CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Based on Serpil Ozdemir (2018) argumentative is a reason or why
someone support or oppose and idea or suggestion, or the process of
explaining these reasons. Then, based on Education Galaxy (2021)
argumentative text is a text that try to convince or persuade the readers,
so they will change their main and feeling about something. So, the
purpose of argumentative text is to persuade and convince the reader that
their claim is correct, so the reader will change their mind, do something,
and think or believe the outhor’s claim. To persuade and convince the
reader, the aouthor need to write his argumentative text in good form.
Based on Astri Nabila Putri and Cahya Komara, an argumentative
text has threegeneric structure, they are introduction, body paragraph,
abd conclution. The introduction is used to explain the issue, providing
background information necessary, outline the evidence thet will be
presented, and explain of the thesis. The body contains the explanatiob
why the writer support the topic, by providing example, research,
statistics, studies, and text citation to back up the writer statement, so the
reader agree with author’s idea. Then, the conclution is used to restating
the writer’s point of view.
Based on the three generic structures of the argumentative text
above, the writer see that the second structure, body of paragraph is
really important and determain how the author’s idea can persuade and
convince the reader. To persuade and convince the reader author need to
give some evidence to support his argument. So, this paper will focus
about the evidence in argumentative text.
B. Formulation of the Problem
Based on the background above, the formulation of paper problem
are:
1
2
1. What is evidence?
2. What are the types of evidences?
3. Where is the evidence come form?
4. What is the example of giving evidence in argumentative purpose?
C. The Purpose of Writing
Based on the formulation of the problem, the purpose of writing
this paper are:
1. Definition of evidence.
2. The types of evidences.
3. Where the evidence come from.
4. The example of giving evidence in argumentative purpose.
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
A. Definition of Evidence
The etymology of the word ‘evidence’ is rooted in the concept of
experience, relating to what is manifest and obvious (Upshur 2001). The
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (1984) gives a number of definitions
that this derivation: Indication, sign, facts making for a conclusion, in
support of, information (given personally, or drawn from documents etc.)
tending to establish fact. Then, based in Cambridge Dictionary, evidence
is one or more reasons for believeing that something is or is not true.
Also, based on NSW Government, evidence is factual information used
as proof to support a claim or belief.
So, based on the explanation above, evidence is factual information
such as fact in support or as proof to support a claim or belief about
something that is believeing as true or or not.
B. Type of Evidence
Based on Communication Students Suport Center there are the
following are different ways to support your argument:
1. Fact
Using facts is a powerful means of convincing. Facts can come
from your reading, observation, or personal experience. Facts cannot
be disputed. This makes them a strong form of evidence. However,
facts can be interpreted or presented in skewed ways, which may
result in skewed or erroneous conclusions. Personal opinions (such as
“Dustin Hoffman is the best actor who has ever lived”) are never
facts, they are claims. For example, it is a fact that the French are
smelly and snobbish.
3
4
2. Statistic
Using statistics can provide excellent support for your argument.
Arguments employing amounts and numbers are concrete and
therefore support claims because they use logic and facts. Be sure
statistics come from good sources, which you will cite. Examples:
a. Over 61% of Americans are overweight.
b. Unemployment in Illinois is at 5%.
c. During each game, Sean Hill of the NY Islanders spent an average
of 20:09 minutes on the ice.
3. Quote
Using quotes from leading experts or authorities in their fields
will support your position—this is a logical appeal and is accepted by
other academics as a good way to back up your claims. For example:
a. Dr. Kenneth P. Moritsugu, U.S. Surgeon General, described long
term problems associated with underage drinking: “Research shows
that young people who start drinking before the age of 15 are five
times more likely to have alcohol-related problems later in life.”
b. Samantha King, a noted forensic specialist, stated that DNA
evidence is usually indisputable.
It is extreamly important to make sure that the authoritative
information you choose is actually accurate and relevant to your point.
