant We have tried
to make our undergraduate education second to none claim by asking our best
researchers to teach first-year students. reason For example , Professor Kinahan , a
recent Nobel Prize winner in physics , is now teaching Physics 101. evidence

We can graphically show how the warrant connects the claim to the reason :

When an instìtution has its most it can justly claim to put ìts
eminent faculty teach first-year courses εducational mission firs t. warr<l.l1t
Because we ask our best resεarchers we have tried to make our
to teach undergraduates , undergraduate education
second to none . claim
 Crafting Written Arguments 3I

We can add warrants to our diagram in a way that shows it connecting a

claim and its supporting reason

WAR 뼈
i NT 기
CLAIM because of REASON based on EVIDENCE

Think of warrants as anchoring your argument in logic. If you are feeling a bit
uncertain about warrants , you are right to . They are very difficult to grasp . We
devote all of Chapter 8 to them.

The Fifth Question:Acknowledgments and Responses

Readers are likely to have alternative views , and thoughtful writers imagine ,
then acknowledge and respond to them. Someone familiar with college teach-
ing might argue , for example , that famous researchers don ’t always make good
teachers , a view that a skilled writer ought to anticipate :
When an institution has its most eminent faculty teach first-year classes , it can
justly claim that it puts its educational mission firs t. warrant We have tried to
make our undergraduate education second to none claim by asking our best
researchers to teach first-year students. reason For example , Professor Kinahan ,
a recent Nobel Prize winner in physics , is now teaching Physics 10 1. evidence To
be sure , not every researcher teaches well , but recent teaching evalua-
tions show that teachers such as Kinahan are highly respected by our
students. ackn。、뼈
We can add acknowledgments and responses to our diagram to show that
they address all the other parts of an argument:

WARRANT
The principle that
lets me connect my
reason and c1 aim is

. which I base on this evidence

REASON EVIDENCE

I acknowledge these questions , objections , and

alternatives , and I respond to them with these arguments

ACKNOWLEDGMENT and RESPONSE

Crafting Written Arguments

When we are asked and answer the five questions of argument in conversation ,
we don’t organize them in advance ; we and our partner just go where the
conversation takes us , rarely in a straight line to a conclusion. We manage well
32 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

enough , though , because the back-and-forth helps us clarify points , elaborate

on difficult concepts , even figure out what claim we can plausibly suppor t. But
when we write , we have to decide on our own what to say and in what order,
with no second chances.
Although you can vary the order of elements in a written argument , you
can rely on some standard orders: The default order for the first three elements
is CLAIM + REASON + EVlD ENCE. Since you will rarely support any serious claim
with only one reason , you simply add REASO N + EVlD ENCE pairs. You sandwich
them between an introduction that states the problem and its solution (your
main claim) , and a conclusion that restates that claim
We can't tell you exactly where to put warrants and responses , except to
put them near what they apply to:

• Locate warrants just before or after the claim they apply to , so that read-
ers understand how your reason connects to your claim. (We know
warrants are still murky; we promise they will become clearer.)
• Locate acknowledgments and responses where you suspect readers will
think of objections and questions. Alternatively, put them all after the
core of your argumen t.

Here is a simple plan for an argument:

Introduction: Problem + Solution/claim

Body:
Warrant
Reason I + Evidence I
Reason 2 + Evidence 2
Etc.
Acknowledgment and Response
Conclusion: Restatement of Problem + Solution/claim

Sue could organize a written argument following that plan. In a one-para-

graph introduction , she states her problem and solution:
Recently, student government has been studying complaints about life at
Midwest U. Some are minor , such as the bursar’'s office closing at 2 P. M. But
others are major , such as teachers not keeping enough office hours. This prob-
lem suggests that the university cares little about our needs , apparently think-
ing of us only as transients , paying to be here but deserving little consideration
If this issue is ignored , we risk gaining the reputation of a “ student -unfriendly"
place that will gradually erode our reputation and ultimately threaten the qual-
 Thickening You r Argument 33

ity of ~ur ed1!cati~n . problem We believe ~he university should think of us not just
as students , but also 'as customers vital to its success. solutio띠'claim

