Thomas N. Huckin, Leslie A.

Olsen, Technical WritingandProfessional

Communication for nonnative speakers of English, 2" Edition, McGrawHill, Inc, New York, 1991. [pp. 72-95]

Constructing Arguments

As a technical professional, you are expected to clo inore thah simply report
information. You are expected to exercise your juclginent about that inforinatiol~,to lllttlie recon~mei~datioi~s,
to propose solutions to problems. In many
such cases, whether you are malring a feasibility re~$ort,writing a proposal,
or presicling over a teleconference, you cai~ilnotexpect the information to simply
"speak for itself." The interests of your audience illay be too diverse, or t.he
situation too complicatecl, for that. Instead, you have to present inforination
in such a way that your auclieilce will see how it applies to the problem at
hand. I11 short, you have to be pe.t-s.lc.as.i.ue.This is where algui~leiltatioilskills
are iml)ortant.
When we tall; ahout arguments in this booli, we do not meal1 clua~.rels
or debates. Iadeecl, that liiild of argru~lentationis llsually counterproclnctive
in professional settings and should generally be avoided. Rat.her, an argument
is simply a claiin tllat somet~l~ing
shonld be believed or done, plus proof or
good reasons for Lielieviilg or doing it. If you have done a sm.vey of ]line bark
beetle dainage to the lodgc~polepille i0~est.sof northwc-ste~nWyon~ingand
are reco~ninei~di~ig
that natllfi~lpredation be used against then1 insl.t,:~d of'
chenlicnl sprays, yon a1.e co:g~ci>l~j
lor that ya~ticularp:~intof vie\?'. I f yon aye
n7ritin$a: covc~'let.tc-r anil rbsm116 for a softcvarc?engil~ce~'ilig
yosit.iol~,yon :Ire
tr y ~ l i)ty
r
that yc~uare 1:1~'tter
qualifier1 t-hail ol.11~'~.
'Po ~nalieel'l;:cti\~c :u.gumc~iils,you iinlst Li~msl.clescai~i\)c!
a 1j1.ohlen1tltat tl~c->
reader \.r7ai~ts
to havo :;ol\letl (a:: disc1wsc.d in the p1.eccdiilg cl~al.)tci~).
'l'hen
yo11 iil~lst:
I

Millie :~pj~ol,riate
claiins ( e . ~. solulic!l~!:)
.
abont it..

~ f~
:: Il'iuil ailtl recog~iiaep r i ~ or

i.eas011s Sol' t.llese claims.

O C I ~

:: L ~ I I O M ' when yon have enough ~)rooi'.

1 1,inli y o u awgunents t.ogethei' to l~uiltla case.

This chapt.ei. gives you some advice on how to haild effcciive arglunleats.

When they first begin writing on the job, illany tecllilical l)rofessioi1als fail to
I)~.ovideenough snpport, or "baclrup data," for the claims they lnalce ill their
1-eports. This often lnaltes the reports ineffective or even useless wheil
audiences disagree with the writer's conelusion, see it as threatening, or neecl
a solid foundatioil of support on which l;o base their own tlecisions. For instance,
consider the following first page of a report dashed off by a junior biologist:
Subject
Establishing a computer Ale for our library: Cost estimate

Foreword
Frequent reference to the books in our library is essential for the research
worlcers in the office. However, because of imperfections in the carcl cataloging
system, precious time is wasted in locating boolis. To solve this problem, we
have clecidecl to use the computers for book searching; this will be faster and far
more convenient. I have been aslied to study the feasibility of such a project
under our current budget. The purpose of this report is to esti~natethe cost of
establishing a computer Ale for our library.

Surnrnary
For my test run on the coinputer, I esperiinentecl with 50 boolis from the libral-y
and estimated the cost for establishing a computer file for these 60 boolts. Since
there are al~p~osimately
1500 boolts in our library, that cost figure was then
multiplied by 30 to give the total cost figme for the whole l i b m y . I t is estimated
that $2000 will be i~eecledto establish the conq)utel-file for the library.

Assuine that you aye the department manager to whom this memo was
~r
has limited iiulds? and that you can sl)end absolutely
sent;, that y o ~ department,
no more than $2000 on this project, if you call spend even that. l?m.tller, you
~r
if you invest in the llroject., you must get a completed
can't waste y o ~ money:
1il)rcu.y system in return. A partially completed project will be useless ant1
divert money from otllei- needetl 11roject.s.
Ulldci- t.l~esevery realistic conditions, what, would you want to see as
proof for the claillls made iu tlw sunimary? Wouldn't yiju want to linow that
i
Hour could the wrii.er
the sanlple of 50 I.100lis ~rlasa r e ~ : ) r e . s e n t tsample?
convince you? Wouldn't, you like some l)l~(ifif'that. the est.imat~etlcost. for t.he
project, was accurat.e? l:Io\rl cvo~onldyon expect t.o find t.11~1t
out? Perhaps by

74 LI Generul Strategies for the Writing Process

seeing a brealxlown of the total cost into its component parts-$1500 for labor,
$400 for computer time, $100 for miscellaneous expenses. Even if the writer
providecl those figuiw, how could you bc convincecl that tlie $1500 charge for
labor would be sufficient, that you wouldn't be aslred t o provide more money
late^ on?
Similarly, consider tlie next beginning of a report, written by a test
engineer to report the mileage for a weight-reduced T-car.

Foreword
Increasing the fuel economy of our auto~nobileshas been the top priority of our
compaliy for the past 2 years. In your memo dated October 6, 1988, you recluested
that I perform a simulated road test for our T-car with a weight reduction of
1000 lb and compare its highway mileage rating (MPG) to our present model. I
have completed the test ancl have placed the results in our file. The purpose of
this report is to present the test results and my recotnmenclation.

Summary
Upon completion of five simulated road tests, I have determined that the weightreduced T-car will only give an average 2.5-MPG increase in highway mileage,
while its lightness creates handling and safety problems. Therefore, for safety
reasons, I recommend that sources other than solely reducing the weight of the
car be investigated.
If you had t o malre decisions about fuel economy on the basis of this
suininmy, wouldn't you want proof that the five road tests were sufficient,
t h a t the mileage increased only 2.5 miles per gallon, ailcl that there were
handling ancl safety problems with the car? If you were a hostile audienceperhaps you believed in the weight-recluced car, say, or had even helped
design it-woulcln't you need to see the same lrincls of proof before you believed
the claims macle'in the Summary?
The following exercises provide practice in iclentifyillg claims which need
t o be 111-ovecl. The rest of this chapter considers ways of provilig such claims.

CI EXERCISE 4-1
This exercise presents excerpts from three different repol-ts. Predict what
claims or numbers ileed t o be proved to malre a convincing a r g u m e ~ ~ t .

Foreword
The whit1 turbine project is a new mirlertalii~igof Energy Systems. Thc goal of
the ~~roject
is t.o desig~lx ma~lreti~l~lc
s v ~ t . ~which
r n mnlres \vin(l energy acccssil~lc
lo private residents. To aid iu the selection ant1 tlevelopnient of a preliniinary
desig~~,
Mr. Zondervan aslced that 1 reseal.ch the practicality of using a Ilywheel
for energy storage. I-Ie also recl~~estccl
that I identbfy the organizations doing
develol)mei~t:worlr \vit.ll flywheel rot.ors so t.liat hu'tlier inj'orination c.ould be
ol:~tai~led
if a flyvr~heelis ii~coi.l?or:~t~d
in the clesigi~.'I'his report addresses thcse
requests I)y itlenl.ifyillgcha~~acteristics
of flywhcel energy st.olage which affect.
its 1)~act.ic:llity
2nd by 1ist.ingthose ii~sl.it.utions
involvctl in Rywheel rcsea~~cli.

