written arguments judgement

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Other frequently assigned papers, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Writing Arguments

Steps to Writing an Argument

Develop your argument.

When you develop your argument, you are confirming your own position, and building your case for the readers. Use empirical evidence—facts and statistics—to support your claims. Appeal to your audience’s rational and logical thinking. Argue your case from the authority of your evidence and research.

Your list of strengths and weaknesses can help you develop your argument. Here is how to do that:

First, prioritize the strengths and weaknesses of each position and then decide on the top three to five strengths and weaknesses. 

Then, using a technique for developing content ideas, begin to expand your understanding of each item on your list (see the section in chapter 2 titled “ Techniques to Get Started ”). 

Evaluate each one in terms of how you can support it—by reasoning, providing details, adding an example, or offering evidence. 

Again, prioritize your list of strengths and weaknesses, this time noting the supporting comments that need more work, call for more evidence, or may be irrelevant to your argument. At this stage, it is better to overlook nothing and keep extensive notes for later reference.

As you develop your ideas, remember that you are presenting them in a fair-minded and rational way, counting on your readers’ intelligence, experience, and insight to evaluate your argument and see your point of view.

Techniques for Appealing to Your Readers

The success of your argument depends on your skill in convincing your readers—through sound reasoning, persuasion, and evidence—of the strength of your point of view. But how can you do that in the most effective way? There are three fundamental types of appeal in presenting an argument: reason, ethics, and emotion. As a writer, use all three of these techniques in your writing. 

But let’s learn more about these types of appeal:

Clear thinking requires that you state your claim and support it with concrete, specific facts. This approach appeals to our common sense and rational thinking. 

Formal reasoning involves following certain established logical methods to arrive at certain pieces of information or conclusions. Generally, these logical methods are known as inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

What is inductive reasoning? Inductive thinking is when our logical thinking states specific facts (called premises) and then draws a conclusion, or generalization. Inductive reasoning lets us examine the specific details, considering how well they add up to the generalization. When we think inductively, we are asking whether the evidence clearly supports the conclusions.

Example of Inductive Reasoning

Premise: Swans nest near this pond every summer.

Hypothesis: This summer, swans will probably nest near this pond.

What is deductive reasoning? In deductive reasoning, you take two premises to create a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence. When we think logically, we start with the generalization. As we apply our generalization to a specific situation, we examine the individual premises that make that generalization reasonable or unreasonable. When our logical thinking starts with the generalization, or conclusion, we may then apply the generalization to a particular situation to see if that generalization follows from the premises. Our deductive thinking can be expressed as a  syllogism  or an  enthymeme —a shortened form of the syllogism.

Syllogisms can be written like this:

All A are B.

All C are A.

Therefore, all C are B.

Example of Deductive Reasoning Using a Syllogism:

Major premise: All birds have feathers.

Minor premise: A parrot is a bird.

Conclusion: A parrot has feathers.

Enthymemes can be written like this:

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. 

But with enthymemes, B=C is implied.

Example of Deductive Reasoning Using an Enthymeme:

Conclusion: A parrot is a bird.

(We assume that a parrot has feathers)

Think of ethics as the force of a speaker’s character as it is represented in writing. If you misrepresent the evidence of one of your sources, your readers will question your ethics. 

In any situation in which you must rely on your readers’ goodwill and common sense, you will lose their open-minded stance toward your argument if you support it by using unethical methods. This can happen intentionally, by misrepresenting evidence and experts and by seeking to hurt individuals or groups. It can also happen unintentionally—you may undermine your argument by inadvertently misunderstanding the evidence and the implications of your position. This can occur if you don’t research the evidence responsibly, preferring instead to express your own and others’ unfounded opinions.

Using emotions as a support for argument can be tricky. Attempts to play on your readers’ emotions can seem manipulative and are often mistrusted. To use emotional appeal successfully, you must apply discretion and restraint. Choose examples that represent and illustrate your ideas fairly, and then present your arguments as objectively as possible. The writer must carefully draw the connections between the ideas and illustrations, choosing diction in such a way that readers don’t question motives as manipulative. Strong evidence accumulated by careful research often addresses this potential problem well.

Example of an Appeal to Emotion

Rather than continuing these tax-and-spend policies, we plan to return your hard-earned tax money to you.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Module 2: Academic Argument

Fact, opinion, judgement, inference, and argument, learning objectives.