Then she lays out the body of her argument , starting with a warrant:
When someone pays for a service , she deserves to be treated as a business
treats its customers. warrant Students pay for the services of teachers. reason 1
According to the Academic Senate , student tuition represents more than 60
percent of the funds used for faculty salaries 때。rt of evidence But we don't get the
consideration that customers do . reason 2 For one rhing , many faculty do not keep
enough office h~~rs reason 2.1 supportingreason 2 In a survey of the first floor of Arts &1
Sciences Hall , office hours avêragea less than an hour a wee k. report of evidence N 0
h\.:siness wo~ld surviv~ if it trea~~d cust?mers like tha t. reason 3 , not S~PPOl때 by _evidence
Of course , this is o?_ly a small sample, acknowledgment of anticipated obj ection but it
indicates a wider problem. response
Admittedly, we cannot 'push the analogy too far- the university can ’t
educate us if it treats us like customers in all respects , especially in class
acknowledvnent of alternative Still , if thinking of us as customers leads the university to
make our experience more productive , then we think the 야 p rinc
디iple of
‘“갱‘
녕stud
야ent 잃a s cus앞toαme앙rγ" is worth 이 c Oαns잉1띠
de앉nng. 대
res얘pons떼앙r따
e앉st떼
a없terr
때me떼nt 아
of 떠
cll

In that ex
었amp미le ’ Sue made every sentence answer one of the five questions ,
but not every sentence in every argument has to , because in an argument about
a complex issue , you may have to explain some matters For example , if you ,

argue that gasoline additives cost more than their environmental benefits , you
might have to explain the chemistry of carbon-based combustion. But don’t
explain concepts until you need to use them in your argument. Some writers
explain everything first as background , but that능 risky Not only do you make
readers remember the explanations until they become rele、Tant ， but you may
make them impatient for the meat of your argument

ThickeningYour Argument
If you support your claim with as little as Sue does , you are unlikely to earn
assent to the solution of a problem as complex as whether a college takes its
students seriously Experienced writers know that readers reject arguments that
seem “ thin ," “ undeveloped ," or worst of all , “ simplistic." When they make such
judgments , they implicitly think something like this:
• You offer only one reason for treating you like a customer. 1 need more
• You offer some evidence , but 1 need more and assurance that it is sound.
You say teachers keep too few office hours , but you surveyed only one
floor in one building
• You offer a warrant but not an argument that it is true Why do you ,

think that just because someone pays for something , that person is a
customer? 1 can’t agree.
34 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

• You acknowledge that you have little evidence about office hours , but
you claim that it still shows there ’:S a problem. 1 need an argument
before 1 accept that

• You write about complex issues , but you don't explain them so that we
can understand them
You build a nuclear argument out of the answers to the five core questions ,
but you typically have to treat each statement of a reason , warrant , and
response αs a subclaim inside its own argument with its own reasons , evidence ,
warrants , and responses. In so doing , you “ thicken ," “ broaden ," and “ deepen"
your main argument. Readers judge an argument to be more complete-and
the mind of its maker to be thoughtful and thorough-when they see simple
nuclear arguments assembled into complex ones .