Surntnury
New Myw11rc.l cli~~signs
show much ~)ruinisc.as ~~~~~~gy stol.age tleviccs, 1nal;iilg
~,cissibleenergy densities up to 4.0 WIIAII and reducing costs to :IS low as $50 pel'
1;Wl). These figures coml~arePavo~.al.~ly
with othei. st.or:iige clevic.c+s, such as
I.)att.el.ies.111aclrlition,,the new clesigns have solved major p ~ - o l ~ l ewith
~ n s bearings
atld energy conversion, nlaliing flynrheel energy stoixge cli~itepractical.
Flywheel clevelol?mentprojects are being carried on Ily the following people
a t tlic listed institutions.

1 L)avicl Rai?cnhrorst. The Applierl Physics Laboratory of Johns I-Iopliii~sUnivc.1.sity

2 J. A. Rinde, Lawrence Livennore Laboratory, Livermore, CA

3 A. E. Raynard, AiResearch Division of Garret Corporation, Torrance, CA

4

F~*ancesYounger, Wm. Erobecli ancl Associates

5 R. P. Nimmer, General Electric Company, Corporate Research ancl Development, Schenectacly, NY

Foreword
In the past G months, the P~.ocluctionDepartment has received complaints from
worliers on the main floor that their worlrillg environment has become too noisy.
They complain that inkense noise froin machines around them is nerve-wracking
allel that they can comm~~nicate
with one another only by shouting. Furthermore,
solne worlrers have even said that their hearing is deteriorating. Consequently,
I measured the sound level in various spots on the maill floor to locate the source
of the problem. The purpose of this report is to recommend methods for reclucing
the noise level on the main floor.

Results
I collected clata ancl comparecl my results with those obtained in December 1989;
the total noise level producecl by the machinery has increased by 30%. I then
cliscoverecl that the noise is proclucecl by the vibration of large housings and
coverplates ancl by friction between loose ancl worn-out parts of machinery. In
adclition, the noisy conclitio~~
on the ]nail1 floor is worsened by reverberations
from bare concrete ceilings and metal walls, which reflect a high percentage of
inciclent souncl waves.

Recommendations
My recommenclatio~~s
for reclucing the noisy conclition on the main floor are as
follows:
1 Adcl acoustic matel.ia1 on the concrete ceiling ancl nletal walls to reduce
reverberation.
2 Aclcl vibration-c1a1nping.g material beneath large housings and coverplates to
clissipate vibration energy in the form of heat.

3 R q ~ l a c ewoln-out parts of inachines and fix loose coinl)onents.

4

Proviclc earmuffs to prevent dxnage of the worliers' ears caused by prolonged

worliing in noisy conclitio~l.

76 0 Ger~erolStrategies for the Writing Process

-6 Considel noise specilic:ltic~ns ~ h e l lI)llyilig

1 1 ~ ~'cl~~il)n~ellt
' ~
to retluce

noise

~,rocluctiollin the future.

Foreword
The presellt ecoilonlic trellds have causcd smalle~.fraternities to have p r n l ~ l e ~ ~ ~ s
competing financially with large! fraternities, tlo~mito~ies,
and cool)erat.ives.
Specilically, Alplva Epsilon Zeta Fraternity must address the possibility of
expansion into nearby apai-tn~entsnot only to remain co~npet.itivebut also to
gain the inany social aclvantages of a larger laembership. The purpose of this
1-eport is to demonstrate the econoolic feasibility of such an annex and to
recommend its optimal size and location.

Summary
Rent prices vary only slightly within wallsing distance. Therefore, the best
location is the closest one, that being Plaza Apal.tments a t 605 E. Monroe St,.
Rent per member living in the annex will cost the fraternity substantially more
than for those living in the loclge. However, excess revenuc generated in the
board account will counter that expense. The annex must hold a t least six
members to be successful, and anyone ill acldition could eve11 cause a slight
reduction ill bills.

O v e r 2000 y e a r s ago, t h e G~aeelcphilosopher and 1-1ieto1-iciailAristotle identified

three main strategies o r hases for argument:

1 Logic and reason

2 T h e character and creilentials of t h e comnmnicator

3 Emotion
If you 1001: through n ~ a n yt y p e s of technical writing, y o u will notice t h a t
m o s t use (OP t r y t o use) argiuluents basecl oveitly on 1,ogic rr:u.rl ren.so?t.. For
instance,
Pierlest Inc. s h o ~ ~ adopt
ld
a lrroposed pollution contl.ol clevice heca~lsc.(1) it will
cut pollut.ion to ;~ilacec:l)taLle lesel, (2) it will be easy t.o inst.nl1, (YI it has a
i-vpuVition for l~eitlgvery 1-eliablc, ailtl (4) it. will be cost. effwtive.
I11 cont,rast, l.elaitively tYe\v a.rguma1ts are based uverl,ly 011 c~rjluf-io.rl,
though soiilc a r c . F o r inst.anc.e, t h e argunient "1'iel.lcst Inc. is violnt.ing federal
pollut.ioa s t . a n d a ~ d aiitl
s will be closerl down ~ m l e s ist g~.eat,lyreditcrs ~)ullution"
appeals t o tlie motion 01: fear, t h e f~bi11' of being. closed down.
You \trill not? that nic~st.alsg-i1m(+litsarc- co~i~biiiations
of two LIY ~111t h r e e
st.r~;~tc.gics.
wit11 olic l~~.eclominat.in_e..
For insi.ance, when yoti ~ v r i t ea repori;
l~c-cc~mn~entli~ig
:I l i n r t i c n l > so111t.ion
~~
to a p1.c~hleni,you ~ > ~ o l ) a bgive
l y a sri*ies
01' a ~ . ~ u m c ~ nI~asetl
l.s
on logic a n d I-e:~$oii t o s l ~ p l ) o ~your
t
r~!i.c~nimriitlat.ion.
~ l c ~ \ \ r ~ ? vyou
c l ~ lalso
~ , Ix~set l ~ rai~gnment.a t least par(.,ly on your c11aru.ctc-r and

Consirucling Argurnenis KI

77

ct,c~tlcntials.Since you were hi1.c.d l)ecaust. of y o ~ wcl~~;~lifications.

youl- recorn111:~ntlation
is often accel~tedat least l,ai'tly, and soinetimes iillly, because your
,.c~atlcrsbelieve that you're conqletent to speali on yomutopic. (It is, of course,
inq~ortantto 1001; competent and to reinforce y o ~ credentials.)
~r
You will also note that in different situations, different strategies of
al.gmment will be 11ioi.c important. As i;ldicated above, most tecl~nicalcommunication al~pcalsheavily to logic and reason, because this strategy of
: u ~ ~ m n e is
n tusually apl~ropriateand convincing. However, sollletinles technical
conlmmnicators need to base al.guments on emotion. For instance, when
deeply enlotional issues, such as the fear
scientists ancl engineers confru~~t
that a community might have over tlie location of a nuclear power plant,
overreliance on logical arguments can be ineffective. Scientists have often
arg~~ecl
very logically and "objectively" about a nuclear plant's backup systems
for controlling dange~oussituations and the very slight chance of an accident,
hnt they rarely convince listeners that a plant shoulcl be locatecl in their
coillmuaity. For many, the "fact" that a plant has only a one-in-a-miIlion
chance of blowiilg up does not outweigh the fear-producing k~lowleclgethat
the reactor a t Three Mile Island almost brolte through several security systems
to become a radioactive hazarcl to the surrounding communities.

1.2EXERCISE 4-2
ltcad the following passages and identify the strategies being usecl in each.