Explain the difference between fact, opinion, judgment, and argument

We’ve talked a lot about reasons and evidence. These are the facts that help support your claim and give your argument the “legs” it needs to be supported; however, opinions are necessary in an argument, too. After all, your claim is essentially an opinion. So, what’s the difference between fact and opinion?

Fact and Opinion

Watch out for the difference between facts (which can’t really be refuted) and judgments,  which are really arguments in disguise. For instance, if I call Honey Nut Cheerios a “healthy” cereal, someone could disagree with my judgment of what constitutes “healthy.” In other words, I’m actually making an argument. The argument may be based on facts (such as the amount of fiber per serving), or other arguments and judgments (such as the definition of a “heart-healthy” food according to the American Heart Association). Sometimes we look at a situation and infer, or make a reasoned guess about, what could be happening. An  inference  is a logical conclusion based on the facts: if I eat a box of cereal a day, you might  infer that I like cereal. That’s not a fact (there could be other reasons that I eat that much cereal), nor is it a judgment (“that’s too much cereal”); it’s an inference.

Facts are observable, verifiable information.  Facts are what you see, no opinions or values added. They are learned through our senses: sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. They exist outside the observer, meaning they are reality, not the observer’s impression of that reality.

• In the United States, 84% of wildfires are started by humans. (Wikipedia)
• Esperanza Spalding is a jazz bassist, singer, songwriter, and composer. She has won four Grammy Awards.
• Florida has the highest concentration of Cuban Americans in the U.S. (1.53 million in 2017).

Inferences are based on analysis.  They are statements of the unknown based on the known. They are derived from reason. In other words, they are figured out based on our past experience. They exist within the observer and therefore can be different based on the observer’s experience. Here are some examples of inferences based on facts:

• Fire can actually contribute to the health of a forest. (This can be inferred from the historical effects of fire on forests and trees).
• Esperanza Spalding is a very talented musician. (This can be inferred from her accolades and awards).
• Florida’s politics are strongly influenced by Cuban-American voters. (This can be inferred from the number of Cuban Americans in Florida).

Judgments are subjective observations.  They are based on the facts of a situation, but are also derived from our values and reveal our feelings and attitudes toward something. A judgment is a statement we would expect others to agree with if they had the same information and perspective that we do. (To that extent, it’s like an argument). Here are some examples of judgments made from facts:

• People shouldn’t build in places with wildfire risk.
• Chamber Music Society is Esperanza Spalding’s greatest album.
• Cuban culture is the heart and soul of Miami.

A judgment is essentially a reasoned  opinion.  Opinion is a broad category that includes both reasoned arguments and feelings that aren’t based on facts or knowledge (such as preferences).

You can imagine a continuum going from most objective (verifiable with the senses) to most subjective (based on one person’s thoughts and experiences):

fact – inference – judgment – opinion

Facts, inferences, judgments, and opinions all have a place in academic argument. However, it’s important not to confuse them, since an argument will only be convincing—especially to those most likely to disagree with it—if it rests on facts, reasoned inferences, and well-argued judgments.

Elliott, Stuart. “7 Agencies Will Tell You This Cereal Is No. 1”.  The New York Times , June 27, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/business/media/27adnewsletter1.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Wikipedia contributors. “Esperanza Spalding.”  Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia . Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Sep. 2021.

Wikipedia contributors. “Wildfires in the United States.”  Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia . Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Sep. 2021.

• Facts, Inferences and Judgments. Authored by : Jeff Meyers. Provided by : Clinton Community College. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-clinton-technicalwriting/chapter/facts-inferences-and-judgments/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Cheerios. Authored by : General Mills. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_Nut_Cheerios#/media/File:Honey_nut_cheerios_(revised).jpg . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Fair Use

• 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.

3.4: What are the Different Types of Argument in Writing?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 12053
• Kirsten DeVries

Throughout this chapter, you have studied the definition of argument, parts of argument, and how to use logic in argument. This section brings all of the previous material together and tackles arguments in writing. Foremost on most students’ minds when taking college composition courses is this question: “How do I write an argument paper?” The answer is not a simple one because, as mentioned previously, arguments come in a variety of packages. This means that written arguments–whether in essay or some other form–also come in many different types.

