Reading and Writing Arguments
Reading and Writing Arguments asks you to dissect arguments others make and build your own. Expect questions on thesis quality, Toulmin structure, rhetorical appeals, inductive and deductive reasoning, fallacies, and the effective use of counterargument.
What makes an argument
A thesis must be arguable, specific, and supportable: "Public universities should cap online course enrollment at 25 students" beats "Online learning has problems." The Toulmin model identifies a claim (what you assert), grounds (evidence), warrant (the assumption linking evidence to claim), backing (support for the warrant), qualifier ("usually," "in most cases"), and rebuttal (conditions under which the claim fails). Deduction moves from general premise to conclusion; an enthymeme is a syllogism with an unstated premise. Induction moves from specific cases to a probable generalization.
Rhetorical appeals and arrangement
Logos is evidence and reasoning; ethos is credibility earned through fairness, expertise, and accurate citation; pathos is emotional appeal, effective when it illuminates stakes and manipulative when it replaces evidence. Classical arrangement runs introduction, narration/context, partition, proof, refutation, and conclusion. Rogerian argument opens with common ground and seeks agreement rather than victory.
Worked example
Claim: "The campus should ban vending machines because obesity is rising and students buy snacks." Grounds: rising obesity and snack purchases. Hidden warrant: vending machines are a major cause of obesity and a ban will reduce it. The argument commits causal oversimplification and relies on unstated assumptions. A stronger version would add consumption data, examine substitution effects, qualify the claim ("a pilot ban in two buildings"), and address the counterargument that students can buy snacks elsewhere.
Fallacies to recognize
Ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, begging the question, red herring, and tu quoque. On the exam, name the flaw and explain why the evidence fails to support the claim.
Traps that cost marks
- Confusing a fact with a thesis; facts support claims but do not argue.
- Attacking a weakened version of the opposing view-the straw man-rather than its strongest form.
- Treating correlation as causation or a single anecdote as proof.
- Ignoring qualifiers; absolute claims ("always," "never") are harder to defend.
- Summarizing the opposing view without conceding or refuting it.