Social Control of Research

When I pro~nisedto spealr here 011 t h e topic of social control of research, I
thonght it would be a much easier job than it has t u r ~ l e dout t o be. I have some
l~racticalexperience in the maaagement of research programs in t h e federal
burea~lcracy,but more relevant was seven years helping the Congress cleal with
research aacl development (R&D) matters. There, I learned t h e intricacies of
grooming and passing authorization bills for large research prog-ralns, and
n e g o t i a t i ~ ~coinplex
g
conference agreements. 011 a n u ~ n b e rof occasions I had
translated what society-representecl by its elected officials-wanted in legislation
that e.sta11lishecl new lnogntins of research ancl clevelopment, or institutions to
cont,rol such progmms and their results, such as the Office of Technology
Assessment. Another imporl;ant part of that congressional experience was
infor~uingand cajoling those with responsibility for the alqxopriations process,
in order to assme iiunding for those authorized progmms. I had even rrceived
the satisfaction which caline honl coorclinating tlie override of a presidri~tialveto,
o~ilyt h e 89th such \reto override in the hist.ory o l our Itepublic.
My conticleiice that. social control of research woulcl be an easj7 topic was
h u t h e r increasrtd hy n1-y Ii~iowletlgeo l and in\rolve~iie~it
witti a nunll~erof AAAS
~nv~fit'i~rns
on such tol,irs as scientific fi.eeclolii and resllclllsibility, the scientific
:~ntllegal interface, i~egulat.ionof recombinant DNA research, ailalysis of the
f~('d~ri11
r~'sei~'i'1-I
ancl d e v e l o l ~ m ~ nhudget,
t,
and other policy issues.'

Recornbinanl DNA Research

claillc~s1).Watson of Hai.v:u.d, Nol~c~l
1,aul.cate for liis discu\roy of t.he lnolcrcul;~r
st1~uc.tlu.r.of D N A , [sairl:l . . . t1i:lt tlieo~.rt.icallyall fornls of lligllc~animal life

78 CI General Strateaies for the Writina Process

inay be capable of clonal reproduction, and that the cletails of the research related
to that, as well as to its implications, hacl not so far been cominunicatecl to the
public to any siibstantial clegree. He went on t o ask,
Does this effective silence imply a conspiracy to keep the pul~licunaware
of a potential threat to their basic ways of life? Could it be motivated by
fear that the general reaction would be a further clan~ningof all science
and thereby decreasing even more the limited money available for pure
research? Or does it merely tell us that most scientists (lo live such an
ivory tower existence that they are capable of rationally thinking only
about pure science, dismissing more practical matters as subjects for the
lawyers, students, clergy, and politiciails to face up to in a real way.?

Hard Times for Basic Research

Despite the general unclerstanding that the federal government should carry the
major responsibility for the funding of basic research, and, indeed, does p~.ovide
about 70 percent of the monies available for this purpose, unyielcling preoccupation
with quick practical payoff on the part of both the Congress and the executive
leadership has meant year-to-year uncertainty for an intellectual activity that
should be built on loag-range continuity. At least one fundainental reason for
this seems t o lie in our inability to make clear to the larger public the place of
serendipity in science. The layman seems not to fully appreciate the fact that
one cannot provide on cue the antecedent information needed for innovative
technology, and therefore that l~nowledgemust be stockpiled like scarce materials
against the day when it per chance may be needed. I a111 confident that this
lacuna in the public's understanding of science can be filled in the long run with
the right kind of precollegiate science education. But, meanwhile, we must give
serious attention to creating a inore vigorous, more comprehensive, and more
program of eclucation for members of the Congress ancl their
carefully calc~~lated
legislative aides than we have been willing to give time to in the past.3

43

BASIC TYPES OF ARGUMENT

T h e r e a r e t w o main t y p e s of argument: t h e al.g~ilnentof fact and t h e argument

of policy. An argument of fact is an argument t h a t something is o r e:x:.i.sts (or
,is .rl.of.o r cl0e.s not exist.); it call also b e an argument t h a t something ,is o r is
,u.ot f.).8r.e, ,)l.ecesscr:).y, ;$i.sf.<fr.ecl.,etc. T h e key worcl for t h e argmnent of fact is
.is o r a:ra: this c01111)any .is (or .is ftt.ot,)clischarging pollutants into public waters;
increased domestic procluction of oil aild n a t ~ ~ rgas
a l is ,tcecesscr.t.,yif t h e United
S t a t e s i s t o n ~ a i n t a i ni t s st.andard of living without being too clepenclent on
Middle E a s t oil; t h e costs of buying a new house clre too high for t h e average
C011SllI11~~.
I11 contrast, a n argumenl-.of policy i s an awgmnent t h a t soinething .~h.o.l(.ld
o r shuttlcl
be ilone. T h e liey word for this ai.gament is s/io~~il.cl.:
this ~0111l)ally
.sho.~(lilbe stopped fro111 clischarging pollntants into pnblic waters; increased
tlomc.stic 111-otloct.ionof oil aild n a t ~ ~ rgas
a l s / l f ~ r t /bde encouraged in t h e Uilit.ed
St,ates s o t.llat people call n ~ a i n t a i nt11c.i~staildart1 of living (or increased
proth~ctinnof g a s ancl oil shozc.lcl 11ot be encowaged i n t b e Uait.ed S t a t e s

Constructir~g
Arguments 1379
\I~.C;LIISP.il. would be too harillf'ul t.o the envi~-unmcnt);the costs of buying a
nrhlv house .s.k.c~,l.l.dbe reduced ibr the average consumer.
Not,ice that your support for ail ai.gument of policy would differ from
vow' sul)port, for the corresponding arg-mment of fact,; in some cases you would
lleed to inalce ail argmneijt of fact as a s ~ t b a r g ~ ~ min
e nan
t a r g ~ ~ n i e of
n t policy.
F'ol' instance, if you were to argue that the costs of buying a new house should
be ~:educeclfor the average consumer (an argument of policy), yon would i~eecl
fi~.st.
to argxe that the current. costs are too high (a11 argument of fact).

The Argument of Fact

Al.g~umentsof fact can be derived from three sources:
1 Questions or subarguments of existence

2 Questions or subarguments of defiaition

3 Questions or subargumellts of quality
These are outlined and illustratecl in Table 4-1. It can be seen fiom the
exaillples that, as you move from the question or subargument of existence
to the subarguinent of cluality, yon logically build an argument. For instance,
if you want to argue that a certain manufacturer should be stopped from
discharging pollutants into public waters, you first need to address the question
o S existence (Is this company clischarging material into public waters?). You
then need to acldress the question of clefillition (Are the discharged materials
regulated by law? dangerous? etc.). Finally, you must a d d ~ e s sthe question
of quality (Are the discharged materials present in illegal or unsafe amounts?).
Only when all these cluestio~ishave been acldressec1 can you argue convincingly
that the coillpally should be stopped from discharging into public waters. You
ilialie this main argument by stringing together a chain of subarguments of
existence, clefinition, and quality:
Subargument of existence:
The company is discharging material into public waters.
~ubar~zunel;t
of defiliition:
The materials being dischnrgecl are regulated by law and are clai~gero~~s.

t
Subarglument of quality:
The materids being dischargecl we prese~itin public nlaters in illegal aid
luisai'e amo~mts.
Note that your main argmnent coultl fail 011 any of these subarg~~ments.
Your
a~.grnneiit,might fail to establish the subai~gnmentof existence. I t could happen,
Liw instk~ilce,\.hat although there are pollutants in the public waters, another
cclmllang put, t11elll there., not. Pierlesl-. Inc. In such a case, placing restraints

80 Ll General

Strategies for the Writing Process

-

Table 4-1 0 OUTI-INE OF THE ARGUMENT OF FACT

Argument of fact: argument that something is or exists (or is not or does not exist)
Question or subargument of existence: Does the thing actually exist? Has something actually
happened?
Example A
Example B

Are ther.e Soviet troops in Cuba?

Is Pierlest Inc. discharging material from its manufacturing processes into public
waters?