WRITING PROCESS
Argument as Civil Conversation

PREPARING AND PLANNING

Three Strategies for Designing an Argument
There are three strategies for developing a plan or blueprint for your argument:
1. Do not plan at all: Just let the argument fall out of your head onto the
page as it will. Some writers do that successfully; most of us cannot
2 . Follow a stock plan you get from teachers or textbook writers like us .
The problem is that while some stock plans are reliable , many are not-
and you have to know which one is right for your situation.
3. Create a new plan for every argument. To make this strategy work, you
first have to know a lot about your particular readers ; second , you never
benefit from experience. The set of common plans is a fairly small one
that experienced writers improvise on , the way a pianist vamps on a
tune or a basketball player varies the moves of a set play
We suggest combining the second and third strategies. Think of a stock
plan as scaffolding that supports a structure as you construct it but that does
not look like the finished work. Base your argument roughly on one of our
stock plans , but don’t let it tyrannize your thinking or writing

Stock Plans to Avoid

Before we offer some reliable plans , we should mention four stock ones that
you should avoid
 Writing Process 3S

The Five Paragraph Essay

9l 1. Introduction: There are three reasons why you should floss your teeth
9l 2. The first reason is
대 3. The second reason is
대 4. The third reason is
대 S. Conclusion: 50 we see there are three reasons to floss

That may have worked in high schoo1 , but it reminds college teachers of high
schoo1 thinking and is too simpleminded to accommodate comp1ex problems.

A Narrative ofYour Thinking

A b1ow-by-blow account of how you thought your way from a prob1em to its
solution will engage those interested in the workings of your mind, but most
readers care more about its produc t. An unrevised first draft usually records
on1y the history of your strugg1e to write it.

A Summary ofYour Sources

When you make an argument based on what you read, avoid a summary that
tracks the order of its ideas. You will seem on1y to rehash them

Thing One and Thing Two

If you write about two (or more) objects , such as peop1e , books , or places ,
avoid dividing your argument into two parts , the first based on Thing One ,
the second on Thing Two . In comparing Romeo αnd ]uliet to West Side Story, for
example , don ’t devote part one to Romeo αnd ]uliet and part two to West Side
Story. Instεad ， organize your argument around aspects of the two works , such
as their themes , actions , emotiona1 impact , and so on. If you cannot avoid the
obvious two-part organization , at 1east use phrases in the second part that
recall and connect it to the first: In compαrison to Romeo αnd ]uliet . . . ,
In contrast to Romeo and ]uliet ... , West Side Story shares with Romeo and
]uliet .. .. Otherwise , your argument will read like two unconnected
summanes

Sketch a Plan forYour Argument

Before you draft , make an outline , no matter how sketchy. As you gain experi-
ence , you may get by with just a scratch outline-even one you don't have to
write down. But in your early papers , you ’re likely to need all the help you can
ge t. Here's a low-cost way to p1an a paper systematically.

Stage 1: Prepare Your Materials

/. On one page, sketch the prob/em or question and a p/ausib/e so/ution or answeι
36 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

Binge drinking is out of control. problem Rather than ban drinking , we have
to do a better job of identifying stùdents likely to binge dangerously so that
they can be counseled. solution

2. At the toþ of seþarate þages, write the main reasons that would encourage
readers to agree.
Assume that you n eed more than two or three. If you think of more than five ,
pick only the most persuasive ones.
Rl : Onlya few students are the real problem drinkers
R2: When rules can be ignored without penalty, all students disrespect the
administration
R3: Blanket prohibition deprives responsible students of a right
R4: Regardless of prohibitions , students will drink
R5 : When the reckless drinkers are identified , they can be counseled

3. After each reason, sketch the evidence (data, facts) or the additional reasons
that suþþort that main reason.
This is hard. You can think up reasons , but you have to hunt down evidence. If
you can’t think of any, you at least know what to look for
Onlya few students are real problem drinkers . reason A study in the Journal
01 the American Medical Association suggests that fewer than one in five
student drinkers cause most of the problems . ... evidence

4. At the bottom thi띠 。f each þage, sketch relevant objections and alternatives
that your readers might raise; then resþond to them.
lt has been claimed that bingers cannot be controlled through education
ackn。、vledgement
But researchers at the University of Washington have found
otherwÍse. response ln their study,
lt is true the administration has a legal responsibility to set rules to protect
students. acknowle c.l gement However , a rule that cannot be enforced protects no
one. response We hãve seen this happen before

