rogerian essay outline example

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Rogerian Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. Developed by psychotherapist Carl Rogers and adapted to rhetoric by writing scholars Young, Becker, and Pike, the speaker seeks compromise, acknowledging positive aspects of each party’s argument to arrive at a mutually-beneficial solution to an issue. 

You may already use Rogerian argument in your everyday life to negotiate with your friends, family, and/or romantic partners. For example, if you wanted to watch a comedy and your friend wanted to watch a romance, you might compromise by offering to watch a rom-com, as this offers each of you a bit of what you are looking for in that particular moment. Note, however, that this style of argument is decidedly less common in academic settings, where various empirical or theoretical notions of truth are often prized above the practical advantages of the Rogerian method.

While Aristotelian styles of argument are often seen as eristic (concerned primarily with winning), the Rogerian argument can be viewed as more dialectic in nature (a conversation between two or more parties with the goal of arriving at some mutually-satisfying solution). Thus, practicing the Rogerian argument will enhance your ability to understand the complex relations of opposing viewpoints and provide tools for addressing such discrepancies sympathetically. It’s also great for day-to-day conflict resolution at home or in the workplace.

However, Rogerian argument does come with disadvantages. For example, because Rogerian argument relies on compromise between opposing parties, it may not work well when your opponents are unwilling or unable to compromise, or if they are arguing in bad faith (e.g., they care only about winning). It may also lead to sub-optimal solutions if your opponent’s position is demonstrably wrong, since in this case you may nevertheless be forced to sacrifice some of your (ostensibly superior) goals order to accommodate your opponent’s (inferior) ones.

In “Rhetoric: Discovery and Change” (1970), Young, Becker, and Pike describe the primary aims of the Rogerian argument as follows:

• to convey to the reader that he is understood,
• to delineate the area within which he believes the reader's position to be valid, and
• to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution).

The first aim shows the reader that you understand the complexities of the argument and that you have listened sympathetically to what it is they have to say. This is important, because the success of the Rogerian arguments relies on cooperation and collaboration. The second aim puts this understanding into practice by seeking a symbiotic solution. The third aim builds ethos and rapport between the parties. If audiences believe they share a value system with a speaker or writer, they are more likely to agree to the terms of whatever solution is presented.

While each of these aims is important, Young, Becker, and Pike stress that they are just that: aims, not steps. You should not necessarily view these aims as occurring in a linear, step-by-step process. The authors present a synthesized discussion of what a successful Rogerian argument should contain, but they eschew any formalized structure. The structure of the argument should instead be determined by the speaker, and it should be modified and adapted according to the rhetorical situation at hand.

Again, there is no formalized structure for the Rogerian argument, though the following example provides a foundation   for considering how you might structure your own argument.

A successful Rogerian argument will likely include the following:

• Introduction (addressing the topic to be discussed and/or the problem to be solved)
• Opposing position (showing that you understand your opposition’s viewpoints/goals)
• Context for opposing position (showing that you understand the situations in which their viewpoint is valid)
• Your position (introducing/addressing your viewpoint as it differs from the reader’s)
• Context for your position (objectively showing the reader the context(s) under which your position is valid)
• Benefits (appeal to the opposition by showing how they would benefit by adopting elements of your position)

Below, we’ve provided an example Rogerian argument that follows the formula above. In this example, we will take the position that technology (e.g., laptops and tablets) should be allowed in writing classes while also considering the opinion of the opposition, who argue that such technology is more of a distraction than   a helpful tool. In so doing, we should be able to arrive at a solution that considers both arguments and develops a solution that benefits both parties while still achieving our goal of allowing technology in the classroom.

Introduction

Here, we would introduce the topic and briefly discuss why it is a matter of contention. We would lay out the differing perspectives, briefly mention the merits of each argument, and discuss the implications closely considering all perspectives to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.

Opposing position

Here, we would introduce the opposing position that digital technology should not be allowed in the writing classroom. We would also list and discuss their objections to the proposition of technology in the classroom. These might include the notions that it’s distracting for the individual, the class, and the instructor, and is often used to avoid the lesson and instead play games or go on social media.

Context for opposing position

Here we might provide specific details that lend merit to their argument. We want to show that we are fully considering their claims and not just giving lip service, in the hope that that they will give similar value to our opinions. We could include statistics, testimony from instructors and students, or even examples from media that support their theory that digital technology can indeed be a distraction during instruction.