Question or subargument of definition: If it exists or has happened, what kind of thing or event is
it?
Example A
Example B

If it is granted that there are Soviet troops in Cuba, are the troops educators and
advisers or attack troops or something else?
If it is granted (or proved) that Pierlest Inc. is discharging material from its manufacturing processes into public waters, are the discharged materials regulated by
law, considered dangerous, considered nontoxic even in large amounts, etc.?

Question or subargument of quality: If it exists and has been defined, how is it to be judged?
Example A
Example B

If Soviet troops are in Cuba and are educators and advisers, are they justified,
necessary, present in appropriate numbers, desirable, etc.?
If Pierlest Inc. is discharging material into public waters, and if those materials are
regulated by law (or dangerous), are the materials present in legal (or safe)
amounts, illegal (or unsafe) amounts, desirable (or undesirable) amounts, avoidable
(or unavoidable) amounts, etc.?

on Pierlest would be both unfair ailcl ineffective. Similarly, your arguinent

could fail on the subargument of definition. I t could be that Pierlest is
discharging material into public waters bllt that these materials are not
regulated by law or are not hannful. In such a case, it woulcl probably be
wastefill to spencl time, effort, and moaey trying to regulate the company.
Finally, your a r g ~ n ~ e ncould
t
fail on the subargument of cluality. Pierlest
nlight well he discharging dangerous materials regulated by law, but only
those amomlts allowecl under the law. 111 such a case, if you still wanted to
stop those discharges, you would have to argue that the law should be changed;
you could not effcct.ively argue that. the company was brealiiiig the law.

The Argument of Policy

'I?hi. argumeiit, ol' policy, the ~c.conclbasic type of argrument.! can IN tlerivetl
Ii-oli~t w o solu.cea:

2 Questions or subargi~inentsol' esl~etliency.fielvantage, or

Tl~cssc.a1.r oui lined :uitl illnst~.atrtlin 'Vablc- -1-3.

118t'

Table 4-2

1-1 OUTI-INE FOR THE ARGUMENT OF POLICY

~ ~ g ~ ~ nof. ~policy:
e n t argument that something s h o ~ ~ (or
l d shoi11d not be clone)
~ubargi~ment
of wort11 or goodness: Is a proposed activity or course of action worthy or good in
itself?
Exarrlple C The United States should not protest the presence of Russian troops in Cuba
because it is right that they are there (because they have the right to be there).
Example D Pierlest Inc. should stop polluting public waters because it is right (or Pierlest has a
social duty) to protect the environment.
Exaniple E Companies should make honest claims about the merits of their products because
it is good and worthy to be honest.
Subargument of expediency, advantage, or use: Is the proposed activity or course of action
good for the audience in that it is expedient, advantageous, or useful?
Example C

The United States should agree to the presence of Russian troops in Cuba
because such agreement would strengthen the presence of U.S. troops on Russian
borders.

Example D

Pierlest Inc. should stop polluting public waters because doing so would improve its
public image and thus its sales.
Companies should make honest claims about the merits of their products because
it is advantageous in dealing with customers to have a reputation for honesty and
because such honesty will protect the company from charges of fraud, expensive
lawsuits, and costly penalties imposed by both the government and the courts
(because it will be advantageous for them to do so).

Example E

You should note that arg-unlents based on expediency, advantage, or use

are much inore frecluent in most types of techilical writing-incleecl, in most
areas of our lives-tllail are a r g ~ u ~ l e nbased
ts
on iiltrinsic wort,h, gooclness,
01%merit. People are more likely to believe or clo something if it is to their
own aclvantage. Let us consider, for example, the arguments in Table 4-2 and
tlle following situation. Compaily administrators intend to inalte false claiins
about the merits of their product in o~clerto increase sales ailcl profits. You
w:~ntto argue inst.ead that they shoulcl sublnit honest claiins about the product.
ll' you appeal only to the issne of worth (it is good ancl worthy t.o be honest),
you %rillprobably be unsuccessful. In the value scheme c~fthese aclininistrators,
tl-I(+desire lor profit is probably stronger than the desire for honesty. Instead,
y o u are Inore likely to succeed if you appeal tu expediency ailcl aclvailtage: the
atlndiiistr~torsslloulcl make honest claims about t.he merits ol' their ljroduct
Ilcbciluse
1

1t is advantageous in dealing with C U S ~ O ~ to

~ Cllave
~ I ' s a rel~utationf o ~
ho1iest.y.
Such 1ic)nest.yxvill 111.0ted.t . 1 com1)aiiy
~
f1.0111charges of fraud, expensive
k~wsuits,ancl costly yeanlties iml,osed hy the governiiient ancl t,he cowl.s.

82 ri G e n e r a l Strategies for t h e Writing

Process
.
.-.
-

--

--

F i g u r e 4-2 L l FLOW CHART FOR CONSTRUCTING EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS

a r g u n ~ e ~ ~ oi (fsf)a c t
Establish necessal-y

Establ isli necessary

Establish necessary arguments o f p o l i c y

subarguments o f expediency,
advantage, o r use
m a y b e reversed, if
t h a t i s appropriate.

goodness (if appropriate)

This Icind of argument bettei. "fits'' the sup~josedvalue schemc of the

administrators. Can you think of a situation in which tlie appeal to worth or
goodness would be as strong as 01. st~-oiig'e~
than the appeal to advantage?

'The Relationship between Arguments of Fact

and Arguments of Policy
You have seen l-.ha.t,ai'gmnieill-Yof h c l . s110uld IS^ made in a logical sequence
ant1 tliat argument.^ of policy oftell tlej~endupon prior al.gtuiients of fact. You
can conlbine these insights t.o produce ail overall plan or f o \ ~ c l i a ~1i)l.
. t ordering
argiunents ol fact :uid policy, as demonstl-aled in Figiwe 4-1.
Notice t.liat il' you are nnly trying t o malie an argument of fact.. you \\rill
iic\rel- "gel to" :ui i\rg~~lllcllt
01' policy. In cont.rast, if you w e nlaliillg
:u*,q~mic.nt
ol' policy, you will neecl l o est21blish all the necessary pal-ts ol' the

----

Constructing Argunwnls U 83
~

Figure 4-2 r-I INTRODUCTION TO AN ARGUMENT OF POLICY FOR AN AUDIEI\ICE ALREADY

ACCEPTINGTHE PRIOR ARGUMENT OF FACT
WC; all know that Pierlest Inc. has beer1 illegally dumping polyviriyl chloride into the tlurori River
[orgun7eniof fact, already uccepted]. We are here to decide what to do about that problem.
I v,ould like to argue that the compariy should be requiredto follow the cleanup plan proposed
by the State Department of Health [argumentof policy, to beproved]. Pierlest has a responsibility
to tl-le people of the state to clean up the river [subargument of worth, perhaps needing to be
j,rc~v~d].arid this plan will allow the company to do so most quickly and thoroughly
[s(jbargumentoo'va~itageto the p~iblic,to be proved] and at a minimum cost [suburgument,
~dvcrntuyeto the company, to be proved].
.

i q y ~ ~ n eof
n tfact: the subargmnent of existence, the subarguinent of clefinition,
itntl the subarguinent of quality. You do not, however, need to spend a lot of
tilne establishing these subarguinents if yam. audience alreacly agrees to them.
Suppose that, in a speech or report, you were trying -to present an
arg-ument of policy about Pierlest Inc. and its yollution of public waters:
"I'ierlest Inc. should be recluired to stop polluting public waters ancl to follow
;I cleanup plan aclvocated by the State Department of Health." If you were
s~tltlressingan audience that knew nothing about the pollution problem, you
would have to caref~~lly
prove each part oi' the argument of fact before you
coultl argue for y o ~ wpolicy. I-Iowever, if everyone already knew that, the
conlpany had been polluting the waters with a clangerous and illegal substance,
you might summarize all the subarg-tuinents olfact in a cluicli opening statement:
We all know that Pierlest Inc. has bee11 illegally dumping polyviilyl chloride into
the Huron River. We are here to decide what to do about the problem. I woulcl
like to argue that Pierlest should be requi~eclto follow the cleanup plan proposed
by the State Department of I-Iealth. The company has a responsibility to the
people of the state to clean ul) the river, and this plan will allow Pierlest to do
so most cluiclrly ancl thoroughly ancl at a: miiliinum cost.