5. On another þage, sketch a conclusion.

Do not just repeat the main claim from your introduction. You can restate it in
more detail , but add something to indicate the value of your solution.
Banning drinking will only encourage contempt for rules. lt did not
work during Prohibition , and it w on’t work now. lnstead we have to help
students make better decisions for themselves. If we can identify students
most at risk for bingeing dangerously, the university can counsel them
before they develop a pattern of bingeing. ln that way, the university can
do what it does best , educate , and avoid the kind of intrusion into
students' lives that poisons students' attitudes and doesn’t work anyway

Stage 2: Organize and Arrange Your Materials

1. Decide where to locate your main claim (the solution to your þroblem).
 Writing Process 37

The plan just sketched has you state your main claim twice , once at the end of
your introduction and again at the beginning of your conclusion. But you have
another choice. Each implies a different “ social contract" with your reader:
Choice 1: State your main claim twice , once at the end of the introduc-
tion and again in the conclusion
When you do that , you in effect say to readers at the end of your introduction:
You know my problem and it5 50Iution , 50 you are in controI 여 your rea떠 ng. You
know the m05t important thing5 1 have to 5ay, 50 you can 5top , read on, or 5kip around.

Choice 2: Save your main claim for the conclusion

When you make readers wait until your conclusion to read your main claim ,
you in effect say to them: 1 am in controI , 50 foIIow me a5 1 reveaI my rea50ning, and
in the end 1 wiII reveaI the 50Iutio띠 O따1ave waited fo r.
Readers occasionally agree to that second contract with pleasurable antici-
pation , but only if they enjoy following the twists and turns of an intellectual
journe y. In fact , somε teachers , especially in the humanities , prefer an argu-
ment that unfolds like a m ystery story. Most of us , though , want to control our
own time , so we prefer to see a statement of your main claim earlχ at the end of
your introduction
Some students hold back their main claim , fearing that if they “ glve lt
away" too soon , readers will lose interest and stop reading. That능 a mistake . If
you pose a problem important to readers , they will read on , even if they see its
solution in the introduction. Converselχ no one is motivated to read about a
trivial question just because you play hide-and-seek with its answer
Other students think that if a reader might resist their main claim , they
should sneak up on it. Only a skilled writer can lure readers toward an unwel-
come conclusion that they don ’ t see coming a long way off. And even if you do
pull it off , readers may feel you have tricked them . Your best chance to win
over hostile readers is not by manipulating them , but by acknow ledging differ-
ences from the start. If they are so set against your claim that they refuse even
to consider your argument , you won’t persuade them in any even t. But if you
approach them as readers who give a fair hearing even to positions they do not
like , they may not accept your claim , but they will at least grant that you have
good reason for believing it , not a small success
If you do hold off your main claim until the conclusion , give readers some
guidance about w hat to expec t: End your introduction with a sentence that
introduces the key concepts that you develop in the body of your argument , and
if you can , make that sentence more rather than less complex . Compare the
following two w ays of ending an introduction to an argument about binge
drinking:
In fact , times have changed , and universities have to understand those
changes if they are to address drinking effectively
In fact , the traditiona1 ro1e of a universitχ in 10co parentis , is rnore
comp1ex now than a generation ago , because it involves issues of civil
38 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

rights , privacy, and student autonomy. Not until it understands where it

stands, legallχ pragmatically, and morally, can this university formulate
workable policies to address the problem of binge drinking.

The boldfaced words in the second state more of the key themes in the argu-
men t. Of course , once you announce those themes , you must develop them
Neither social contract , point-first or point-last , is intrinsically better.
They’ re just different , each implying a different relationship among the author,
reader, text, and circumstances. Most of us , though, most of the time prefer to
see a point early because that puts us in control of our own reading.

