Analysing Argument: Contention, Persuasion and Position
What this area asks of you
Analysing Argument requires you to explain how a writer positions an audience, not merely what the writer thinks. You must identify the contention (the central claim), the supporting arguments and their sequence, the intended audience and context, the tonal shifts, and the persuasive techniques deployed - including inclusive language, appeals to fear, justice, fairness or self-interest, anecdote and case study, statistics and expert testimony, analogy, irony and sarcasm, rhetorical questions, repetition, attack and rebuttal, and visual or layout choices where described.
Structure your analysis
Work through the piece in its own order, grouping material into stages of the argument. For each stage, state the sub-claim, identify the language choices carrying it, and explain the effect on the reader - why that choice at that moment is persuasive. Use metalanguage accurately but sparingly; explanation outranks labelling.
Traps in questions
- Technique hunting: a list of devices with no account of cumulative effect.
- Confusing contention with topic: the contention is a stance, not a subject.
- Ignoring the audience: an appeal to parental anxiety works differently from an appeal to business owners.
- Missing tone: shifts from reasonable to indignant are persuasive architecture, not decoration.
- Overstating effect: "this forces the reader to agree" is weaker than "this positions the reader to see the proposal as reckless".
Rule of thumb
Use the formula choice → mechanism → effect → purpose: the writer does X, which works by Y, positioning the audience to feel or think Z, in order to achieve W. Test each paragraph against it.
Worked example: If a writer opens with one family's struggle before presenting cost data, argue that the personal narrative establishes an emotional stake that makes the later figures read as confirmation rather than abstraction - the sequence is the strategy.