You would then continue (1)to outline the proposed plan, (2) to demonstrate
(.hat,the plan will allow cluicli and thorough cleanup of the river, and (3) to
tlc~molzstratethat the cost will be minimal. The various subarguments 1)resentecl
a1.c itlentified in Figure 4-2.

4.4

BUILDING A CASE

Once. yon have decider1 on the basic argmnents you a.re going t,o malie and on
t.11c.i~logical o r t l e ~ ,you need t.o decide h.o.rcl to present the entire speech or
rtLl)ort.What goes where? How should things be ol.ganized? These are especially
clif'ficalt cluestions if you have limitecl amouat.s of time and a largc-! anlornit. of
inli)l~lnal;ionto organize.

84
.-U.-General Strategies
-- for Ihe Writing Process
- --.--

Table 4-3 Ll OUTLINE FOR BUILDING A CASE

Direct the audience's attention toward the prol~leni.

II Credentials'
A

If it is useful, give your credentials, i.e., explain why you can speak with authority on the
subject, and establish common g r o ~ ~ nbyd pointing out shared beliefs, attitudes, and
experiences.

A
B

Briefly state your position or your proposed solution.

Briefly state the major reasons for advocating your position or solution.

IV Background of the Problem'

A
B

Point out the nature of the problem: (1) its historical background and (2) its causes.
Explain how it concerns the audience.

V Argument for Position or Solution

A

State the criteria for judgment, i.e., the standards or characteristics any acceptable
solution or position must meet. Include explanation where necessary.
B State your position or solution to the problem, along with any necessary clarification.
C Demonstrate the soundness of your position or solution by showing how it meets the
criteria established in Ill-A. This step should be accompanied by ample evidence: facts
application of the solution) and
(illustrations, statistics, examples of s~~ccessful
statements of authority. Be sure to identify the authorities if they aren't widely known.
D If there are competing positions or solutions, demonstrate the s~lperiorityof yours by
showing how the others fail to meet the criteria as completely as yours do.

V I Conclusion
A
B

Explain briefly the benefits to be gained by accepting your position or solution or the
dangers of rejecting it.
Sumtnarize your argument: (1) restate your position or solution (111-6);
(2) restate the reasons your position or solution should be accepted (Ill-C).

' Items 11, Ill, and IV

may be deleted depending on \ h e situation, the needs of the audience, and the accepted
formats for a particula~type of technical communication.
SOURCE: Adapted from Richard E. Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970). p. 234.

One psycliologic.all;\ieat,isl'yiug:and widely useful organizalion is presented

in Table 4-:3. which gives tali outline ii>l.huilding a case. This oi.ga~lizatiollis
su effective tlial; it i~ still being used ovel. 8500 year:: after it-was first; developetl
iu Greece and Itnine for spenliing in l:~ublicforums :11l(l courts d law. By
Ichat-ningl.his one olll.liile,you call hnvc at,y oul- ii1lgcrt.i~)~
a genel.al o~gal~izal.ion
k11.c?ssc~nt.ially
any spec!cli 01. ~ ~ e p o i t .
r
Illis o~it-lineis a t.001 li~i.orqtr~ti.:i)t{/and p i c l ~ i r r i , ~ i your
,q
c x e ; i l is not a
at li~1s111u121k,r t,he final d r a l . Yo11 shoultl be pl.epa~-etlt o adjust it, aecortling
to t L l ~ aautliel~ce'svalues imd In~o\\rleclge,your goals, the cliscou~scconvvnt-io~~s,
ant1 so on. Althollgh seine liiiiil o l 1)roblem st.:keinc.nt, or other St:)r111 ol'
3

.-

-85
.-

Constructing Arc_~urnents
1~

o~.ir~~t.atioli
is always neetletl at the begilining (it.em 1 in the table), the otlicl.
colli~joiientsare flesible.
I'oi exaiiy)le, if you1 ci~edeiit.i>~ls
(11) arc ~ ~ l i 1l i o1~ ~k~y
n the audience,
,70~
tlu~ not need to state them. Intleed, slat.iiig yo~u.credent~ialswheii the
arL(lieli~e
already lillows thelii conld act.~~:~lly
wol'li agaiiist you, because your
;uldience might think you are slio.rving off or trying a power play. Sometiiiies,
h(,\$f,wei-,the- format recluirements take this decision out, of your haiicls. Foi.
illsti~nce,proposals have a s t a n d ~ ~ rand
d very important, section explicitly
,resefiting the creclentials of the proposers. You niust fill this out eve11 if you
tiii~llrtlie proposal evaluators already know your cre~leiit~ials.
011 the other
hand, most technical re110l'ts do not have a place for full credentials, only for
vo~u'name and organizational role. Even if the anclience does not killow your
(~uali.fications,you cannot state them.
Likewise, the ainomit of backg~omiclinformation yon shoald provide (IV)
tlepencls oil how much the anclience already linows about the problem. For
good communication to take place, the audience needs to share with you
celtaiii background linowledge and assumptions; it needs to have enough "old
iuformatioa" to nlalie sense of the "new informatioil." But, if you give thein
too much olcl informa~tion,the audieiice will see it as a waste of time aiid will
he irritated with you. Generally, it's better to err on t,he side of giving too
much information, but you sl~ouldn'toverdo it.
It's always necessaiy to state your position or proposed solution (111)'
hut. ~oh.e.r-c.
you state i t clepends in good measure on your audience. ancl your
gods. I11 illost professional communication, it's a good idea to state yom~,osit.ionor solution early. This facilitates selective reading and also lnalres it
t+nsielS
for readers or listeners to follow the discussion. But there are sitnatioiis
w11el.e you might want to delay taliing a positioil until the end. For exainple,
if you are addressiiig a hostile a~~dience,
i t might be a good idea t o coilstruct
ycbw arg-ument step by st el^, gradually brealiiiig dowll your audience's resistance, b q f o ~ eyou tell them where you stand.
The heart of persuasive commuiiication is the way you liiilt argunients
together to support your position or proposed solution (V). Every arg~~inent.
you i~~tlilte,
every case you build, depends on the criteria you are using (V-A).
T31d the criteria you choose to emphasize, and the d e g ~ e eto which you
c~mpliasizethem, will depend greatly on tlie situation ancl oil certain cliaract.c.1-isticsof your readers :~ncllisteners, such as their bacltgrouiicl liiiowledge,
their interests, their vnlnes, and their expectations. The ltind of evidence you
uscl (V-C) depcnds 011 these same cha~.acteristics.For a technical audience!
.VO\I c:lii call on yo~urtrainiag in school and on tlie job to bring foi-th the right
Iiiutls of' criteria aiid evidence. For 21 more general autlieiice, you shoultl
consider at. least tlie following general e~;itc.l*ia.
1

I~tti.ctic~c~tr~ss~
Is the sol~tiolieffccti~c?Will it. solve the pi~oblemposed'?
Why? HOW(10 YOU lil~ow?

7'18c11t1ictr1l~'oc-tsil~ilit!/:
Can the so1ut.io111 : iinplcment.ed?
~
L>aesit. require
tccliiiology 01. resources that are lllu1\7ailable?I:lo\v (lo you l i ~ i o ~ ?

86 0 GeneralStrategies for the Writing Process

--

3 Da.s.i~c(.b~il~ity:
Would one want to implenient tlie yroposed solution? Docs it
have any undesirable effects? Does it have desirable effect.^? Why? What
are they?
4 AfforcI.abil,ity:What will the solution cost to implement? To niaintain? Is
this cost reasonable? Is it affordable? Will it recluce costs in tlie futm.e?
Why?