Your Position

Here, we would introduce our claim that digital technology should be allowed in the writing classroom. We would still want to speak as objectively as possible in order to establish our ethos as concerned but unbiased speaker. We might even qualify our position by acknowledging that there are, of course, situations in which technology should be put away, but reiterate that, generally speaking, the presence of digital technology is a positive.

Context for your position

Here, we can provide examples that run contrary to the ones we used for the context of our opposition’s position. For example, we could gather testimony from students who claim that using these technologies in class has been beneficial. We could include research and scholarship that supports our position and even quote instructors who have developed pedagogy around these technologies. We might even subtly demonstrate that our opposition has failed to account for all possibilities by choosing our examples carefully. For instance, we could easily include accounts of students with learning disabilities who might otherwise have a difficult time succeeding in class without the help of assistive technologies.

Here, we would use the points we’ve established throughout the argument to appeal to our opposition and find some productive middle ground that benefits both parties. We would acknowledge that some instructors do not want digital technologies present in the classroom, as they believe they distract from paying attention during lectures. We would maintain, however, that these technologies can indeed be productive tools for learning—in some cases, they can even be a virtual requirement for learning. We could then offer a solution: that these digital technologies should be kept aside during lecture portions of a lesson except in the case of students with documented disabilities. This way, students will likely be paying attention, taking notes by hand which they can transcribe later if they so wish. However, once a class moves from lecture to activity (whether group or individual), students should be allowed to access these technologies to more effectively engage with the activity, organize their thoughts, and access information. Now that the instructor is no longer lecturing, it should be easier to monitor student progress and engagement and the use of technology for these activities will lead to more developed and better organized results from the students.

an Excelsior University site

Sample Rogerian Argument

Now that you have had the chance to learn about Rogerian arguments, it’s time to see what a Rogerian argument might look like. Below, you’ll see a sample argumentative essay, written according to APA 7 th edition guidelines, with a particular emphasis on Rogerian elements.

Click the image below to open a PDF of the sample paper. In the sample, the strategies and techniques the author used have been noted for you.

Write  |  Read  |  Educators

Grumble... Applaud... Please give us your feedback!

• Argument & Critical Thinking »
• Organizing Your Argument »
• Sample Rogerian Argument »

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest

• Junk Food Tax Persuasive Essay
• What Is An Essay Template?
• SAT Essay Sample Topics

Recent Posts

• Discover The Total Enrollment At GCU!
• Student’s Guide: Installing Tableau Made Easy
• Students Construct Space Satellite With AA Batteries
• Unlocking The Purpose Of Writing: Benefits & Impact Explored
• Unlocking The Power Of APA Writing Style

Lastest Posts

LEGAL PAGES

• CCPA – California Consumer Privacy Act
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Paper Examples on Literature
• Topical Writing Prompts for Academic Success

© 2024 writingandriding.com

THEME BY ANDERS NOREN — Up ↑

EnglishComposition.Org

Be a Better Writer

Rogerian Argument: Explanation and Example

When most of us think of arguments, we think about winners and losers. And we think that the winners win because their arguments were strong and forceful. This common perception of argument aligns well with what is called an Aristotelian or classical argument:  “ This is my assertion and here is the compelling evidence that shows why I am right ." 

But that kind of argument doesn't work in all situations. When your audience is a difficult one in the sense that you know your audience isn’t going to completely agree with your side of the issue, it can be a good idea to search for a middle ground. A Rogerian argument helps you find that middle ground.

Based on the work of psychologist Carl Rogers, a Rogerian argument can be extremely persuasive and can help you, as a writer, understand your own biases and how you might work to solve problems by finding common ground with others. Here is a overview of the basic strategy for writing a Rogerian argument, followed by a Rogerian essay example:

10 Steps to Writing a Rogerian Argument

• Find common ground  — Because a Rogerian argument will help you find common ground with your audience, you should consider this style of argument when you have a difficult or controversial topic and want to use a connection with your audience as a part of your persuasive style. But what is common ground? Finding a common ground involves meeting your opposition in the middle.
• Know your audience  — Is your audience going to be reluctant to change on this issue? If so, a Rogerian argument can be persuasive. It is also going to be a wonderful exercise in helping you see things from your audience’s perspective, as your goal is to understand the other side of an issue and then meet your audience in the middle. Some brainstorming can help you as you think about how you are going to approach your audience and find the common ground you need.
• Introduce the problem  — When you begin your argumentative essay, you should introduce the problem or issue in a way that makes it clear to an opposing audience that you understand their position.
• Acknowledge other side  — Unlike some other argument structures, in a Rogerian argument, you should address the opposition in the very beginning of your essay. After your introduction, you should explain the contexts in which your opposition’s viewpoints make sense and are valid.
• State your position  — It’s now time to present your side. Your goal is to evenly and carefully make the case for your position in order to be as persuasive as possible to the other side. Explain the contexts in which your side of the issue makes sense.
• Bring two sides together  — After you present your position, your next step is to explain how the opposition would benefit from considering at least certain parts of your position. Focus on the value of your position while remembering the value of the other side.
• Reach a conclusion  — As you reach the end of your Rogerian essay, remember to remind your audience of your main points and try to leave your audience with something to consider, even if they are still not convinced by the balanced presentation on the issue you have presented.
• Not finished yet  — You now have your draft completed, but there is a world of work left to do in terms of revision and editing. Before you edit, you should revise the content of your work. To help with revision, it is a good idea to get feedback.
• Hear from the other side  — Get feedback from as many people as you can. It is helpful to participate in a peer review if your course offers one. But it is a good idea to go beyond that peer review as well. Try to get feedback from those who disagree with your position. Not everyone is going to agree with your argument, but the feedback helps you grow as a writer.
• Edit and polish  — Once your essay content has been revised, it is time to edit. Editing involves addressing things like grammar, spelling, and checking on your citation. A good editing process involves many passes. You can’t catch all of your errors in one pass. Remember that effective editing takes time!

Follow these steps and you will be well on your way to a strong Rogerian argument essay!

Rogerian Argument Example Essay

Now that you have had the chance to learn about Rogerian arguments, it’s time to see what a Rogerian argument might look like. Below, you’ll see a sample argumentative essay, written according to APA formatting guidelines, with a particular emphasis on Rogerian elements.

Click the image below to see the sample paper in a PDF format. Scroll over the purple dialog boxes to learn about the strategies and techniques the author used in this essay. In some browsers, you may need to download or save this file to be able to utilize all of its functionality.

Click here to see a sample Rogerian Essay

License and Attribution

Image Credit:  Sketch of Carl Ransom Rogers by Didius .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

61 Rogerian Argument Model

Rogerian argument.

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue.  If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset.  Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1.  Introduction : Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way.  Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate.  Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a  compromise  about the issue at hand.  If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight.  Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so  do not  include your thesis in your introduction.  You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion.  Once again, state the  intent  to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.

2.  Side A :  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the  opposing side  of the argument first.  The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called  empathetic listening , which guides the overall approach to this type of argument.  By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue.  Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view.  Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project.  If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay.   You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on  YouTube   (https://youtu.be/2dLsgpHw5x0, transcript  here ).

3.  Side B : Carefully go over  your side  of the argument.  When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A.  In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise.  Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4.  The Bridge : A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find  common ground  between the two sides.  There should be at least one point of agreement.  This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values.  This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section  builds a bridge  from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5.  The Compromise :  Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis.  The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society.  That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes.  For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

Rogerian Execise

Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument.  Write up your responses to the following:

• The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
• My opposing audience is…
• My audience’s view on the topic is…
• My view on the topic is…
• Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
• My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…

Write What Matters Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long; Amy Minervini; and Joel Gladd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Rogerian Method: A Practical Guide to Effective Persuasion

People have studied and practiced the art of persuasion for centuries. As a result, they have developed various methods of conventional persuasive structures and techniques to present arguments. One such method is the Rogerian argument. A Rogerian way of argumentation aims to identify comparable perspectives between opposing viewpoints. This article will explore the Rogerian argument model and its application in essay writing, including its use in a rhetorical analysis essay.

The Rogerian argument is based on the principles of Rogerian communication, named after psychologist Carl Rogers. It seeks to understand the opposition of the audience. A Rogerian argument assumes that each party in a debate has similar moral qualities and can work together to find an acceptable solution. The Rogerian argument method is different from a traditional argument approach. The classical argument sets up a composition that aims to persuade the audience. In the case of the Rogerian argument, the author prioritizes shared interests and works towards finding a mutual solution. By acknowledging the validity of each point, the writer creates a productive dialogue.