2. Decide where to þut each reason in its section.

Just as you have to decide where to state the main claim of your whole argu-
ment , early or late , so you have to decide where to put each reason in its own
section. Since each reason is the point of its section , you can put it at the end of
the introduction to that section or in its conclusion. Here too , the default
choice is to state the reason early, at the end of the introduction to that section.

3. Decide how to order the sequence of sections.

The challenge now is to shuffle the separate pages with reasons into a sequence
that will make sense to readers . First , group reasons on the same topic. For
example , how would you group the five reasons to counsel students rather
than to ban drinking?

Rl: Only a few students are the real problem drinkers

R2: When rules can be ignored without penaltχ all students disrespect the
administration
R3: Blanket prohibition deprives responsible students of a right
R4: Regardless of prohibitions , students will drink
RS: When the reckless drinkers are identified , they can be counseled

We can group those reasons into those involving all students and those
involving just irresponsible ones

Rl.l: Bl anket prohibition deprives responsible students of a right

R1. 2: When rules can be ignored without penaltχ all students disrespect
the administration
R1. 3: Regardless of prohibitions , students will drink

R2.1: Onlya few students are the real problem drinkers

R2.2: When the reckless drinkers are identified , they can be counseled

Now choose one of the standard orders for those reasons : more important
to less important (or vice versa) , more familiar to 1εss familiar , less complex to
more complex. If readers cannot see how you have ordered your reasons , they
 Writing Process 39

are likely to think your argument incoheren t. 50 state up front the principle
you are following , or introduce each section (not each sentence) with transi-
tional words such as more importαnt， thereJore , and on the other hand. (To learn
more about ordering reasons , turn to p. 107.)

4. Decide where to put evidence.

If you put the reason in the introduction of its section , evidence must follo w.
You can , however, open with evidence and move toward the reason it
supports:
~o~le~ge athletics is becc::mi~~ a scanda l. problem In the la_st three years ，~ w~ þave
had forty-six reports of athletes receiving money and 121 cases of athletes
being exempted from academic requirements that other students must
mee t. evidence Cl early, athletics is degenerating into a corrupt , money-making
side-show that erodes the real mission of higher education. reason Major college
sports must be reformed. claim
We can easily manage short sequences of EVlD ENCE + REASON + CLAIM , but when
an argument opens with lots of evidence , we might not have any idea what that
evidence is relevant to . 50 if you present evidence before its reason , introduce it
with a sentence or two suggesting at least what topic the evidence relates to .

5. Decide where to put warrants.

This is the hardest choice , because you have to decide whether to state
warrants at all. You almost always omit them when your readers share your
values , assumptions , definitions , and so on. If they don ’t , you may have to state
them as warrants , typically before the reasons they apply to , and maybe even
support them with their own reasons and evidence. For example , after reading
the following little argument , we could reject the claim at the end b y objecting
that what children watch is irrelevant to their psychological development :
Every day, children are bombarded by TV violence. reason The average child
sees almost twelve acts of violence a day, most more graphic than neces-
sarχ few causing permanent damage , and even fewer condemned or
punished (Smith 1992 ). 때。rt of evidence When that kind of violence becomes
a pervasive part of their èxperience , restatement of reason it is likely to damage
their psychological development 미atm
On the other hand , if the writer can first get us to agree to a general principle
about the influence of example on child development , then she is more likely
to get agreement later that her reason (violent TV) in fact supports her claim
about damaged development :
Most of us believe that when children enjoy stories about admirable
actions , they are more likely to become healthy adults. warrant 1 Isn’tit
likely, then , that when they see degrading behavior, they will be hurt
by it? warrant 2 Every day, children are bombarded by TV 띠olence . reason The
average child sees . . . evidence . . . [Watching TV violence] is likely to damage
their psychological developmen t. claim
40 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

The argument now opens with two warrants , fo11owed by a reason ,

evidence , and claim. We may be more inclined to think that the reason
supports the claim if we first accept the general principle (when children see
degrading behavio r; they αre hurt by it). Of course , if we might reject those
warrants , the writer has to back them with their own supporting arguments