5 P?-cfernbil;ity:I s the solutioil better than or preferred over any other

possible solution? Why?
There are a t least six major strategies for linking arguments together
and building a case that are commolily founcl in technical ancl scientific
communication: (a) simple problem-solution, (b) criteria, (c) chain of reasoning,
(d) process of elimination, (e) experimental research, and (f) improving the
system. Each of these has its own strengths and weakiiesses and is appropriate
only for certain situations. Various combinations of these case types are
pos~ible.~

Simple Problem-Solution
In a simple problem-solution case, you describe a problem and propose a
solution without explicitly stating the cxiteria for judgment or evaluating any
competing solutions. In short, you omit items V-A and V-D of the outline in
Table 4-3. This is an easy type of case to build, and it is easy for ail audience
to understancl. For that reason, it is especially appropriate with an audience
that is uninforinecl about a subject. On the other hand, i t can easily be attaclred
by well-informecl opponents.

Criteria
A case built on criteria closely follows the outline in Table 4-3 and explicitly
em,p/msixestlie criteria. Its success depends crucially on the acceptance of the
criteria by the audieiice as being both (1) correct ancl (2) complete. If your
criteria are found acceptable, then you have only to show that your yroposed
solution meets those criteria in order to win your case. But if your criteria
are seen as being either incorrect or incomplete, the evidence you provicle as
support will be less 1-elevantailcl t,hcrefore less pel-suasivc. Thus, this approacli
is ii~osteffective in situatiolls wbere you are coilfident that your criteria are
complete and that your auclience subscribes to t.hen1. If these recjuirements
are. satisfied, the case can be effect.ive even with audiences that, might, initially
clisag~eewith yom' proposecl solut~ion.liicleecl, intel~nal;ionalnegotiators liave
found that in cases where two sides liave talien strongly opposing positions,
they can lllalie. prog~esst:owarcl a comproniise only if they first concent~.ate
011 establishing mutually agreed-npon ci-iteria.
The sample case given ill Tal~le4-4, which closely ibllows t,he outline i11
Table 4-3, call easily be t.m.ned i11t.o a crite~:ia case.

-----87
-

Constn~ctingArguments 1-

Chain of Reasoning
cllain-of-reasoning case, you try to link arguments togethel. in a seyueilce
(,I' loglcd steps. It is generally a very cleliberate and analytical forin of
argulnentation, and for that reason you need a patient, cledicated audience.
~~lsnally,
a chain-of-reasoning case worlts inductively, proceecling from more
acceptable claims and details to inore controversial ones. Since it "breaks the
news" slowly, it is especially effective with a hostile or skeptical audience.
EZut, like the criteria case, it is very committing: a single misstep in the chain
of I-easoaingcan cause it to fail. The cl1ain-of-reaso1ii1lg approach is often used
in support of other cases, sucll as the experimental research type of case
discussed below.
111 ;I

Process of Elimination
J n a process-of-elimiaation case, you present a number of possible solutions
and gradually eliminate all but one. In effect, you invert steps V-C and V-D.
Jt is a very effective form of argumentation ill situations where the possible
solutions are limited and well known. It combines naturally with the criteria
case: you first establish the relevant criteria for selection, and then list the
alternative solutioas; then you test each of the solutions against the criteria,
elinlinating all but one. The process-of-elimination case works well when your
audience concurs with your choice of possible solutions. On the other hand, if
you fail to consider all possible solutions, the argument can quiclily fall apart.
Ckrtain kinds of readers-scientists, for example-are particularly adept a t
conling up with "rival hypotheses" and undermining a process-of-elimination
case.

Experimental Research
Yet another variant of the outline in Table 4-3 is that used to present
experimental research. It has four parts: problem, method, results, and
cliscussion. The problem statement corresponds to items I , 11, and IV of the
outline. The method section is equivalent to item V-A. The results section
corresponds to items V-C and V-D. And the discussion corresponds to itenls
V-R, VI-A, and VI-B. The power of this case resides in its apparent
colnmitmei~tt.o "objectivity": a hyyothesis enlerges from the problem statement;
ilnd is tested with methods that have been inclependently validatecl by the
scient;ific community. Thus, whatever the results may be, they are supposecl
I.o constitute accurate and useful inforillation about nature. This type of case
is recluired in certain settings (e.g., jour~lalarticles), and so you have little
c1loic.e about whether to use it. Its success del~enclson how well you satisfy
a11 of the coilditioils t,hat. the scient.ific communit.y has placed up011 it. (testable
llypotllesi.s, valicl and appropi.iate methods, etc.).

88
r
i
General Strategies f ~ tl-be
r \Nrrting Process
p
p
p
.
p
-

-.

Table 4-4 0 SAMPLE ARGUMENT OF FACT:

"ELECTRONIC LOCK DESIGN PROPOSAL"
I Introduction
A

The need for effective yet flexible security systems is more critical today than ever. In
many applications, the traditional mechanical key or combination lock is no longer
adequate. Electronic systems using electronic locks are proving to be the optimal
solution, providing advantages unavailable in mechanical systems.
B Wiley Electronics is about to begin development of an electronic security system of its
own. Mr. Silvers lias asked me to design a lock lo be used as part of such a system.

II Credentials: I have studied various systems

Ill Summary

An electronic lock with an 8-digit combination is the optimal lock for Wiley's electronic
security system. The proposed lock is effective, simple, and versatile, and it costs only
$10.35.
IV Background of Problem
A

Better and more efficient security systems are needed by both industry and individuals.
1 Most industrial complexes maintain large areas in which stringent security is
essential, yet through which large numbers of employees must pass unhindered.
2 Many individuals also find themselves in situations in which they require a level of
security beyond what is normally adequate.
B Strong interest in better security systems has encouraged the manufacture of many
different security systems for the potential customer.
1 Basically, the customer must choose between ordinary key or combination locks and
an electronic lock.
a A clear trend toward electronic security systems lias prevailed over the last few
years.
C Wiley Electronics is about to begin developing a security system to compete in this
market.

V Argument
A

The criteria tor choosing a system: What does a consumer expect from a security
system?
1 The lock must keep out ~lnauthorizedpersons and allow those authorized to enter
freely.
2 The lock must be tamperproof.
3 The loclc must have a combination that is easy to alter.
4 The lock must be easy to interface with a larger controlling system.
5 The lock must be capable of independent eratio ti on.
6 The lock must have an acceptable cost and market appeal.

Solution: the electronic lock meets all of the criteria as well as or better than tl-te
mechanical key or combination lock.

Arg~ltneni
1 The electronic lock is as effect~veas the other two locks in screening authorized
from unauthorized persons.
2 The electronic lock is mole ta~nper~roof.
3 Its combination is easier to alier.

Table 4-4 11 SAMPLE ARGUMEt4T OF FACT:

-I:I..ECTROIJIC LOCI: DESIGN PROPOSAL" (Corltincied)

11 is easier to interface with a larger controlling system.

5 It is as capable of independent operation as the other two locks.

6
7

It has an acceptable, cost of only $10.35 wholesale.

11 will appeal to a wider range of the market than the other two types.

Description of the proposed general-purpose electronic lock

I Security features of the lock
a. The lock uses an &digit combination providing 65.536 different possible
cornbinations for a sufficient level of security for most applications.
h To provide absolute security, a minor ~nodificationwill allow the lock to operate
with a 16-digit conlbination, providing over 4 billion unique combinations.
2 Operation of the lock
a General operation of the lock
b Procedure for opening the loclc
c Procedure for setting a new colnbination
3 Internal construction and operation of the lock
a The push buttons
b Counter # I
c The memory
d The comparator
e Counter #2

Possible alternative: the "key card" lock

1 Description: a "key card" lock is the type of lock that accepts a small wallet-size
card which is inserted by the operator into a reader. The card is usually impregnated
with a magnetic code that the card reader can detect and transmit as a digital signal.
2 Evaluation: there are two possible means of processing the key card's digital signal,
local and remote, both of which can be rejected as inadequate solutions.