Sometimes, so-called authorities are not what they seem or
information is misleading. Such as:
a. My two friends in Florida think that Miami’s a better place to visit
than Chicago. (Note: these are biased sources.)
b. My grandmother, who has property worth over $2 million, believes
that estate tax laws need overhauling. (Note: she’s probably not an
expert in tax law, and she has a vested interest.)
5
c. Movie critic Eleanor Lyttle writes that Star Wars Revenge of the
Sith is “wondrous” and “a mustsee.” (Note: the actual quotation
read:
d. Dr. Petrelli endorses energy drinks to boost metabolism. (Note:
who is Dr. Petrelli?)
4. Example
Using examples or anecdotes from your own experience can
enhance your meaning and also engage the reader. Personal examples
make your ideas concrete. These real-life examples allow a reader to
relate to the issues personally.
a. For many years, my best friend’s husband beat her—the police did
nothing about it; therefore, we need better laws so domestic abusers
can be punished more stringently.
b. After living in Iceland for a decade, I can honestly say that the
people are kind and warm.
c. Immigration laws should allow amnesty to illegals—my father
came here from Mexico twenty years ago, and he has worked 50
hours a week to support us. If he is deported, he will leave behind
his children, who are citizens. I do not think this is fair to all of us.
For personal experience to be convincing, however, it must also
be applicable, present reasonable background understanding, show a
universal or general situation, and be related to the thesis somehow.
a. I've never been to Australia, but it seems from all the movies I’ve
seen about the place that they all like to drink and barbecue.
b. My experience in visiting Canada on a high school trip showed me
that their medical system is superior to ours.
c. Cats are not friendly. My neighbor’s cat never comes to me when I
call it.
6
C. Where Evidence Come From
Based on NSW Government evidence come from a range of
source:
1. Journal article and published literature.
2. Analysis of statistics and data.
3. Conference presentations and papers.
4. Grey literature (publication by government and non-government
organisations).
5. Interview or survey.
6. Expert opinion
7. Magazine and newa article
D. Example of Using Evidence in Argumentative Text
This example is come from an debate program in Youtibe with thw
title “World Scholar’s Cup Manila Global Round 2019: Sr. Debate
Showcase” by Kevin Kuo with the motion “This house believe that
leaders should be selected from the margins”.
1. First Argumentation from the First Speaker of Government Team
a. Transkript
Before our last speaker Ron sweeps the opposing stance off
its feet and closes our claim that leaders should be selected from
the margins. First, we will like to define the terms and present a
slight rebuttal. We believe that those under mark that margins
refers not just to the periphery but to the marginalized which the
prestigious. Merriam-Webster defines as to relegate to an
unimportant or powerless position within a society or group notice
how there is no mention of a majority or a minority population.
Next the definition of selected from merriam-webster as well
means chosen from a number or group by fitness or preference. We
the affirmative team will not take the stance that leaders from the
margins should be chosen by twisted process we believe that those
7
under margins shall be selected by the natural process of
democracy and will be selected in the future.
Lee we'd like to dispute the idea that those already in power
shall stay in power there is a basis for this on precedence on
supposed education yet there are also cases of corruption, but read
the affirmative will talk no will not will talk no further we the
affirmative will not take such a negative outlook that those on the
margins shall stay on the margins we believe and we will show
why they will eventually become the leaders tomorrow with the
deafness in the mind our contingents are one that the margins are
also the majority, two that those under margins shall solve the
problems of those on the margins much more easily making
this place a better world, and three that those on the margins
are more relatable.
Now to move on to my first point I'll be talking about the
poor race and on women. First, off imagine working a blue-collar
job while a businessman sitting in an office standing on a high
golden chair rules the world that is not a world that we can relate
to. That is not a world that the majority of people can relate to in a
population of a village of a hundred six people will own over
fifty percent of the wealth the rest the other ninety four people
they will be left to scramble for the rest those people are
powerless on a monetary basis those people are on the margins.
