0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
242 vizualizări191 pagini
This document provides an introduction to arguments and persuasive essay writing. It discusses the basic principles of arguments, including that an argument aims to convince someone of a conclusion. It notes that more complex arguments are more interesting, as they do not have an immediately clear way to resolve the issue, requiring definition of key terms and agreement on an evaluation process. The document is intended to help undergraduate students improve their ability to analyze, construct, and write persuasive arguments and essays. It focuses on the most common written assignments in liberal studies and English courses.
This document provides an introduction to arguments and persuasive essay writing. It discusses the basic principles of arguments, including that an argument aims to convince someone of a conclusion. It notes that more complex arguments are more interesting, as they do not have an immediately clear way to resolve the issue, requiring definition of key terms and agreement on an evaluation process. The document is intended to help undergraduate students improve their ability to analyze, construct, and write persuasive arguments and essays. It focuses on the most common written assignments in liberal studies and English courses.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
This document provides an introduction to arguments and persuasive essay writing. It discusses the basic principles of arguments, including that an argument aims to convince someone of a conclusion. It notes that more complex arguments are more interesting, as they do not have an immediately clear way to resolve the issue, requiring definition of key terms and agreement on an evaluation process. The document is intended to help undergraduate students improve their ability to analyze, construct, and write persuasive arguments and essays. It focuses on the most common written assignments in liberal studies and English courses.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
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