Of the various types of papers you may be required to write, argumentative papers are the most common and the most difficult to master. An effective argument typically contains the following elements:

A clear thesis - stating one's position on an issue

- offering specific reasons

Acknowledgment of one's premises (initial assumptions)

Definition of important or controversial terms/concepts:

- statement of essence

- example

- stipulation

- inductive: conclusion follows probably from premises

- deductive: conclusion follows necessarily from premises

- examples (real or hypothetical)

- analogy

- citing of an authority

- statistics

- acknowledge opposing viewpoints

- exhibit flaws of opposing arguments

- who is the audience?

- assumptions shared between author and audience?

- author's use of appropriate persona, method, tone

A brief review of these elements may be helpful:

Thesis: it's always a good idea to make the thesis as specific as possible. You should indicate your position clearly (even if your position is ambivalent); you should also list in your thesis, in order of importance, the reasons for your position.

Premises: you need to be aware of what premises or initial assumptions you can reasonably share with your audience. For example, if you are arguing against capital punishment, one of your premises might be that the deliberate taking of a life is generally wrong. Your audience is likely to agree with this and you do not need to argue it. This position will serve as one of your (unargued) premises. However, if your position is that the taking of a life under any circumstances is wrong, some people are likely to disagree with this and you will need to argue your position.

Definition: again, your use of definition will depend on the degree of familiarity with your subject which you can expect from your audience. If your argument centers on any difficult or unfamiliar terms, you need to offer a clear definition of such terms. You can define terms in a number of ways: (i) you can state the essence or distinctive qualities of a term. For example, you might define a triangle as a plane figure composed of three straight lines. If you were defining a "table," you would refer to the essential qualities and uses that make it a table: that it has a flat surface, that this surface is supported by legs, and that it is used for certain purposes. The fact that the table is brown or green is irrelevant to its constitution as a table.

However, most terms are not susceptible to such a straightforward definition; if you were attempting to define "murder" or "rape" or broad terms such as "human," you might need to offer a stipulative definition, whereby you made it clear to your audience how you intended to use the given term. You might say something like: "For the purposes of this argument, I will define 'murder' as..."

If you are dealing with a difficult concept, you might use examples to clarify your definition of it. For example, instead of simply defining "goodness," you might offer two or three examples of "good" actions; both you and your audience might then attain a sharper perception of what you mean by "good."

Reasoning: there are conventionally two categories:

(i) Inductive reasoning: in this kind of reasoning, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is probably true. The most common kind of inductive reasoning is called inductive generalization, which entails observation of a number of particular cases, on the basis of which we form a general statement or conclusion. For example:

In this example we can discern the distinctive feature of inductive reasoning: it can never yield certainty, only varying degrees of probability. It is possible that after the first two weeks of class, Flavius might fall in love, causing him to become a slouch, or lover of the couch, for the rest of his life. Or he might become addicted to The Spice Girls, suffering a consequent decline in academic motivation. So it is important, when using inductive reasoning, to draw general statements or conclusions which are not too broad and which can confidently be predicted to hold.

There are other types of inductive arguments:

Prediction: predictions or conclusions about future events can only be probable. Here are some examples:

Causal inference: we infer an effect from a cause or vice versa:

Argument from analogy: we reason that, because two things are similar, what is true of one of them is probably true of the other:

In all of these cases, in order to produce a good inductive argument, we must be confident that (a) there is a high probability of our conclusion following from our premises, and (b) our premises are true.

(ii) Deductive reasoning: a deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Hence, if the premises are true, it is certain that the conclusion is true. The classic model of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which a general law or rule might be applied to a particular case:

Deductive arguments, however, may take a variety of forms. We might argue, for example:

If the premises here are true, then the conclusion must be true. Here is a more detailed example of deductive argument:

If we grant the premises of this argument, we must accept the conclusions as true. However, we may not accept the premises as true; we might, for example, prefer a different definition of "self-defence," in which case we might arrive at a different (and opposing) conclusion.

Hence, for a deductive argument to be sound, two conditions must be fulfilled: (a) the inferences in it must be valid, and (b) all of its premises must be true.

Most of the arguments we actually use employ a mixture of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Use of Evidence: one way of providing evidence for an argument is to offer examples. If we were arguing that a President's private life should not impinge on his public image, we could supply examples of how the media's inordinate attention to his private life had distracted both the President and the nation as a whole from more pressing national and international issues.

Another form of evidence is the citing of an authority; we might refer to a scientific report, or a legal document, or a figure respected in the general field in which our argument lies.

Statistics can also be offered as evidence; we might remember that figures provided by statistics are open to various interpretations.

In general, we need to ensure that what we are counting as "evidence" truly supports our case. If we were arguing against capital punishment, it would not be enough to cite simply the example of one person who had been wrongly executed; we would need to know precisely how many people had suffered such treatment and in what conditions.

Refutation/accommodation of counter-arguments: you cannot simply assume that your arguments will convince people who do not agree with your premises and assumptions. You need to look at the major arguments against your own case and show their weaknesses. You might even make your case more credible by conceding the value of part of an opposing argument.

Audience-awareness: in every paper that you write, and especially in an argumentative paper, you should be aware of precisely whom you are addressing. The nature of your audience will determine at what level you pitch your paper, your definitions of terms, the arguments you deploy, and the general tone of your paper.

In Intellectual Heritage and Literary Masterpieces courses you may well be asked to evaluate the argument of a given writer or text, or to compare and contrast two arguments. Here are a few steps you might take:

(1) Read through the text(s) once to get a general sense of the writer's overall thesis or argument;

(2) re-read the text closely, looking for the author's use of reasoning and evidence. Are there any self-contradictions or inconsistencies in the author's position? Is the evidence appropriate and substantial enough? List, in order of importance, the reasons and the evidence offered by the writer;

(3) ask yourself whether the author overlooks any arguments or points which might not support or which oppose his/her case;

(4) ask yourself what the author's assumptions or premises are. Are these assumptions stated? Are they justified in this context?

(5) decide what your attitude is toward the author's views. Use the information you have obtained in steps 1-4 to make a list of the strengths and weaknesses of the author's argument;

(6) organize these strengths and weaknesses according to whichever of the following categories seem appropriate: assumptions; reasoning; use of evidence; refutation of alternative arguments; consideration of audience;

(7) draft a thesis, the format of which will be something like:

"The author's arguments for X are generally sound in respect of A, B, C, but they are deficient in D,E and F";

(8) you are now in a position to draft an outline of your paper, according to the following format:

Introduction: briefly identify the issues in question.

Thesis: a clear and detailed statement of your evaluation of the author's arguments.

Part 1: evaluation of the author's first argument in terms of the categories given above (reasoning, evidence, etc.).

Part 2: evaluation of author's second argument.

Part 3: evaluation of author's third argument.

Conclusion: draw out the general significance of the author's argument and his/her success or failure in presenting it.

Alternatively, your outline could look like this:

Part 1: evaluation of author's use of reasoning (in all of his/her arguments).

Part 2: evaluation of author's use of evidence.

Part 3:evaluation of author's treatment of counter- arguments.

Part 4: assessment of author's assumptions.

(9) You can now follow the procedures given earlier for drafting, revising and editing.