Everything's an Argument

This chapter serves as a guide to writing academic arguments. Most collegiate and professional writing consists of academic arguments. These arguments base ideas on research and documented evidence, target a knowledgeable audience, use formal style, and follow standard formatting and grammar conventions. Though they rely on building logos, academic arguments also build ethos through credible evidence and extensive works cited lists. As an example, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present a Pew Research Center article that argues for the internet’s positive societal impact using statistics, polls, and surveys that add credence to the argument. Academic arguments also address a specific audience, not anticipating general readership. The authors illustrate this inclination with an abstract from a scholarly journal that uses highly scientific terminology. In contrast, an article on the same topic from a scientific magazine uses terms more understandable to a wider, but still knowledgeable, audience.

Even less technical academic arguments maintain formality, focusing on the topic rather than the speaker and using straightforward language. For example, an abstract about Burning Man, a yearly event where people gather to live primitively together, describes the phenomenon from a standpoint of objective observation, using phrases such as “socio-technical commons” and “communal living” (383). In addition to their formal tone, academic arguments also consist primarily of research from a variety of reliable sources. These arguments can take more than just traditional formats; they have also appeared in narrative, comic, and multimedia forms.

When a college student develops an academic argument, they should choose a topic of interest by exploring possibilities and browsing online. Then, they should familiarize themselves with what others are saying about the topic online and in scholarly databases. Next, they must evaluate current knowledge to identify gaps for additional research. Consulting campus faculty or others experts with prepared questions can also yield ideas.

Once familiarized with the topic, the student will then develop a controversial claim that includes a salient point and reasoning. Then, they identify their rhetorical role, such as reporter, critic, or advocate, and their purpose. The audience will consist of the instructor, classmates, and others concerned with the topic (in the event the argument is published to the larger academic community).

When presenting evidence, the student should summarize it, analyze it, evaluate it, synthesize their analysis and evaluation, and add their opinion. Visual sources require the same scrutiny as text. Document sources carefully in a reference list, including the author, title, publication information, the location accessed, and page numbers. Ensure documentation follows the instructor’s preferred guidelines (e.g., APA or MLA).

Professional research includes an abstract summarizing the argument; details the author’s credentials; introduces the topic and thesis; conducts a literature review of recent relevant research; describes the argument’s research methods; reports findings; uses visuals, headings, and subheadings; makes a recommendation; and cites references. Instructors may have a preferred structure or format. If not, outlines and storyboards can help with organizing information. Extract the most relevant evidence and call attention to the strongest examples by placing them at the end of the introduction, the start of body paragraphs, or in the conclusion. Balance source material with original thought, and carefully determine the arrangement of visuals.

Academic arguments should convey confidence and authority. To achieve such a tone, students can opt for clear, concrete, and impersonal language; use technical terms and abbreviations; and avoid informal language like slang or contractions. College papers are usually formatted with black text, traditional fonts and font sizes, and limited, purposeful visuals. Visuals warrant the same analysis, context, and documentation as textual evidence. If considering alternative design options, consult the instructor first. The authors recommend evaluating the rough draft by outlining it in reverse to test its organization and evaluate the purpose of each paragraph. Friends can also provide valuable input. Before submitting a final draft, proofread and double check formatting and citations, remembering that presentation contributes to credibility.

• Academic arguments base ideas on research and documented evidence, target a knowledgeable audience, use formal style, and follow formatting and grammar conventions.
• To develop an academic argument, choose and research a topic, develop a claim, consider the rhetorical situation, present evidence along with evaluative commentary and documentation, and follow the prescribed formatting and style guide.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• Why does an argument need evidence?
• Where can evidence be found?

Evidence strengthens arguments. The quality of evidence depends on its source and appropriateness for the argument’s rhetorical situation (time and place). In some fields, quantitative, or measurable, data is the strongest; however, in other fields like history or literature, there may be less evidence available to support a claim. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz advise readers to examine other arguments in a particular field to evaluate the data, the types of reasoning, the argument’s credibility and authority, the relevance of precedence and personal experience, the use of quotations, and the inclusion of media.

Different cultures focus on different evidence. Western cultures tend to rely on series of claims and support, while Middle Eastern arguments revolve around analogies and the authority of their religious text. The authors advise readers to consider how evidence might affect the audience when arguing across cultures. They present the example of a Western businessman inviting his Chinese bicycle supplier on a bicycle ride rather than directly pointing out that the bicycles rattle, a subtler approach that preserved the supplier’s dignity.