In conclusion, the Rogerian argument method provides a unique and effective approach to writing essays. It prioritizes finding shared interests and shared priorities. By focusing on dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, the Rogerian strategy attempts to find overlapping interests. It does so by identifying mutually beneficial objectives and goals. With the right guidance from argumentative essay writers , you can use Rogerian argumentation in your essay. And also promote rhetoric discovery and change.

In the following sections, we will define the Rogerian argument model and explain its structure in detail. It offers tips on how to use it effectively in essay writing, including how to write a Rogerian essay in writing classes.

Definitions of the Rogerian Model

In this section, we will define Rogerian argument model. This method of argumentation seeks to establish mutual objectives between opinions. Psychologist Carl Rogers is the namesake of Rogerian rhetoric. The argument method involves three main parts: preface, body, and conclusion.

Emotionally charged topics need even more attention to audience analysis. You should approach such topics with sensitivity and respect. Take the time to understand the audience or reader’s perspective accurately. By doing so, writers can tailor their arguments to appeal to the reader’s values and beliefs. This can lead to a more productive and respectful dialogue, which will increase the likelihood of finding valid solutions.

The body of the argument paper is where the Rogerian approaches shine. By acknowledging the major barrier, the writer earns the trust of the audience. This approach helps to build a bridge between the two positions.

The conclusion of the Rogerian argument should highlight the two shared values and priorities. It should also propose an alternative solution that accommodates both viewpoints. Following the Rogerian argumentative essay outline can help writers effectively use this technique and promote constructive conflict resolution.

A Rogerian argument is a powerful tool for building bridges between the opposition. Additionally, rhetorical devices tend to be less aggressive than traditional or classical argument. In the next section, we will discuss the structure of the essay in more detail.

Finished papers

Customer reviews

Structure of Essay with Rogerian Method Argumentation

The structure of a Rogerian argument composition is distinct from that of a conventional argumentative essay. The argument begins with the foreword. Here the writer acknowledges the opposition to establish credibility. The conventional structure argumentative essay presents an opposing position, with the writer trying to persuade the audience to adopt their view. In contrast, a Rogerian essay aims to find similar perspectives between opposing viewpoints.

The structure has six main parts: Rogerian argument begins with an introduction. Then comes position 1, transition, position 2, reconciliation, and conclusion. This structure helps the writer to present the opposition fairly and objectively. In this type of writing, the writer also shows readiness to compromise in search of shared interests. In the next sections, we will explore each part of the Rogerian argument example.

Introduction

In a Rogerian argument, the intro is an important stage. The writer not only presents the topic but also acknowledges the other side to establish credibility. This section should also create a sense of goodwill and a willingness to find mutual objectives, setting the tone for the rest of the essay. The Rogerian approach in the introduction sets the stage for the writer’s intention to find a valid acceptable solution together, rather than merely winning an argument. This approach helps to avoid creating an adversarial relationship between the writer and the reader. It also leads to a more productive dialogue.

In the next section, Position 1 of the Rogerian argument, the writer presents the first opposing position or argument. This section should be presented fairly and objectively, without any bias. The writer should explain the opponent’s position thoroughly. For example, by providing supporting evidence for their point. This section is critical because it demonstrates that the writer has taken the time to understand the opposition accurately and can present it effectively to the reader. A Rogerian essay example can be helpful in understanding how to present an opposing view without bias.

In the Rogerian argument structure, the transition section plays a critical role in the essay. This section is where the writer moves from position 1 to position 2 while highlighting the common goals and goals that both viewpoints have in common, which can facilitate finding a valid solution and ultimately help to find the middle ground. By focusing on overlapping values, the writer makes it easier to bridge the gap between opposing positions and find the middle between them. The transition section is an essential part of the Rogerian argument, emphasizing the importance of identifying and acknowledging the overlapping interests and goals of both parties.

In the next section of the Rogerian argument composition, Position 2, the other side or argument is introduced. In this section, you write counterargument in essay. Present the opposing viewpoint fairly and objectively, just like position 1. The writer should explain the position in detail and provide supporting evidence for their argument. This approach ensures that the writer gives equal attention and consideration to both oppositions, which is key to creating a more productive dialogue and finding a valid solution. By acknowledging and addressing both sides of the issue, the writer can build trust and understanding of the reader’s perspective and promote a more collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Reconciliation

In the reconciliation section of a Rogerian essay, the writer aims to bring the two opposing viewpoints closer together. This section is where the writer identifies and highlights the overlapping interests, perspectives, and goals that both viewpoints have in common. By highlighting the mutual objectives between the two positions, the writer creates an atmosphere of goodwill and cooperation in the reconciliation section of the essay. In this paragraph, the writer presents an example of a solution that could be acceptable to both parties. This approach is critical because it shows that the writer is willing to work towards finding a mutual solution for both parties rather than trying to win an argument.

