Advanced Strategies for the St. Martins Guide to Writing Argument Chapters The assignment chapters in the St.

Martins Guide to Writing tend to focus on basic features common but fairly general characteristics of each type of writing. Along the way, the book sometimes touches briefly on advanced strategies, but these are sometimes easy to miss, buried in the text and fleeting. This document will focus a bit more specifically on these advanced features and strategies as they pertain to the argumentative chapters (chapters 6 through 9). Its written with a particular type of student in mind: If youre up for trying more difficult moves and have confidence in your ability to make them work with enough practice, these can dramatically boost the quality of your papers. These are the kinds of moves that tend to mark the difference between B and A papers. A Strategy for All of the Argument Chapters Use Finding Common Ground (Ch. 5) as a building block

The idea here is to embed inside your argument another genre that you previously learned. Yes, this will help you make your argument longer, and any strategy that fills your paper with something meaningful is cool, but there are better reasons for suggesting it. Consider this: Any time you write an argument, youre joining a controversy that already existed. In all likelihood, other people were arguing about it before you entered the conversation. If you include a section in your paper that describes what others have already said on the subject, you build your own credibility as someone who has done his or her homework. If you combine this background section with moves you learned when you tried the Finding Common Ground essay in Chapter 5, you can achieve some other cool effects: o You build rapport with your readers. By identifying common ground between the position you plan to take and other positions that opponents have expressed, you build reduce hostility from any readers who might not initially agree with you. Even if those readers dont end up agreeing with you, they might end up thinking youre a smart, well-meaning adversary. Thats not a bad outcome. o You buffer your argument. Have you ever had someone give you bad news by saying something nice before and after the bad part? Or maybe youve done this yourself in peer reviews, like so: I really like your introduction. I got a little lost in paragraph three, but I think your paper is on the right track. The red part is the bad news; the blue parts are called buffers. Theyre the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. Arguments can have buffers, too, and theyre a good idea. When you open with Finding Common Ground, you delay the part

where you might upset a reader and give yourself some time to establish that you mean well. o You home in on the most critical parts of the disagreement. Once youve found common ground, whatevers left is under dispute. At least one of those points is going to be critical to the argument you want to make. Once youve told the reader what those points are, you can evaluate each sides arguments over those points and show why you agree with side A instead of side B. A generic outline of a paper that embeds Finding Common Ground might look something like this: I. II. III. Introduction: Hook or engage the readers attention. (Example: Maybe you draw our attention to a problem you plan to discuss.) Common Ground: People who have debated subject in the past tend to agree on A, B, and C. (Examples: They might agree that a problem exists and that it is serious.) Areas of Dispute: However, people continue to disagree about X and Y. (Example: Maybe they still disagree over the causes of the problem.) a. Explain what the other side believes and why you dont find it persuasive. b. Explain what your side believes and why you agree with it. [Other sections as needed this will depend on the genre/assignment you are completing.] Conclusion: End with some sort of final recommendation on where we need to go from here. Arguing a Position Find existing voices to push off from.

IV. V.

Students are often worried that they dont have anything original to say. This isnt true, but its certainly difficult to say something new unless you know what others have already said and start to argue with them. The solution to this problem is to argue with someone specificand to pick someone tough. Why tough? Because a strong adversary is likely to represent what your smarter opponents really think. If you can deal with those viewpoints fairly, you build your credibility much better than you would if you argued with the dumbest example of the other side you can find. If youre a student at Texas Womans University, your instructor may already require that you choose a published opinion or editorial article to argue with, which is one good way to ensure your opponent is formidible. However, thats just a start: If you can find published voices on your own side with whom you disagree a little, you can argue with those allies over those smaller points in order to carve out your own unique position.

If you do this well, your paper will have three characteristics of superior argumentation: 1. Evidence that youve researched the subject. 2. Fair representation of other positions. 3. Something new to say. Proposing a Solution We talked earlier about embedding other genres within your arguments. For the Proposing a Solution genre, this is a critical move. Effective proposals often include the following subsections as elements of their argument: Make a case that the problem deserves attention Students on speech teams who participate in policy debate often divide their arguments into two parts: The Case and The Plan. The Case ... 1) sets up what the problem is, 2) argues that it is serious, and 3) shows that it isnt getting better on its own. Why? If your audience doesnt believe these things, then no solution will be acceptable to them. Discuss what is causing the problem This section is more optional sometimes the cause seems obvious or isnt important to your argument. But frequently the best solutions will attack the root causes of the problem instead of the problems effects. Its a matter of treating the disease instead of the symptoms. Its also common for disagreements about solutions to stem from disagreements over what people think is causing the problem. So if your solution is based on your belief about what is causing the problem, then your reader is going to need to be convinced you have identified the cause correctly. List criteria for evaluating proposals It helps to identify some criteria youre using to pick your solution. If you do this, you also give yourself tools for refuting other proposals. For example, if you decide the ideal solution needs to be affordable, you might use that standard to show why more expensive proposals should be dismissed. Heres a brief list of common criteria:

o o o o

Affordability: Can we afford this plan? Feasibility: Is it realistic to think this plan could ever be implemented? Solvancy: Can the plan actually solve (or reduce!) the problem? Responsibility: Does the problem avoid negative side effects that would be worse than the problem being fixed? (Its very easy to solve a problem while creating new ones to replace it. You want to avoid that!)