Most evidence comes from research, both print and digital. To begin, determine the types of sources necessary and where to find them. Exploring library resources, especially with the librarian’s help, can help yield more reliable sources than independent sources found online. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz instruct readers to learn how to navigate the library and its resources, including encyclopedias, databases, atlases, periodical indexes, library catalogs, and interlibrary loans. Scholarly databases like JSTOR and LexisNexis are repositories of journal and magazine articles. Librarians can help students narrow search terms to produce the most relevant results. In a database search, subject headings refer to the Library of Congress Subject Headings, a standardized list of classifications, whereas keywords look for the search term in the records of each source available. It’s important to enough sources to feel confident discussing the topic with a more knowledgeable person.

When searching outside library resources, begin with general keywords or read the Wikipedia page on the topic, keeping the possibility of inaccurate information in mind, as Wikipedia’s information can come from unverified sources. Searching can take the form of a subject directory, like about.com, or a search engine, like Google. A subject directory organizes information into nested categories that become narrower with additional clicks. Search engines use keyword searches to scan available sources. Adding multiple keywords can narrow a search. Using search logic can also help. Including “and” yields results that have both words in the source; “or” looks for one word or the other, while “not” omits sources that contain the specified keyword. Google Books and Google Scholar search books and scholarly articles online. The authors advise readers to extend their search beyond the results of the first search engine query, to find databases specific to the subject, to understand the difference between subject headings and keywords and between academic and popular sources, and to request help when necessary to gain the full advantages of the internet.

Sometimes arguments call for hands-on research like experiments, observations, interviews, and surveys. When conducting experiments, consider if the audience will accept the method chosen. Observations require concentration and interpretation. Ensure the observations directly support the claim, be open-minded about results, establish a system for collecting the data, and take note of time and place. When conducting an interview, determine its purpose; arrange the appointment in advance; prepare a list of questions; record pertinent details like who’s being interviewed, the place, and the time; and thank the interviewee. Design surveys to be easily understood by survey takers and easily interpreted by those analyzing the results. Yes/no and ranking questions make tabulation easy. Try to limit the survey to less than 20 questions. When conducting a survey, get any necessary approval, determine its intent, purposefully include questions, determine the population and number of people to ask, test the questions before sending out the survey, include a cover letter if it is not conducted in person, leave copious answer space, proofread, and report results clearly, perhaps in a chart.

The final kind of evidence discussed is personal experience. Personal experience can enhance but not support an argument on its own. It can be seen as unrepresentative or unreliable; however, these anecdotes can also engage the audience.

• Evidence convinces an audience of a claim’s validity when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Evidence can be found through print and online research, library resources, experiments, and observations.

This chapter explores the following question:

• How does a speaker evaluate evidence?

Effective arguments rely on quality evidence. The evidence must be accurate, and it must directly support the argument’s claim or purpose. Awareness of who created the source material allows the speaker to mitigate inevitable bias. All sources carry underlying intention. Consider all perspectives to avoid confirmation bias, in which relevant evidence is ignored in favor of evidence that supports the existing stance. The authors stress that being cognizant of one’s sources is crucial when incorporating them into an argument, emphasizing that “no writer wants to be naïve in the use of source material” (428).

Each piece of evidence should serve a purpose, so it’s crucial to assess and evaluate potential sources. Examine the table of contents, index, and abstract to determine a source’s relevance. Scrutinize the author’s credentials by doing background research and searching for others’ opinions. The same applies to publishers: consider their reputation too. Search the author on the Citation Index to examine how others used the author’s work. Determine the author and publisher’s stance and its effect on the argument. Prioritize current, accurate sources, checking for citation of credible sources. Focus on specialized sources to add authority. Consider the source’s intended audience and whether it provides a sufficient amount of information. Ensure the source is accessible. Identify omissions and whether those omissions affect the source’s reliability.

When using electronic sources, corroboration can ensure accurate information. Find three credible sources that agree. To verify credibility, use fact-checking sites like FactCheck.org or add the search term “whois” to the author or publisher’s name in a search engine. Consider who posted the information and created the site. Examine the URL’s suffix, which can identify if the site is commercial (.com), a nonprofit organization (.org), an educational institution (.edu), a government agency (.gov), a military organization (.mil), or a network (.net). Some suffixes indicate country of origin, such as .ca for Canada. Evaluate the author’s credibility and their use of sources. Review the perspective represented, and ascertain if it’s satirical.

The speaker must also evaluate their own field research. Recheck all information and conclusions for accuracy. Identify the setting and participants, and include how the speaker may have influenced the findings. Be sure to attain permission to use other people’s material, including their words, and thank anyone interviewed.

• When evaluating a source, examine relevance, author and publisher credentials and stance, currency, accuracy, level of specialization, audience, length, availability, and omissions.
• Corroboration can help ensure accurate information.

This chapter explores the following question:

• How does a speaker use sources in an argument?