6. Decide where to þut acknowledgments and resþonses.

Idea11y, you should acknowledge and respond to questions or objections the
moment readers will think of them. Unfortunately, few of us are smart enough
to do that. But just by acknowledging some objections and responding to them
anywhere , you show readers you are aware of some alternative views , if not
theirs in particular

7. Decide what you have to exþlain.

Are there concepts , definitions , processes , background , history that readers
need to understand your reasons and evidence? Explain where necessary
A11 of this suggests the stock plan we sketched earlier:

Introduction: Problem + Solution/claim

ßody:

Warrant
Reason I + Evidence I
Reason 2 + Evidence 2
Et c.
Acknowledgment & Response
Conclusion: Restatement of Problem + Solution/claim

We know that plans like these seem formulaic , but think of them not as blue-
prints but as rough sketches that you modify and develop . As you gain experi-
ence making arguments , you ’11 know when to forget these plans and go with
your intuition. But even then , it능 a good idea to have some plan before you start.

DRAFTING
When to Stop Planning and Start Drafting
It is so much easier to keep reading than to start writing that many of us just go
on researching in order to put off the tougher job of drafting. Resist that trap
 Writing Process 41

Set a deadline to start drafting by back-planning from your due date . Decide
how much time you need to draft , add 20 percent , then add another 20 percent
for revision , if you are a quick drafter; if you are slow and careful , add more
Then leave time to proofread .

Draft a Working Introduction

You may have been told to write introductions last , after you have drafted
something to introduce. That능 a good idea , but you should also sketch a work-
ing introduction to focus your thinking as you draft. Try this plan:

1. Start with a sentence or two of shared context for your problem:

For centuries , drinking has been a part of college life. For some students , it
is almost a rite of passage. But as we all know, it has become deadly

2. Add a sentence or two that articulate the problem:

To control the risk , the university wants to pass regulations banning alco-
hol at all student events , even fraternity and sorority parties

3. In a sentence or two , state what the problem does or will cost readers:
Students ignore these rules , which encourages contempt for university
authority And if the rules are enforced , responsible students will be
deprived of a legal right

4. End your introduction with the gist of your solution to the problem:
Student Government must join the Greek Council in opposing these rules
and support instead educational programs

REVISING
Match Your Introduction to Your Conclusion
Leave time to revise , but when time runs out , here is a quick fix to ensure that
your introduction and conclusion at least do not contradict each other

1. Draw a line after the introduction and before the conclusion.

Readers are confused when they can't see those boundaries. If you can’t find
them easilχ your readers may not find them at all. Always start a new para-
graph after your introduction and at your conclusion

2. Highlight the main claim.

• If you stated the main claim at the end of the introduction , highlight it
there and again in the conclusion.
42 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

• If you stated the main claim for the first time in the conclusion , highlight
it there but also highlight the last sentence or two of the introduction
• If you put your main claim anywhere else , revise to put it first or last

3. Compare the highlighted sentences in your introduction and

conclusion.
• If they do not agree , revise the one in the introduction to match the one
in the conclusion , because what you wrote last probably reflects your best
thinking. If you repeat the main claim in both places , do not make them
identical , but they should seem closely related

4. If you have time , repeat this process for each section longer than a page.
• 1n its introduction and conclusion , highlight the reaso nJclaim that is the
point of that section.
• Put it at the end of its introduction. or at least in its conclusion
• If it is in the introduction , be sure it harmonizes with the conclusion.