The conclusion should summarize the main points and emphasize the converging opinions and overlapping interests between the two positions. It should also underline the benefits of working towards a mutual solution and demonstrate that the writer is willing to compromise. Overall, The Rogerian argument method is an effective tool for finding solutions that satisfy both parties by prioritizing common goals and finding a middle ground.

The Rogerian argument method provides a unique and effective approach to writing essays. By focusing on finding overlapping perspectives and shared priorities, the writer can build a strong case that is both persuasive and respectful of opposing viewpoints. This approach encourages dialogue and cooperation between opposing parties, leading to a more productive and beneficial outcome for all involved. The Rogerian argument method can promote rhetoric discovery and change.

If you are struggling with writing an argumentative essay using the Rogerian approach, consider seeking help from a professional writer or tutor who can write your argumentative essay for you, or even buy argumentative essays online. To find appropriate topics for a Rogerian essay, consider one that you are passionate about.

Tips on How to Use Rogerian Argumentation in Essay

In the Rogerian essay example, it’s crucial to understand the method’s purpose and structure and know how to write a Rogerian argument effectively. Here are some tips on how to use Rogerian argumentation effectively in an essay:

• Acknowledge the Opposition. While using the Rogerian argument method, acknowledge the opposition. This helps you to establish credibility with the audience. The Rogerian approach in the introduction sets the stage for the writer’s intention to find a mutually acceptable solution than merely winning an argument.
• Find middle ground. The writer should focus on identifying and acknowledging the overlapping interests. This approach makes it easier to bridge the gap between opposing stances and find a shared point. The writer should suggest an example of a solution that could be acceptable to both parties. The author should also emphasize the importance of finding a mutual solution between the opposing views of the reader.
• Be collaborative . Seek common ground and explore the context of the opposing position respectfully and constructively. The writer’s position should be accompanied by a differing opinion.
• Consensus Building. Emphasizing consensual beliefs and goals is a crucial aspect of the Rogerian argument. Incorporating opponents’ positions and presenting them impartially support finding common ground. By highlighting an example of a solution, a willing writer shows they are not merely giving lip service to finding an acceptable solution.
• Shared solutions. Understand the context in which the opposing viewpoints were formed. By doing so, you can better comprehend how to write a Rogerian argument essay example in your writing classroom. The goal is not to attack or belittle the reader’s position. Instead, you have to find common ground and propose acceptable solutions. Avoid using inflammatory language, as it may make it harder to establish goodwill. Instead, argue, and remain calm and respectful. And focus on the areas of agreement between the two positions. This approach will help build trust with the willing reader and foster productive dialogue.

In a Rogerian essay example, finding overlapping perspectives is the main goal. By considering the reader’s perspective, custom essay writers create a dialogue toward a solution. This way, they tailor their arguments to appeal to the reader’s values and beliefs. It resulted in a persuasive and respectful essay.

To conclude, the Rogerian argument method let essays prioritize shared points. The Rogerian style mostly focuses on finding a compromise and a common ground. As such, it can help resolve conflicts and find answers or alternative solutions. If you find the Rogerian method overwhelming, ask professionals to write your argumentative essay for you. With the right guidance, you can effectively use Rogerian argumentation in your essay. And also promote rhetoric discovery and change.

Related posts:

• How To Write A Good Compare And Contrast Essay: Topics, Examples And Step-by-step Guide

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

• How to Write the Methods Section for a Research Paper: Effective Writing Guide
• Explaining Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy with Demonstrative Examples

Improve your writing with our guides

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.3: Rogerian Argument

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 22543

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise on a controversial issue.

If you are using the Rogerian approach your introduction to the argument should accomplish three objectives:

1. Introduce the author and work Usually, you will introduce the author and work in the first sentence:

Here is an example:

In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator addresses an inevitable by-product of war – racism.

The first time you refer to the author, refer to him or her by his or her full name. After that, refer to the author by last name only. Never refer to an author by his or her first name only.

2. Provide the audience a short but concise summary of the work to which you are responding Remember, your audience has already read the work you are responding to. Therefore, you do not need to provide a lengthy summary. Focus on the main points of the work to which you are responding and use direct quotations sparingly. Direct quotations work best when they are powerful and compelling.

