Key Features / Arguments

A clear and arguable position. At the heart of every argument is a claim with which people may reasonably disagree. Some claims are not arguable because they’re completely subjective, matters of taste or opinion (“I hate sauerkraut”), because they are a matter of fact (“The first Star Wars movie came out in 1977”), or because they are based on belief or faith (“There is life after death”). To be arguable, a position must reflect one of at least two points of view, making reasoned argument necessary: guns should (or should not) be regulated; selling human organs should be legal (or illegal). In college writing, you will often argue not that a position is correct but that it is plausible—that it is reasonable, supportable, and worthy of being taken seriously.

Necessary background information. Sometimes we need to provide some background on a topic we are arguing so that readers can understand what is being argued. Coryell recounts the origin of the phrase “Black lives matter” before launching her argument that “all lives matter” misrepresents the BLM phrase and movement; Kristof describes the history of automobile regulation.

Good reasons. By itself, a position does not make an argument; the argument comes when a writer offers reasons to back up the position. There are many kinds of good reasons. Kristof makes his argument by comparing cars to guns. Schunk offers several reasons why actors with disabilities should get more parts: using non-disabled actors in roles of characters with disabilities is discriminatory; if there is a shortage of actors with disabilities, it derives from barriers to participation of those actors; and stereotypes limit the roles available to actors with disabilities.

Convincing evidence. Once you’ve given reasons for your position, you then need to offer evidence for your reasons: facts, statistics, expert testimony, anecdotal evidence, case studies, textual evidence. All three arguments use a mix of these types of evidence. Coryell cites statistics on the differences between Black Americans and White Americans in terms of their incarceration, wealth, and incidence of being shot and killed by police. Kristof shows how regulating cars led to dramatic decreases in driving deaths and injuries. Both Schunk and Coryell cite anecdotes from their own experience to support their arguments.

Appeals to readers’ values. Effective arguers try to appeal to readers’ values and emotions. Kristof appeals to the idea that reducing traffic deaths—and, by extension, shooting deaths—is a worthy goal. Coryell appeals to her readers’ sense of fairness, that “Black lives matter, too”—as much as the lives of White people. These values are deeply held and may be seen as common ground we share with one another.

A trustworthy tone. Arguments can stand or fall on the way readers perceive the writer. Very simply, readers need to trust the person who’s making the argument. One way of winning this trust is by demonstrating that you know what you’re talking about. Kristof offers plenty of facts to show his knowledge of the history of automotive regulation—and he does so in a self-assured tone. There are many other ways of establishing yourself (and your argument) as trustworthy—by showing that you have some experience with your subject, that you’re fair, and of course that you’re honest.

Careful consideration of other positions. No matter how reasonable and careful we are in arguing our positions, others may disagree or offer counterarguments. We need to consider those other views and to acknowledge and, if possible, refute them in our written arguments. Coryell, for example, acknowledges some people’s discomfort with the phrase “Black lives matter,” but she counters that to say instead that “all lives matter” is to make a mistake—“Black lives matter” asserts that racism against Black people needs to be pointed out and that Black lives are as worthy as everyone else’s lives.