VI Conclusion
suuncE: Adapted from "Electronic Lock Design," Student Report Haridbook, edited by Leslie A. Olsen, Lisa
Barton, and Peter Klaver (Ann Arbor, MI: Professional Communications Press, 1979).

Improving the System

Sometimes you Inay want to al-gue for some change fro111 the status clue, not.
l.>t!causethere is a particular problem but because you thinli a good situation
can be ~lladeeve11 betLer. For exanlple, let's say y o ~ company
~r
already has
t!~:ett,jr good pul~licrelations with the smromlding comnlmlity, but yon thinli
they could be even bettel. if the company would sponsoi~a local road race. In
such a sit.uation, you woulcl be sn1al.l t.o place your idea witl~inthe context of
t.11~
co~lll~aily's
l i ~ g ep~~blic
r
relations effo1.t.. Instead of treating it as a "probleiii'
(item I in Table 4-3), yo^^ ~oulcltreat it as ail ol~po~'f.ir~~r:if~j.
The criteria for

90
- U General Strategies for-ttle Writing Process
Figure 4-3 [I1 TECHIIICAL ARGUMENT: SAMPLE 1
[From Charles Maurer, in '70morrow's Train Is Running Today in Canada,'' Popular Science
217(6):75-76 (1980).]

Tomorrow's Wain Is Running Today in Canada

We are standing by the 1.4-mile test track of Ontario's Urban T r a n ~ p o ~ t a t i o i l
Development Corporation. Around us are empty fields that the UTDC hopes will become
the foremost center of urban. mass transit in North America. The elevated train I've come
to hear and see-the Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTSj-is the vehicle that
could bring that plan to fruition. It's tomorrow's means of mass transportation today.
Subways, of course, are ideal-fast, unobtrusive, impervious to bad weather. But a t $80
million per double-track mile, precious few cities can afford to build them. Few can even
afford to maintain the ones they have.
Yet streetcars and buses are limited to 10,000 passengers per hour, and to carry
that many they would have to be so close together you could almost climb out on the
vehicles' roofs and walk-and arrive at your destination faster.
Lightweight, relatively inexpensive rail systems can fill the gap, but if they're to r u n
a t grade level they need a right of way. And with sidewalk-to-sidewalk skyscrapers, there's
no right of way to be had--except over the streets. That's why our largest cities long ago
installed elevated street railways. Sensible monstrosities, but to judge from their noise and
looks, the same firm engineered them that handled hell.
To make a quiet, unobtrusive yet affordable elevated railway was the goal of UTDC.
Visionary affairs like monorails were out of the question. "They're fine for fairgrounds,"
explained Dick Giles, a mechanical engineer who serves ae UTDC's sales manager, ''but for
a raft of reasons they're impra.ctical." With monorails, performing maintenance, doing
switching, designing stations, and providing emergency evacuations are dl far more
difficult. An.d monorail trains require a higher, more obtrusive track.
Magnetic levitation was also out-"too complicated, too many developmental risks."
So tlle train had to run on wheels. To make i t unobtrusive, stations had to he short, so
trains had to be short, too--120 feet maximum (four 30-foot cars). Short trains meant
fast t r a i n s 4 5 MPH-spaced a t intervals of less than 1 minute apart.
Spacing trains so closely at those speeds meant computers had to be In control. It
also meant unusually quick accelerating and braking. This, plus the ability to take steep
grades in stride-dssentlal if the railway is to be shoehorned into existing space-ruled
gh
out conventional motors driving steel wheels: too much slippage. And t h o ~ ~ conventional
motors can drive rubber wheels quietly and surely, t,he line must be kept free of ice and
snow, impossible in Canada.

jntlgment (itenl V-A) would be e.ssenti:illy the same as those that were used
in the company's other public ~.(?lat-ioiis
c:~ml)aigns. A case based on improving
t,he syst,em is most effective with an :iuclience t,hat supports the current syste~il
aiicl does not want. t,o clia~lgeit in ally 111iL;jol.way.

Cb EXERCISE 4-3
F i ~ a r e s4-3 ant1 4-4 ])1*c!scnttwo sainl!les oC t,eclinical arg11111ental;ion. Allalyze
each ant1 cletermiue what lijiid of case the authol. i s 1:)resenting and what
criteria are iist~il.

