The Persuasive Essay That Only Argues One Side
A student is analysing a persuasive opinion article arguing that school uniforms should be compulsory. The article opens with a statistic (a school reported a 30% drop in behavioural incidents after uniforms were introduced), then uses two anecdotes from teachers, then states: 'Opponents claim uniforms suppress individuality, but this is sentimental nonsense.' The student's analysis reads: 'The writer uses a statistic and anecdotes to persuade the reader. This is effective because it gives evidence and personal stories. The writer also uses emotive language.' The task asks students to analyse how the writer's choices position the reader, and to evaluate the strength of the argument.
1. Explain what the student's analysis misses about the article's treatment of the opposing view, and why that omission matters for the 'evaluate' part of the task.
Read the worked answer
The student notes devices - statistic, anecdote, emotive language - but does not examine how the article handles the counterargument. The article names the opposing view only to dismiss it in a single clause: 'sentimental nonsense'. This is a straw-figure move: the objection is reduced to an insult rather than engaged with, and no evidence is offered against it. For the 'evaluate' part of the task, this is the most important feature of the article, because it reveals that the argument is one-sided. The statistic is also a single-school, before-and-after observation with no control, so it cannot establish that uniforms caused the drop. The student's claim that the devices are 'effective' is asserted, not evaluated - effective for whom, and at what cost to the argument's credibility? An evaluative response must weigh the rhetorical effect against the quality of the reasoning, and this article's reasoning is weakest exactly where the student is silent.
2. Write an improved analytical paragraph that addresses positioning and evaluation. Explain the structure you used.
Read the worked answer
Model paragraph: 'The writer positions the reader to accept uniform policy by opening with a numerical claim - a 30% drop in behavioural incidents - which borrows the authority of data. The figure is drawn from a single school and measures before and after the change, so it cannot show that uniforms caused the improvement; the reader is invited to infer causation the evidence does not support. Two teacher anecdotes then supply human texture, but they function as illustration rather than proof. Most revealing is the treatment of the opposing view: the objection that uniforms suppress individuality is named only to be dismissed as "sentimental nonsense". This pre-emptive belittling may persuade a reader already inclined to agree, but it weakens the argument for a sceptical reader, because the writer avoids engaging with a genuine concern about self-expression. The article is therefore rhetorically confident but argumentatively thin.' Structure used: device identified, then its effect on the reader, then its evidentiary limitation, then evaluation of the counterargument handling, then a concluding judgement that weighs rhetoric against reasoning.