If we are to select a person from the poor, if we were to select a
person from the Fourth Estate, if we were to select a person from
the middle class they will surely be able to rule the world better
because they know the majority of the people and they will be
selected by the majority of people.
The majority of the people around the world are people of
color in South Africa having a majority of people of color did not
8
stop them from having segregation it did not stop them from
suffering until one man one very specific man, Nelson Mandela, a
black man decided that it was time to change his nation and he did
he suffered in jail he was an inspiration to all those incarcerated for
fighting marginalization and were and that went to jail for it.
By another example Gandhi Gandhi rejected the British
minority even though the British minority were in rule. He went on
a hunger strike in order to save the majority of people the people of
his race you guys couldn't even stand a couple delays for lunch
keep that in mind.
Now, 51% of the people in this world are also of a
marginalized group. I would like the audience to think of what that
group is you have that answer right that group are women. The
speaker is a hypocrite for being on the stage talking about women's
issue. We the affirmative are hypocrites to believe that the majority
ought to speak even though our stage is filled with a male dominant
speaking group we believe that women ought to have the right to
speak because they are the majority and in a democracy which has
proven to be the majority ruling system of this world majorities
take the rule keep that in mind and we shall change the world on
that basis
As first speaker I've just given you the big innings of our
contentions and organize the team structure. I will allow our other
three speakers to provide further evidence to the debate and I will
close by saying this we are not just talking of a world on the
margins we're talking about a world comprised of the margins. God
gave us two ears and one mouth which one do you think he values
more I think it's time to use our ears to listen to those on the
margin.
9
b. Analysis of the example
1) Introduction
At the beginning, the first speaker gives background or
brief information about the motion. He gives the definition to
limet the context of the debate. Here the first speaker’s
introduction, “First, we will like to define the terms and present
a slight rebuttal. We believe that those under mark that margins
refers not just to the periphery but to the marginalized which the
prestigious. Merriam-Webster defines as to relegate to an
unimportant or powerless position within a society or group
notice how there is no mention of a majority or a minority
population. Next the definition of selected from merriam-
webster as well means chosen from a number or group by fitness
or preference. We the affirmative team will not take the stance
that leaders from the margins should be chosen by twisted
process we believe that those under margins shall be selected by
the natural process of democracy and will be selected in the
future.”
2) Claim
The first speaker tells their claim at the beginning by
saying, “Before our last speaker Ron sweeps the opposing
stance off its feet and closes our claim that leaders should be
selected from the margins.”
3) Argumentation
There are 2 argumentations that is given by the first speaker:
a) Marjins, the poor race, and women are the majority.
b) The middle class they will surely be able to rule the world
better.
4) Evidence
a) The evidence for the first argument are:
10
i) The majority of people can relate to in a population of a
village of a hundred six people will own over fifty percent
of the wealth the rest the other ninety four people they will
be left to scramble for the rest those people are powerless
on a monetary basis those people are on the margins. The
middle class they will surely be able to rule the world
better because they know the majority of the people and
they will be selected by the majority of people.
ii) “Now, 51% of the people in this world are also of a
marginalized group. I would like the audience to think of
what that group is you have that answer right that group
are women.”
b) The evidence for the second argument are
i) One very specific man, Nelson Mandela, a black man
decided that it was time to change his nation and he did he
suffered in jail he was an inspiration to all those
incarcerated for fighting marginalization and were and that
wen to jail for it.
ii) Another example Gandhi Gandhi rejected the British
minority even though the British minority were in rule. He
went on a hunger strike in order to save the majority of
people the people of his race.
2. First Argumentation from First Speaker of Opposing Group
a. Transkript
I am here are here to argue that leaders should not be chosen
just because you feel bad for them just because they have been
oppressed for so many years. That does not quantify as a category
for them to be chosen we argue that leaders should be chosen for
their effectiveness leadership should be above diversity. First we
argue that the resources of a leader is important more privileged
11
people have more resources to help those who are in the margins
unfortunately this is true those who are marginalized have less
opportunities to gain the education that is needed or the money that
is needed to properly help those who are on the margins.
