Argumentative Texts: Structure, Reasoning, and Types

Posted on Oct 16, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

Argumentative Texts

Argumentative texts present a subjective viewpoint on an issue, aiming to persuade the reader through reasoning and evidence. Examples include opinion articles and scientific papers presenting a hypothesis. These texts demonstrate the validity of an idea through logical reasoning.

Characteristics of Argumentative Texts

Effective arguments require a clear internal structure:

  • Thesis: The central idea defended, aiming for general acceptance. It’s often introduced with phrases like “In my opinion…”. Example: “I believe a law prohibiting public smoking is beneficial.”
  • Basis: The argument providing supporting information, appealing to logic or emotion. This uses readily acceptable and verifiable data. Example: “Many people dislike the smell of cigarette smoke.”
  • Warrants: Reasons supporting the thesis, linking the basis to the thesis. Example: “Cigarette smoke is harmful not only to smokers but also to those around them.”
  • Backing: Further evidence supporting the warrants, such as facts, statistics, or studies. Example: “This claim is supported by the Ministry of Health.”

Structure of Argumentative Texts

A clear and organized structure enhances understanding. Two main types exist:

  • Sequential: Arguments accumulate to support a single thesis.
    • Deductive: Thesis presented first, followed by supporting evidence. (Order: Thesis -> Evidence 1, Evidence 2, Evidence x)
    • Inductive: Evidence presented first, leading to the thesis in the conclusion. (Order: Evidence 1, Evidence 2, Evidence x -> Thesis)
  • Dialectic: Presents the argument and counterarguments, critically examining the author’s own opinion. The problem is presented, followed by the thesis, counterarguments, and supporting evidence.

(Some texts combine deductive and inductive approaches.)

Modes of Argumentative Reasoning

Reasoning connects the proposition to the supporting evidence.

Types of Argumentative Reasoning

  • Analogy: Establishes similarity between two situations. Example: Maria and Joseph have identical roles and qualifications. Joseph received a raise; therefore, Maria should also receive a raise.
  • Generalization: A general argument derived from similar cases, applied to a new instance. Example: Neruda, Mistral, and Huidobro are excellent Chilean poets; therefore, Chilean poets are excellent.
  • Signs: Uses signs to infer a phenomenon. Example: Maria’s disinterest in parties and increased reading of romance novels suggest she is in love.
  • Cause and Effect: Establishes a causal link. Example: High demand for whale meat led to overhunting; therefore, whaling must stop.
  • Authority: Cites expert opinion. Example: “Give until it hurts” (Father Howard); therefore, we must generously support charity.
  • Emotional/Affective: Addresses the audience’s feelings.
  • Concrete Examples: Uses relatable examples.
  • Speaker Confidence: Relies on the speaker’s credibility.
  • Slogan: Repeats a phrase to reinforce a point.
  • Reputation: Leverages a public figure’s image.
  • Mass Appeal: Argues that popular opinion is correct.
  • Prejudice: Uses bias to support the thesis.
  • Tradition: Bases the argument on unquestioned tradition.

Lexical Items

Argumentative texts utilize connectors, declarative statements, syntactic devices, and figures of speech. Common connectors include:

  1. Contrast and Concession (but, however, although)
  2. Cause (because, since)
  3. Consequence (therefore, hence, thus)
  4. Restriction (including, at least, yet)