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present professor Howard Rheingold’s term “infotention” to describe the process of filtering and synthesizing the massive amount of information found online—focusing attention on the filtered information. They recommend limiting the amount of circumstantial, or indirect, evidence. Speakers can add meaning to their selected evidence through its presentation. Synthesizing combines disparate evidence to form shared meaning in support of the claim. To begin synthesizing, look for connections, patterns, and themes; color coding evidence can assist with this task. Choose which evidence best illustrates the claim by considering which sources attract the audience, provide background information, illustrate key concepts, provide the best support, and function as counterarguments. Think about how to sequence the evidence effectively and use each piece of evidence purposefully.

Sources can be paraphrased, summarized, or quoted. Paraphrasing means putting another’s words into one’s own, using the same sequence of information. Paraphrasing is useful when composing research notes, and those notes can sometimes directly support one’s claim with proper citation, both in-text and in a works cited list. When paraphrasing, identify the source and the source’s significance, and stay true to the original points and organization. Differentiate between paraphrase and commentary, and ensure that the paraphrase is one’s own words, not a direct quotation of the source material.

While paraphrasing is a comprehensive retelling of the information, summarizing focuses only on the overall main points that support the argument. Both use one’s own words. As research notes, summaries help build claims and record source information. To summarize effectively, identify the source’s thesis and limit extraneous information. In research notes, differentiate between the source’s evidence and commentary, and add one’s own commentary. Keep language objective, and record citation information.

Quotations can also support a claim. Unlike paraphrasing and summarizing, quotations directly copy words from the source. Quotations are appropriate when the source’s wording is stronger than one’s own, when the author is highly authoritative, or when the source’s argument significantly differs from other sources. Quotations can add to ethos or engage readers. To be effective, quotes must be used purposefully. Place double quotations marks around the entire quote, with single quotation marks around any internal quotes. In addition, introduce the author and add commentary, keep quotes brief, note page numbers, cite in the text and in a works cited list, ensure accurate replication, embed quotes smoothly within one’s own language, use square brackets to denote any changes, use ellipses to denote omitted words, and present quotes in context.

Regardless of whether one paraphrases, summarizes, or quotes evidence, the source must be properly introduced using a signal phrase such as “according to…” (446). Signal verbs carry the source’s perspective, such as acknowledges, admits, confirms, asserts, or discusses (446-47).

Sources can be used to establish context, review existing literature, define a term or concept, present technical material, support a claim, or highlight counterarguments. The authors use an essay to illustrate how speakers can use sources to establish arguments. The essay begins with a newspaper source warning of nuclear crisis to engage readers before shifting to explaining this source as sensationalized media and presenting its own claim about the positive aspects of nuclear energy. Many arguments first discuss what others have found about the topic in the form of a literature review. These reviews paraphrase and quote others’ ideas with citations. Sources can also define concepts; for example, quoting a professor’s definition of a rubric can both clarify and add credibility. The same applies to technical content, as content from other authors can sometimes elucidate a concept. Source material can also be used as evidence to support a claim or present counterevidence, allowing for the acknowledgement and refutation of other perspectives.

The authors warn speakers against “patchwriting,” or bringing together multiple sources without identifying the source within the text.

• Speakers synthesize disparate sources into a single cohesive argument.
• Sources can be paraphrased, summarized, or quoted with a citation.

This chapter explores the following question:

• How does a speaker responsibly use information?

This chapter addresses plagiarism and the ethical use of information. Others’ work, or intellectual property, refers to any “expression of ideas,” including words, research, or art. Though many share information across the internet without attributing credit, this approach is not appropriate for academic arguments.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz recommend students review their school’s academic integrity policies, especially in regard to cheating and plagiarism. Those who plagiarize are often severely punished, but plagiarism can be easily avoided by citing sources. Citations make arguments more persuasive by enhancing ethos, demonstrating polite acknowledgement of those who contributed to the argument, and facilitating evaluation of the source.

Speakers should give credit to all source materials by placing quotation marks around borrowed phrases, citing within the text, and citing in a works cited list. The only ideas that do not require credit are common knowledge, widely available facts, and a speaker’s own research or findings. Accusations of plagiarism can arise from missing a single citation, even if unintentional. Some use of another’s work is allowed under fair use copyright law, but this use must be transformative, changing the nature or purpose of the original work.

Internet sources outside the Creative Commons, or work the creator allows to be used without permission but with credit, may require permission from the work’s creator even if credit is given. An email requesting permission to use another creator’s work should include the title of the work in question, the speaker’s intention in using the work, and the claim the evidence would support. It should also assure the creator that credit will be given.

The authors advise readers to cite all sources thoroughly and accurately, with in-text citations that credit the source within the sentence or parenthetical citations at the end of the sentence that refer to the works cited listed. Additionally, if creating a work in collaboration with another, acknowledge their contribution.

• To avoid plagiarism and increase credibility, speakers must cite any sources used while constructing own arguments.