Use a process-of-elimination approach Government staff studies (which are one type of solution proposal) actually require this move because its very useful. The idea is that you start off by listing every reasonable solution you can think of (or which has previously been proposed). Hint: On your list of possible solutions, make sure you include the option of Making No Changes at All. Youll see why in a second. You then evaluate each one, one at a time, using the criteria you came up with for the step we described above. Is it affordable? Is it feasible? Does it solve the problem? Does it avoid worse side effects? You might even fill out rubrics or score sheets for each option. When youre done, you simply pick the solution that did the besteven if it isnt perfect. Most solutions arent. If youve done the process-of-elimination approach, though, you can say something like, Although solution X isnt perfect, its clearly better than options Y and Z, and for this reason is the one we should adopt. Its very difficult for readers to argue with something like that! Finally, remember our hint from a few paragraphs ago? Well, you may sometimes discover that Making No Changes at All does better than all of the other options, in which case you end up writing something like, Although its very tempting to try to do something to solve this problem, it turns out all of the proposed solutions make things worse. For this reason, I recommend leaving the system the way it is, even though its not perfect.

Justifying an Evaluation The following moves can raise the game of any evaluation. Define or classify your subject

What exactly are the BMW Filmsare they ads or movies? Is the movie Cabin in the Woods a comedy or a horror movie? What kind of a game is Minecraft? Should Panda Express be considered a Chinese restaurant, or is it something else? Before you start evaluating your subject, its often a good idea to make an argument about what kind of thing it is. Why? Because sometimes its not simple, and the standards for your evaluation change depending on what it turns out to be. One evaluates a family car differently from a car for pleasure drivingin one, the comfort of the back seats and the trunk space matters, but in the other it doesnt. For an example of an evaluation that spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to classify the subject, see this review of Spore. You can find another example with this video clip of Top Gear host trying to classify the Aston Martin DBS so that he can review it. (You only need to watch the first six minutes to get a sense of how this works.) Make your criteria explicit. By making your criteria explicit you organize your paper and make sure you dont omit any important angles. For an example, heres another Top Gear video clip, which uses explicit criteria to evaluate the Ford Fiesta in often humorous ways. (One of the criteria host Clarkson decided to use is whether the car can handle being chased by bad guys through a shopping mall.) In this review, each criterion leads to a different test to see whether the car passes. Give both criticism and praise, but end with the perspective you want to emphasize That is, if you like a movie, start out by talking about the problems you had with it. Then introduce your list of reasons for loving it anyway with a word like However, so that the last impression your reader has is the one you want her to have. If you didnt like the movie, start by saying what worked, give us your however transition, and then lead into all of the reasons it was still bad. By doing this, you establish credibility at the beginning and your position at the end, getting the best of both. You also ensure you only need one major transition in your paper instead of two. (If you did things the other way around, it would look like this: 1I liked the movie; 2It had some problems, though; 3But I still liked it. Thats two major transitions, and your reader might get whiplash.) Consider making a comparative review.

Which Thai restaurant near your campus offers students the best value? Which car is best for that road trip across the country youre planning? Which movie is the best date movie of the summer? The above kinds of questions not only enable you to write a more complicated, more interesting review, they provide you with an anglea reason for readers to read you. Its no longer just a commentary. It has a purpose. Along the way, you get to use the power of comparisons to make your points more clear. Its one thing to say that Taco Bell isnt authentic Mexican food, but its quite another to compare it with a more authentic taco stand and show what the difference is. The latter approach is often more powerful. This tip also makes your conclusion easier to write: You add up the points and proclaim a winner.

Speculating about Causes Expect multiple causes then figure out a way to deal with them. Most phenomena have multiple causes. If you try to argue theres only one cause, youre likely to be wrong. But you dont want to just say, Well, there are ten causes; here they are. That doesnt help your reader much. How do those causes interact? Which are more important? Are there factors that arent essential to the phenomenon but which enflame it? Here are three strategies for dealing with multiple causes, which can be used in combination or separately: 1. Focus on an unexpected or poorly understood cause: Which one might be most surprising or enlightening to your readers? You can then set the others aside with a comment like, Although most people realize X, Y, and Z all contribute to the phenomenon, few realize theres another factor in play. 2. Prioritize them: Which are the most significant causes of the phenomenon or trend youre examining? Which are trivial? 3. Classify them: Categorize the causes according to a classification scheme. For instance, causes are often classified as necessary, sufficient, or contributory. By identifying which causes fall into each category, you can help readers understand the ways these causes interact.