jtlc.;~lly,the goals of any private ent,erprise halnlonize with those of the lai-getsc,cict.y: what's goocl for the company, we wonld lilie to hope? is good for
,!vcl.yone. But of course we do not live in such an ideal world. Instead, we
live in a world where companies sometinles try to masilnize their profits ctt
tI,(, c;9~:1~x
@societ.y. Thus, it sonietirnes happens that technical professionals
arc- aslied by their conlpanies to write or say somet~hiiigthat they feel not
only works against the public good but also pi.events t.llose affected from
~~~~clerstancling
the true situation. I11 short, they are aslcecl to violate the l;incls
',( ethical standards we discussed in C:liapt,er 2. In extreme cases, this sort of
situation can pose a grave danger to public safety.
When faced with ethical dilemnles of this type, what should the technical
lrofessional clo? Of course, each case is different and there are no simple
answers to cover then1 all. In general, it is a good iclea to first try to worlc
out the problem within the nol.mal chain of command. Talli to your boss and
explain your concerns; it could be that there is more to the story than you
lillow, or that there is an easy solution available. If that doesn't work, you
might be able to find a way around your boss and talk to his or her boss. Or,
in some cases, you might be able to find a technical solution to the problem.
If none of these remedies worlcs and if the situation is serious enougli,
you may feel that you have no recourse but to "go public." Such a move can
1i:lve a serious effect both on the
and, of course, on your career, so
it. is not a step to be taken lightly. Before you decide to "blow the whistle,"
we recominencl that you read a tlloughtful article by Richard T. DeGeorge
titled "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Corporations: The Pinto
Case."WeGeorge discusses the famaus 1978 accident in which three yo~111g
women died of burns when their 1913 Ford Pinto was rannnecl from behincl
by a van. The Indiana state prosecutor charged the Ford Motor Company
with three couilts of reckless homicide, claiming that the company hacl placed
the gas tank in a dangerous position. As it turns out, Ford was acquittecl of
all charges. However, as DeGeorge notes, this was not the only case of fuel
tank problems with 1970-era Pintos. Between 1971 and 19'78 soine fifty suits
were Alecl against the Ford Motor Company by citizens claiming dainages
arising from rear-end acciclents in Pintos, and eventually Ford recalled the
car for alterations. So it apyears t,hat there may well have been some design
flaw in those early niodel Pintos.
Should Ford's engineers have gone public? I t al~pearsthat they knew of
t . 1 design
~
problem and had even info~medhigher management that a part
costing only $6.66 could alleviate it. Rut. DeGeorge argues that, just lilie the
Incliana state prosecutor, the Ford engineers who tlesigiecl the Pinto did not
have eiioug1;h documented evidence to malte a soljcl case ant1 thus were right
not to blow the whistle. I-Ie goes on to offer the following guidelines:
I woulcl suggest as a rule of thumb thiit engineers and o t h e ~rvo~ltersin a large
co~porat.ioiiare mo~allyg)et,tt1,iitc.ilt.o go public with information atrout the safety
of a pl'oduct if the follo~vingco~~clitions
are met:

92 13 General Sirutegies for the Wl.iting Process

Figure 4-4

r_S

TECHNICAL ARGUMENT: SAMPLE 2

Fasano R4anufacturing Co.

Interdepartmental Memo

Date:

June 24, 1989

To:

V. Voros
Supervisor-Computer Operations

From:

R4.Sholander
AnalystComp~tterOperations

Subject: Production and Information Control System:

Preliminary Report on Features and Implementation

Foreword
Mr. Batter, Vice President of Production, wants to centralize control of production and
purchasing to optimize both inventory levels and assembly shop loads. New information
about purchasing and production is becoinjng dispersed throughout the kiystem. This
makes it difficult for managers and sales representatives to know the status of a job
quickly, resulting i n delays in dealing with custoiners. Fmther, inventory is often at
unnecessarily high levels as stock waits to be used in production that has been delayed,
and the machine shops are sometimes idle while waiting for parts because purchase orders
were delayed or production is ahead of schedule. 'The Computer Operat-ions Department
was given the task of researching and designing solutions to the problem. 'I31.sreport will
present my solution and its implementation by computer.

Summary
The solution I propose is a.n integrated system combining sales forecasting, engineering,
inventory control, purchasing, and job shop scheduling. The Production and Inforinat,ion
Control System, called PICS, will provide a centra.1 database in which all perti~lent
information will be collected. I t will also provide the following:

Access only to authorized users

A materials reqi.tirements plailning system

Optimal shop capacity tllrough si1nulat;ion procedures

A StLLtlts report on any job at any time in the system

Faster response t,o inarlcet delllands

'This system is well 1-~lodularized
and can be inlplemeuted gradually by 011~depa~%iner~.ts.
A
yough time estimate for completion would be a11ou.l; 7 inonths. The cost would be inini~nal
it' PICS we17e operated as a mani.i.al system, but this would st4i?lrequire a.n overwhelrniilg
t~~niolmt
of pape~vvo~l;.
A gradual change to a comgut,cr syslein would cost al~pl*oxiinately
5150.000, but o ~ upaperwork
'
conld 1:1ehandled nlucb illore efficiently if it we]%entered

.~

Constructing Arguments
13--93
.~

Fiaure 4-4 12 TECHNICAL ARGUMEI\IT: SAMPLE 2 (Cnntinuscij

dil.actl.v o n a computer disk. Therefore, 1 suggest a rapid conversion to a computerized

m y a New System Is Needed

~~forrnatio
concerning
n
the inventory system is becoming increasingly more difficul to
ill~erpretand understand. Problerns arise because each assembly shop Beeps its own
of transactions. One problerll occurs i n Purchasing, where orders from shops must
ho combined to save money i n bulk ordering. This coinbining is often impossible if orders
come in sepayately. A second problem is t h a t it is h a ~ d
to find the exact status of a job i n
prorluction if you are not directly involved in the daily operation of that job.
The Computer Operations Department was given the assignment of researching all
poseitrle solutions to these problems with. particular emphasis on:

. A mechanized systern t h a t would facilitate a change t;o a computerized approach

. A central databank where all departments contribute and 'eceive information
A low-cost systenl t h a t could be phased i n gradually

This report presents the alternative I was assigned to investigate and is divided into four
sections:

8yste.m overview
Database requirements
Necessary changes
Cost of new system

1 if the harm that will be clone by the ~,roductt.o tlie public is serious and
considerable;

2 if they make their concerns known to l.llcir superiors; and

3 if, getting no satisfactioii froin their immec1iai;e su],eriors, they exhaust the
clianiiels available within the colpc~ration,iilclurlilig going to the boarcl of
directors.

To have a 11102.al obli.~gc~.t:io~i

t.o go public, two o t h c ~conclit.ions have to be f~lkfilled
ill ~rilclitionto the Gi-st tli~ee:

4 Illie eniployee must have cloCuineatedevidelicc! that. would coiiviticc- a reasonable impartial u\:)servei.that, the eln1,loyee's view of the sit.uation is correct
:~ndthe company policy \vrcln,y; aild
5 there 11111;:t be strong evidciirc that nialiing t.he iilformat.ii.~n
public will in fact
prevent, t.he t1lre;xtenecl sei.ious 11a1.111."

94 0 General Strategies for the Writing Process

Notice h o w t h e ability t o nlaintain youi. ethical stal~(l~u.cls
i n a s i t u a t i o ~ llike
t h i s m a y d e p e n d on y o u r ability t o assenlble evidence, t o build a case-in
s h o r t , l o cttyzre. T h i s is s o m e t h i n g t h a t t h e classical t h i n k e r s pointecl o u t m o r e
t h a n 2000 years ago, a n d it i s a s tl-ue t o d a y as i t was t h e n .

CI EXERCISE 4-4
Decide w h a t t y p e of case you should builcl for t h e W e s t h e i m e r r e p o r t ("The
Clinic Case" presentecl in C h a p t e r 2). T h e n , following t h e outline f o r building
a case i n T a b l e 4-3, w r i t e a complete outline f o r t h e r e p o r t .

REFERENCES
1 J. Thomas Ratchford, in ProceediTqs of the 31st N a t i o ~ u t l Cowfe~enceon. the
Advancement of R e s e a w h (Denver: Denver Research Institute, 1978), pp. 59-60.
2 Ratchford, p. 61.
3 William Bevan, in Proceedings of the 31st National Gwzfc~enceo n the Advancement
of Research (Denver: Denver Research Institute, 1978), p. 32.
4 This section is inspired by Richard D. Rielce and Malcolm 0. Sillars, Argumentation
and the Decisioqz-Makirq Process, Zcl ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1984),
Chapter 8.
5 lZichard T. DeGeo~ge,"Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations:
The Pinto Case," Bz~si7zessand P~.ofessioTznlEthics Jou?.r~all(1) (Fall 1981).
6 DeGeorge, p. 6.

ADDITIONAL READING
Aristotle, T h s Rheto7.i~ o f AT-istotbe, translated by Lane Cooper (Englewoocl Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1932, 1960). Another good eclition of this work is The "Art"
of Rhet,oT.ic, traaslated by J . H. Freese (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1926, 1967).
Wayne Booth, Moder.11. Dog.)~l.a.cc.?rd tl1.e Rl~.etwbco f Assent (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974).
Jeailiie Fahnest~ocliand Marie Secor. A lili.ctotLicqf' il~,,yjct~r.e?~t
(New Y o r l ~Railclom
ISouse, 1982).
S. Michael Halloran, "l'eclnlical Writing and the R h e t o ~ i cof Science," Jo.rt.t.rto.1 oj'
2'c'cli.tlicwl W).iti.tty cl?ld C~'o~t~,ttr~r.t~icalio~~t
8(2):77-88 (1978:).
James A. Iielso, "~cienceand the Rhet.oric of Reality," f?~?~/.t).ct/
Statrs 8?pccd Jotc.r.ttctl.
;3l :I 7-29 (1980).
i:a1.ol.vn R. Miller, "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writ.ing," C'ollqc. I<,tryl,i.cll.
4 O(G):C;10-617 (1979).
(:h;ti111 l%rehuan and I>. Olbrecllts-Tytcca. l'1t.c iVc?cl Rllo%o.~.ic:A I',t.e.ct.tisc wtr Atgrc~~rc~?rtcct:iot!
(Notre Dainc. 1N: Univi!rsity of Notre Danie Prctss. 1969).

Constrc~ctirgArguments r
i 95

lli,,l~;~~.il
L). !Lielie alzd Malcolm 0. Sillars, A~y~crtlc.rl.fcllioll
cr,,!l tilt Uccisirsit-Alal;ittc,
1't~o~c.fis
, 2cl ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott, I?ol:esnzalz, 1984).
~ t ~ ~Toulluin,
~ l ~ Tlbe
e ~Uses
i ofA~gtc.w~.e,~t
(Loildoii: Caml~ridgeUniversity Press. 1958).
1.;ic.hartlE. Young, Alton Beclier, ancl Kelzneth Pilie, 1211.stot'i.c: Discr:)l~c~~!g
m1rl C/~artc~c.
(New Yorli: Iiarcourt, Grace & World, 1970).