Arguments of the Rhetorical Modes

Most arguments involve one or more of the rhetorical modes . Once again, rhetoric is the study and application of effective writing techniques. There are a number of standard rhetorical modes of writing—structural and analytical models that can be used effectively to suit different writing situations. The rhetorical modes include, but are not limited to, narrative, description, process analysis, illustration and exemplification, cause and effect, comparison, definition, persuasion, and classification. These modes will be covered in detail in Chapter 5, “Rhetorical Modes.” They are mentioned here, however, to make clear that any and all rhetorical modes can be used to pursue an argument. In fact, most professors will insist upon it.

Remember that when writing arguments, always be mindful of the point of view you should use. Most academic arguments should be pursued using third person. For more on this issue, see Chapter 4, “The Writing Process.”

Arguments of Persuasion

One of the most common forms of argument is that of persuasion , and often standardized tests, like the SOL, will provide writing prompts for persuasive arguments. On some level, all arguments have a persuasive element because the goal of the argument is to persuade the reader to take the writer’s claim seriously. Many arguments, however, exist primarily to introduce new research and interpretation whereas persuasive arguments expressly operate to change someone’s mind about an issue or a person.

A common type of persuasive essay is an Op-Ed article . Included in the opinion section of a newspaper, these articles are more appropriately called argument essays because most authors strive not only to make explicit claims but also to support their claims, sometimes even with researched evidence. These articles are often well-designed persuasive essays, written to convince readers of the writer’s way of thinking.

In addition to essays, other forms of persuasive writing exist. One common and important example is the job letter , where you must persuade others to believe in your merits as a worker and performer so that you might be hired.

In a persuasive essay, you should be sure to do the following:

• Clearly articulate your claim and the main reasons for it. Avoid forming a thesis based on a negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a positive case because a negative is hard to prove. That is, the thesis statement should focus on how the hourly minimum wage is too low or insufficient.
• Anticipate and address counterarguments. Think about your audience and the counterarguments they would mostly likely have. Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.
• Make sure your support comes in many different forms. Use logical reasoning and the rhetorical appeals, but also strive for concrete examples from your own experience and from society.
• Keep your tone courteous, but avoid being obsequious. In other words, shamelessly appealing to your readers’ vanity will likely ring false. Aim for respectful honesty.
• Avoid the urge to win the argument. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your claim as a sound one, not simply the right one.

Because argument writing is designed to convince readers of an idea they may not have known before or a side of an issue they may not agree with, you must think carefully about the attitude you wish to convey as you advance your argument. The overall attitude of a piece of writing is its tone , and it comes from the words you choose (for more on the importance of word choice, see Chapter 10, “Working with Words”) In argument writing, strive for the following:

• Confidence —The reader needs to know that you believe in what you say, so be confident. Avoid hedgy and apologetic language. However, be careful not to cross the line from confidence to overconfidence. Arrogance can rebuff your readers, even if they agree with you.
• Neutrality —While you may advocate for one side or way of thinking, you still must demonstrate that you are being as objective as you can in your analysis and assessment. Avoid loaded terms, buzzwords, and overly emotional language.
• Courtesy and fairn ess—Particularly when dealing with any counterarguments, you want your tone to reveal that you have given other points of view due consideration. Avoid being smug, snide, or harshly dismissive of other ideas.

Sample Writing Assignment 1

Find an Op-Ed article from one of the major US newspapers: The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , The Washington Post , The Boston Globe , or the LA Times . Then, do the following:

• Prewriting Work: Read the article carefully, taking notes or annotating it. Be sure to find the main argument and map the support used by the author, i.e., how the author is trying to persuade you. Note any use of rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research. (For tips about note-taking and annotating reading material, see Chapter 1for a review of the rhetorical appeals, seeChapter 2.
• Write a paragraph summary of the article. Include the main argument and its support. Explain the different types of support used by the author (rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research).
• In a paragraph, devise and explain your own counterargument(s) to the author’s thesis.
• In a paragraph, explain what kind of support you would use for your counterargument. What rhetorical appeals would you use? What experts might you call on? Do you think you would need to do research and if so, on what?