Next is that we need a leader who has experience.
Unfortunately, once again those who are on the margins are
underrepresented they do they were they have been excluded from
several different things and they do not have the experience to lead
a nation.
And next we argue that we should base our rulers on merit
not on social status. Just because someone has been marginalized
for so long that does not give them a free pass to suddenly have
marginalized points to gain. On the theupper hand just because we
are now starting to have diversity does not automatically mean
those who are marginalized have a have an upper hand on the
position of should be chosen because they have the resources and
the responsibility and the skills to lead a nation not because of their
social status.
Next we argue about the reverse narrative one of our team
members have stated that in Vietnam a marginalized communist
community enacted a purge on the rich even though those who are
on the rich did not have any nick negative provocations towards
those who were marginalized. Unfortunately this margin that this is
how the whole term reverse racism was invented because
marginalized people have been marginalized for so long of course
there's going to be some sort of bitter seed in at the bottom of their
stalks and we argue that by choosing leader positions of power just
because of this reason that they are marginalized this will turn into
an act of revenge next by choosing only leaders.
12
Based solely on the fact that they are marginalized might
make it harder for the society to succeed because but of course
since they are marginalized they will have a bias towards those in
their marginalized community meaning that they will be only
seeing from one perspective and once again we say that leaders in
positions of power should be chosen not because of their social
status, but because they have the skillset to lead a country to lead a
country yeah our final stance on this is that we should let privileged
people help the marginalized to be equal first then we can choose
our leaders on equal footing
b. Analysis of the argumentation
1) Introduction
At the beginning, the fisrt speaker of opposing group
giving attention getter by rebutalling the first argument from the
first speaker from government group. Than he states his claim.
2) Claim
The first speaker told his claim by saying, “I am here are
here to argue that leaders should not be chosen just because you
feel bad for them just because they have been oppressed for so
many years.”
3) Argumentation
There are some argumentations that are given by the
speaker:
a) First we argue that the resources of a leader is important more
privileged people have more resources to help those who are
in the margins.
b) Next is that we need a leader who has experience.
c) We argue that by choosing leader positions of power just
because of this reason that they are marginalized this will
turn into an act of revenge next by choosing only leaders.
13
4) Evidence
There are some evidences that are given by the speaker:
a) Evidence for the first argument, “Unfortunately this is true
those who are marginalized have less opportunities to gain
the education that is needed or the money that is needed to
properly help those who are on the margins.” It is not a strong
anough evidence.
b) Evidence for the second argument is “Unfortunately, once
again those who are on the margins are underrepresented they
do they were they have been excluded from several different
things and they do not have the experience to lead a nation.”
It is not a strong evidence.
c) Evidence for the third argument is “Next we argue about the
reverse narrative one of our team members have stated that in
Vietnam a marginalized communist community enacted a
purge on the rich even though those who are on the rich did
not have any nick negative provocations towards those who
were marginalized. Unfortunately this margin that this is how
the whole term reverse racism was invented because
marginalized people have been marginalized for so long of
course there's going to be some sort of bitter seed in at the
bottom of their stalks.”
14
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
A. Conclution
Evidence is factual information such as fact in support or as proof
to support a claim or belief about something that is believeing as true or
or not. The type of evidence can be fact, statistics, quote, and example.
The evidence come from a range of source:
1. Journal article and published literature.
2. Analysis of statistics and data.
3. Conference presentations and papers.
4. Grey literature (publication by government and non-government
organisations).
5. Interview or survey.
6. Expert opinion
7. Magazine and newa article
B. Suggestion
After finish writing this paper, the authors know that there are
some limitation to find some relavant sources about evidence. So, aothors
suggest to the reader to find others relavant sources to get more
comprohantion. Also, authors suggest to all the outhors of argumentative
essay to write the good evidence tu support your idea and claim.