3. State the main issue addressed in the work Your thesis, or claim, will come after you summarize the two sides of the issue.

The Introduction

The following is an example of how the introduction of a Rogerian argument can be written. The topic is racial profiling.

In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator — a young Japanese-American — writes a letter to the government, who has ordered her family into a relocation camp after Pearl Harbor. In the letter, the narrator details the people in her life, from her father to her best friend at school. Since the narrator is of Japanese descent, her best friend accuses her of “trying to start a war” (18). The narrator is seemingly too naïve to realize the ignorance of this statement, and tells the government that she asked this friend to plant tomato seeds in her honor. Though Okita’s poem deals specifically with World War II, the issue of race relations during wartime is still relevant. Recently, with the outbreaks of terrorism in the United States, Spain, and England, many are calling for racial profiling to stifle terrorism. The issue has sparked debate, with one side calling it racism and the other calling it common sense.

Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Your summary of the two sides will be your first two body paragraphs. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.

An outline for a Rogerian argument might look like this:

• Introduction

Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. In the example above, both sides of the racial profiling issue want the U.S. A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side, and tries to accommodate both. Again, using the racial profiling example above, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence, and quotations when appropriate.

Quoting Effectively

Remember, you should quote to illustrate a point you are making. You should not, however, quote to simply take up space. Make sure all quotations are compelling and intriguing: Consider the following example. In “The Danger of Political Correctness,” author Richard Stein asserts that, “the desire to not offend has now become more important than protecting national security” (52). This statement sums up the beliefs of those in favor of profiling in public places.

The Conclusion

Your conclusion should:

• Bring the essay back to what is discussed in the introduction
• Tie up loose ends
• End on a thought-provoking note

The following is a sample conclusion:

Though the debate over racial profiling is sure to continue, each side desires to make the United States a safer place. With that goal in mind, our society deserves better security measures than merely searching a person who appears a bit dark. We cannot waste time with such subjective matters, especially when we have technology that could more effectively locate potential terrorists. Sure, installing metal detectors and cameras on public transportation is costly, but feeling safe in public is priceless.

Permission granted from Michael Franco at Writing Essay 4: Rogerian Argument

Rhetorical Analysis

Rogerian argument.

Carl Rogers

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise on a controversial issue.

If you are using the Rogerian approach your introduction to the argument should accomplish three objectives:

• Introduce the author and work Usually, you will introduce the author and work in the first sentence, as in this example: In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator addresses an inevitable by-product of war – racism. The first time you refer to the author, refer to him or her by his or her full name. After that, refer to the author by last name only. Never refer to an author by his or her first name only.
• Provide the audience a short but concise summary of the work to which you are responding Remember, your audience has already read the work you are responding to. Therefore, you do not need to provide a lengthy summary. Focus on the main points of the work to which you are responding and use direct quotations sparingly. Direct quotations work best when they are powerful and compelling.
• State the main issue addressed in the work   Your thesis, or claim, will come after you summarize the two sides of the issue.

The Introduction

The following is an example of how the introduction of a Rogerian argument can be written. The topic is racial profiling.

Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Your summary of the two sides will be your first two body paragraphs. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.

An outline for a Rogerian argument might look like this:

• Introduction

Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. In the example above, both sides of the racial profiling issue want the U.S. A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side, and tries to accommodate both. Again, using the racial profiling example above, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence, and quotations when appropriate.

Quoting Effectively

Remember, you should quote to illustrate a point you are making. You should not, however, quote to simply take up space. Make sure all quotations are compelling and intriguing: Consider the following example. In “The Danger of Political Correctness,” author Richard Stein asserts that, “the desire to not offend has now become more important than protecting national security” (52). This statement sums up the beliefs of those in favor of profiling in public places.

The Conclusion

Your conclusion should:

• Bring the essay back to what is discussed in the introduction
• Tie up loose ends
• End on a thought-provoking note

The following is a sample conclusion:

Taken from Michael Franco’s PowerPoint Presentation Writing Essay 4: Rogerian Argument

• Rogerian Argument. Provided by : Utah State University. Located at : http://ocw.usu.edu/English/introduction-to-writing-academic-prose/rogerian-argument.html . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of Carl Rogers. Authored by : Didius. Provided by : Wikimedia. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Ransom_Rogers.jpg . License : CC BY: Attribution