Sample Writing Assignment 2

Write a job letter. As you design it, be sure to do the following:

• Use formal letter format. Be sure to include these elements: your address, the address of the job you’re applying to (or the department you are applying to), the date you send the letter, a greeting, the letter content in coherent paragraphs (single-spaced paragraphs with a double space in between paragraphs), a sign off, any additional information (your phone and/or email address). For some visual examples of what this would look like, do a Google image search for “job letter format.”
• Prewriting Work 1: Imagine a job you would like to apply for. Ask yourself the following questions and brainstorm answers to them: “What skills would I need to have for this job, and which of those skills do I have?” “What educational background would be required, and can I show that I fulfill the requirements?” “What experience might the hiring committee want to me to have, and do I have any experience that would be relevant?”
• Prewriting Work 2: Take the notes you have come up with and add as many specific details as you can. If you believe you do have relevant skills, what are they, specifically? Where did you get those skills, specifically? How long have you had those skills, specifically? Do you have examples where you have shown excellence with those skills, specifically?
• Drafting: Shape your details into three paragraphs organized by issue: skills, education, and experience. Be specific, include a couple examples per paragraph, and be succinct in your delivery.
• Proofread carefully. First of all, excellent sentence composition, punctuation, and spelling communicate your seriousness to those who might hire you. Mistakes make you look sloppy and make it easy for them to toss your letter on the rejection pile. Second, watch word choice. Choose specific over general words as much as possible (you say you are a hard worker, but what does that mean, practically speaking?). Make sure you avoid clichés and overly gushy sentiment (“I’m passionate about people!”). Finally, proofread for tone. Strive for courteousness and objectivity. Make it seem like you are being objective about your own abilities.

Arguments of Evaluation

If you have ever answered a question about your personal take on a book or movie or television show or piece of music, you have given a review . Most times, these reviews are somewhat hasty and based on initial or shallow impressions. However, if you give thought to your review, if you explain more carefully what you liked or didn’t like and why, if you bring in specific examples to back up your points, then you have moved on to an argument of evaluation. Reviews of film, books, music, food, and other aspects of taste and culture represent the most familiar type of argument of evaluation. The main objective of an argument of evaluation is to render a critical judgment on the merits of something.

Another common argument of evaluation is the performance review . If you have ever held a job, you know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such a review; your timeliness and productivity and attitude are scrutinized to determine if you have been a good worker or need to worry about looking for another job. If you are in any sort of supervisory position, you will be the one writing and delivering those reviews, and your own supervisor will want to know that you have logical justification and evidence for your judgements.

For all types of reviews or evaluation arguments, make sure to plan for the following:

• Declare your overall judgment of the subject under review—good, bad, or somewhere in between. This is your conclusion or thesis.
• Lay out the criteria for your judgment. In other words, your review must be based on logical criteria—i.e., the standards by which you evaluate something. For example, if you are reviewing a film, reasonable criteria would include acting, writing, storytelling, directing, cinematography, music, and special effects. If you are evaluating an employee, that criteria will change and more likely involve punctuality, aspects of job performance, and overall attitude on the job.
• Make sure to evaluate each criteria and provide evidence. Draw your evidence from what you are reviewing, and use as many specific examples as you can. In a movie review in which you think the acting quality was top notch, give examples of a particular style that worked well or lines delivered effectively or emotions realistically conveyed.
• Use concrete language. A review is only an argument if we can reasonably see—from examples and your explanations—how you arrived at your judgment. Vague or circular language (“I liked it because it was just really good!”) will keep your evaluation at the opinion level only, preventing it from being taken seriously as an argument.
• Keep the tone respectful—even if you ultimately did not like the subject of your review. Be as objective as you can when giving your reasons. Insulting language detracts from the seriousness of your analysis and makes your points look like personal attacks.

Roger Ebert (1942-2013), a movie reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times , was once one of the most famous movie critics in America. His reviews provide excellent examples of the argument of evaluation.

Consider his review( https://tinyurl.com/y82ylaav ) of the 2009 film Avatar and note how clearly he declares his judgments, how he makes his reader aware of just what standards he uses for judgement (his criteria), and how he uses a wealth of examples and reasons to back his critiques (although he is careful to avoid spoilers, the review went to print as the movie was coming out).

Sample Writing Assignment 3

Write a brief review of your first job. How would you rate that experience, and what would your rating be based on?

• Declare your overall judgment of your job experience. This is your main claim.
• Come up with at least four criteria for evaluation. Give your judgment for each criteria. Include at least two specific examples to support each evaluation, and explain the logic of your support.
• Proofread for tone, making sure to look for any words that would cause a reader to think your critique was unfair or hostile. For example, even if you loathed your first job, treat it dispassionately, like you are a social scientist putting that work experience under a microscope. (This might allow you to say, for example, that although the job was dull and repetitive, it gave you some useful experience.)

