Give an explanation for subject, the controversy, and end with your thesis.

  • Use the title to present your point of view. The title can be your thesis statement or even the relevant question you are trying to answer.
  • Be concise. You are only introducing your argument, not debating it.
  • Think about your audience??”what facets of this presssing issue would most interest or convince them?
  • Appeal to your reader’s emotions. Readers are far more easily persuaded when they can empathize along with your point of view.
  • Present undeniable facts from highly regarded sources. This builds lots of trust and generally indicates a argument that is solid.
  • Be sure you have a clear thesis that answers the question. The thesis should state your situation and is usually the sentence that is last of introduction.


The human body usually is made from three or even more paragraphs, each presenting a piece that is separate of that supports your thesis. Those reasons will be the sentences that are topic each paragraph of your body. You really need to explain why your audience should agree to you. Create your argument even stronger by stating opposing points of view and refuting those points.

1. Reasons and support

  • Usually, you will have three or higher factors why your reader should accept your role. These will probably be your topic sentences.
  • Support every one of these good reasons with logic, examples, statistics, authorities, or anecdotes.
  • To help make your reasons seem plausible, connect them back once again to your situation through the use of reasoning that is ???if??¦then???.

2. Anticipate opposing positions and arguments.

  • What objections will your readers have? Answer them with evidence or argument.
  • The other positions do people take this subject on? What is your reason behind rejecting these positions?


In conclusion in several ways mirrors the introduction. It summarizes your thesis statement and main arguments and tries to convince your reader that your particular argument is the better. It ties the whole piece together. Avoid presenting new facts or arguments.

Here are a few conclusion ideas:

  • Think “big picture.” If you should be arguing for policy changes, which are the implications of adopting (or perhaps not adopting) your thinking? How will they impact the reader (or perhaps the relevant set of people)?
  • Present hypotheticals. Show exactly what will happen in the event that reader adopts your ideas. Use real-life examples of how your thinking will be able to work.
  • Include a call to action. Inspire the reader to agree along with your argument. Tell them what they desire to believe, do, feel, or believe.
  • Appeal to your reader’s emotions, morals, character, or logic.

3 Types of Arguments

1. Classical (Aristotelian)

You can easily choose one of these brilliant or combine them to produce your argument that is own paper.

This is basically the most argument that is popular and it is the one outlined in this essay. In this plan, you present the situation, state your solution, and attempt to convince the reader that your solution is the solution that is best. Your audience can be uninformed, or they could n’t have a opinion that is strong. Your job is always to cause them to worry about the topic and agree along with your position.

Here is the basic outline of a classical argument paper:

  1. Introduction: Get readers interest and attention, state the problem, and explain why they should care.
  2. Background: Provide some context and key points surrounding the problem.
  3. Thesis: State your position or claim and outline your arguments that are main.
  4. Argument: talk about the good reasons for your situation and present evidence to support it (largest section of paper??”the main body).
  5. Refutation: Convince your reader why opposing arguments are not true or valid.
  6. Conclusion: Summarize most of your points, discuss their implications, and state why your role is the position that is best.

Rogerian Argument

Rogerian argument strategy tries to persuade by finding points of agreement. It really is an technique that is appropriate use in highly polarized debates??”those debates in which neither side appears to be listening to each other. This tactic tells your reader you are listening to ideas that are opposing that those ideas are valid. You may be essentially trying to argue when it comes to ground that is middle.

Here’s the basic outline of a Rogerian argument:

  1. Present the issue. Introduce the problem and explain why it must be addressed.
  2. Summarize the arguments that are opposing. State their points and discuss situations by which their points can be valid. This indicates that you comprehend the opposing points of view and that you are open-minded. Hopefully, this will make the opposition more happy to hear you out.
  3. State your points. You may not be making an argument for why you’re correct??”just that we now have also situations in which your points can be valid.
  4. State the benefits of adopting your points. Here, you will appeal to the opposition’s self-interest by convincing them of how adopting your points may benefit them.
  5. Toulmin is another strategy to highly use in a charged debate. Rather than wanting to appeal to commonalities, however, this tactic tries to use logic that is clear careful qualifiers to limit the argument to things that can be agreed upon. It uses this format:

    • Claim: The thesis the author hopes to prove. Example: Government should regulate Internet pornography.
    • Evidence: Supports the claim. Example: Pornography on the Internet is bad for kids.
    • Warrant: Explains how the data backs up the claim. Example: Government regulation works in other instances.
    • Backing: Additional logic and reasoning that supports the warrant. Example: We have plenty of other government regulations on media.
    • Rebuttal: Potential arguments up against the claim: Example: Government regulations would encroach on personal liberties.
    • Exceptions: This further limits the claim by describing situations the writer would exclude. Example: Where children are not tangled up in pornography, regulation might not be urgent.