Critical Thinking and Argument

Organizing an argument

Page contents:

The classical system
Organizing with Toulmin’s elements of argument
Rogerian or invitational argument

Once you have assembled good reasons and evidence in support of an argumentative thesis, you must organize your material to present the argument convincingly. Although there is no universally favored, one-size-fits-all organizational framework, you may find it useful to try one of the following patterns.

The classical system

In the classical system of argument—followed by ancient Greek and Roman orators and still in widespread use today, some twenty-five hundred years later—the speaker begins with an introduction, which states the thesis and then gives background information. Next come the different lines of argument and then the consideration of alternative arguments. A conclusion both sums up the argument and makes a final appeal to the audience. You can adapt this format to arguments in many genres and media.

Introduction
- Gain readers’ attention and interest.
- Establish your qualifications to write about your topic.
- Establish common ground with readers.
- Demonstrate fairness.
- State or imply your thesis.
Background
- Present any necessary background information, including pertinent personal narrative.
Lines of argument
- Present good reasons and evidence (including logical and emotional appeals) in support of your thesis.
- Generally present reasons in order of importance.
- Demonstrate ways that your argument may be in readers’ best interest.
Consideration of alternative arguments
- Examine alternative points of view.
- Note advantages and disadvantages of alternative views.
- Explain why one view is better than others.
Conclusion
- Summarize the argument if you choose.
- Elaborate on the implication of your thesis.
- Make clear what you want readers to think or do.
- Make a strong ethical or emotional appeal.

Organizing with Toulmin’s elements of argument

The simplified and systematic form of argument developed by Stephen Toulmin can help you organize an argumentative essay:

Make your claim (or arguable statement).

The federal government should ban smoking.
Qualify your claim, if necessary.

The ban would be limited to public places.
Present good reasons to support your claim.

Smoking causes serious diseases in smokers.

Nonsmokers are endangered by secondhand smoke.

Explain the underlying assumptions that connect your claim and your reasons. Also provide additional explanations of any controversial assumptions.

ASSUMPTION	The Constitution was established to “promote the general welfare.”
ASSUMPTION	Citizens are entitled to protection from harmful actions by others.
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION	The federal government is supposed to serve the basic needs of the American people, including safeguarding their health.

Provide additional evidence to support your claim (facts, statistics, testimony, and other ethical, logical, or emotional appeals).

STATISTICS	Cite the incidence of deaths attributed to secondhand smoke.
FACTS	Cite lawsuits won against large tobacco companies.
FACTS	Cite bans on smoking already imposed in many municipalities and states.
AUTHORITY	Cite the surgeon general.
EMOTIONAL APPEAL	Show images or video of nonsmokers suffering from tobacco-related illnesses.

Acknowledge and respond to possible counterarguments.

COUNTERARGUMENTS	Smoking is legal. Smokers have rights, too.
RESPONSE	The suggested ban applies only to public places; smokers would be free to smoke in private. A nonsmoker’s right not to have to inhale smoke in public places counts for more than a smoker’s right to smoke.

State your conclusion in the strongest way possible.

Rogerian or invitational argument

The psychologist Carl Rogers argued that people should not enter into disputes until they can thoroughly and fairly understand the other person’s (or persons’) perspectives. From Rogers’s theory, rhetoricians Richard Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike adapted a four-part structure that is now known as “Rogerian argument”:

The introduction describes the issue, problem, or conflict in enough detail to demonstrate that the writer fully grasps and respects alternative points of view.
The writer then fairly describes the contexts in which such alternative positions might be valid.
The writer offers his or her position on the issue and explains in what circumstances and why that position would be valid.
Finally, the writer explains how those who hold alternative positions can benefit from adopting the writer’s position.

Invitational rhetoric has as its goal getting people to work together effectively and to identify with each other; it aims for connection and collaboration. Such arguments call for structures that are closer to good two-way conversations or freewheeling dialogues than a linear march from thesis to conclusion. If you try developing such a conversational structure, you may find that it opens up a space in your argument for new perceptions and fresh ideas.