INQUIRIES

1. Some say that ethos and reputation work best in the dark: they have the
most effect on those who know least about the issue being debated
They believe that the more you know about the person (as opposed to
just an image) and the more you know about the facts of the case , the
less you should be influenced by ethos or reputation. Do you agree that
if an argument is strong enough , the character of the person making it
should not matter? What if a less trustworthy person makes a stronger
argument than a more trustworthy person? Why do ethos and reputa-
tion matter to you , if they do?
2. How much are you influenced by reputation? 1dentify people whose
judgment you trust , including public figures and people you know
personally. List the features in their manner of arguing. Are they passion-
ate or reserved? Do they qualify their statements or speak with unquali-
fied certainty? Do they acknowledge the contributions of others? Do
they use statistics? Anecdotes? What is their tone? Is there a pattern in
the attributes of arguers you trust? If so , what does that say about you?
3. The five questions underlying argument can be asked in relatively
explicit ways or with just “ Umm" or “ Oh?" Observe two or three conver-
sations in which people make arguments. Notice how many different
ways they ask others to expand and explain their arguments. Are their
questions explicit or implicit? How often do people push enough to get
the hard evidence on which someone bases a claim?
 In a Nutshell 43

4 . Are arguments at work different from arguments in school? If you have

a job , notice how people make arguments with those above them ,
below them , and on the same leve l. Do they offer as much evidence as
academic writers do? Do they acknowledge alternatives? What would
explain the differences?
5. Are advertisements arguments? Few say explicitly, Buy this cαr! or See
this movie! , but they still try to get you to do something specific. Most of
them give reasons , and the photograph or drawing of the product seems
to count as something like evidence , something you can see with your
own eyes. Try analyzing them as arguments. What difference does it
make whether we call them arguments or not? Look for advertisements
that seek to pεrsuade by means other than reasons and evidence. Can
you find an ad that acknowledges another point of view?

IN A NUTSHELL

About Your Argument .. .

We build arguments out of answers to just five kinds of questions we ask one
another every day:

• What are you claiming?

• What reasons do you have for believing that claim?
• What evidence do you base those reasons on?
• What principle makes your reasons relevant to you claims?
• But what about . . . ?

In conversation , someone asks us those questions , but when we write , we have

to imagine those questions on our readers' behalf
You anchor your argument on two of those answers: evidence and , if
necessary, warrants. If your readers do not accept those elements , you can’t
make an argument at all. You must report evidence explicitly. You leave most
warrants implicit , if you and your readers share assumptions , but you usually
have to state them when you address contested issues. Most of us assume ,
however, that we and our readers share more than we actually do , so it is wise
to be more explicit than you think you have to be.
Those five elements constitute the core of a simple argument , but you
may have to treat each reason , warrant , and response to a different point of
view as the claim of another, subordinate argumen t. That능 “ thickening" your
argument.
44 CHAPTER 2 Argument as Civil Conversation

.. and About Writing It

You have four initial tasks:
• Understand the problem that occasions your argument
• Formulate hypotheses that are plausible candidates for a solution.
• Pick the best candidate
• Li st the reasons that encourage your reader to agree with your solution

Once you have reasons to support your claim , think about evidence to
back up those reasons . Then imaginε someone asking But whαt αbout . .. ?
Avoid these stock plans:
• The five paragraph essay
• A narrative of your research and thinking
• A summary of your sources
• Organizing parts around things rather than ideas and concepts.
Here is a plan for drafting your argument:
• Sketch the problem and its solution
• List reasons that you think your readers would accept as sound
• Articulate the evidence on which you think those reasons res t.
• Order those reasons in a way that will make sense to your reader.
• Imagine 0비 ections and respond to them
Next , draft a working introduction:
• Start with a sentence or two of shared context for your problem
• Add a sentence or two that articulates the problem
• State what the problem does or will cost readers.
• Finish with a sentence that sketches the gist of your solution to the problem
Set off your introduction and conclusion from the body of your paper, and then
compare the last sentence or two in your introduction to the most important
claim in your conclusion. If they do not complement each other, change them
so they do . (You will more likely have to change the one in the introduction.)
If you can , do the same in each major section: Set off its introduction and
(if it has one) conclusion and compare them. The main point in each section
should probably appear at the end of the introduction to its section.