Sample Writing Assignment 4

Evaluate a source that you plan to use for a research project. Explain what type of source you have (website? journal article? book? newspaper article?), and declare your source to be credible or not, using the following criteria:

• Author’s credentials. First of all, are the authors named? Can you find out anything about them, like degrees and professional information? If you cannot find anything, how does that affect credibility? If you can find information, how does that information show credibility or lack of it?
• Publication information and process. Was the article or book peer reviewed? Was it online or in print? Did you find it through a database or a Google search? Who funded publication? Explain what the results of these questions tell you about the source’s credibility.
• The use of support. Does the source have footnotes or endnotes? A bibliography? Links to different articles? In other words, how carefully is the author trying to back up his or her claims?

Arguments of Fact and Explanation

In the beginning of this chapter, arguments were shown to be distinct from facts. Facts are not arguable, they do not have “two sides,” and they are not up for debate. However, as we well know, people disagree with facts all the time. We wouldn’t have a nonsense term like “alternative facts” otherwise. We do, however, have arguments that deal with this scenario: arguments of fact and explanation . Arguments of fact seek to establish, often in the face of doubters, that a fact is indeed true. Arguments of explanation establish why that fact is true. Not surprisingly, these arguments often go hand in hand, and they lie primarily in the domain of the research paper. For more detail on the research process, refer to Chapter 6, “Research ” ; this section will clarify these two types of argument.

Arguments of Fact : Many times, the goal of giving an argument is simply to establish that the conclusion is true. For example, to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the US, the writer should cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The studies cited would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are rising:

Obesity is on the rise in the US because multiple studies carried out by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.

Putting this simple argument into standard form would look like this:

• Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades. ( premises )
• Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the US. ( conclusion )

The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the conclusion is supposed to be supported by the evidence offered in the premise. Again, the goal of this simple argument would be to convince someone that the conclusion is true . However, sometimes we already know that a statement or claim is true, and we are trying to establish why it is true rather than that it is true.

Arguments of Explanation : An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an explanation. Contrast the previous example with the following:

The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US is that the foods we most often consume over the past four decades have increasingly contained high levels of sugar and low levels of dietary fiber. Because eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat.

This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the US. Unlike the earlier example, here it is taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the US. That is the claim whose truth the author must explain. The obesity explanation can also be put into standard form just like any other argument:

• Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in fiber. ( premise )
• Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fat triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat. ( premise )
• When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese. ( premise )
• Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US. ( conclusion )

Notice that in this explanation, the premises (1-3) attempt to explain why the conclusion is true, rather than a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. That is, in an argument of explanation, we assume that what we are trying to explain (i.e., the conclusion) is true. In this case, the premises are supposed to show why we should expect or predict that the conclusion is true. Explanations often give us an understanding of why the conclusion is true.

Arguments of Interpretation

Arguments of interpretation come mainly in the form of critical analysis writing. Scholars and students use critical analysis to understand a text more deeply; therefore, it is common in disciplines in which texts are the main objects of study—literature, philosophy, and history. However, we can also think of critical analysis as any analysis where someone takes raw data—from texts, from objects and images, from laboratory experiments, from surveys of people—and analyzes that data to come up with what they mean. The “what it all means” is an interpretation . The argument in critical analysis writing is the interpretation of the data. This must be a logical interpretation with the data also used to support the interpretation through reasoning and examples.

The guidelines for analyzing data are determined by the experts in those areas. Scholars of the life, earth, and physical sciences; the social sciences; and the humanities gather all sorts of different data. When writing up an interpretation of that data, writers and researchers should follow the models and standards provided by experts in those fields of study. In college, professors are important sources of these models and standards.

In the humanities, particularly in literature, there are generally four ways (or perspectives) for analyzing a text: writing from the perspective of a reader , writing as if the text were an object of study , writing about or from the perspective of an author , and writing about where a text fits into a particular context .

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 onYouTube( 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.

Sample Writing Assignment 5

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…

The Toulmin Argument Model

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was considered Toulmin’s most influential work, particularly in the fields of rhetoric, communication, and computer science. His components continue to provide useful means for analyzing arguments, and the terms involved can be added to those defined in earlier sections of this chapter.

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

1. Claim : The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a conclusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument because all the other parts relate back to the claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

This claim both asks the reader to believe an idea and suggests an action to enact. However, like all claims, it can be challenged. Thus, a Toulmin argument does not end with a claim but also includes grounds and warrant to give support and reasoning to the claim.

2. Grounds : The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and includes the reasoning behind the claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support . The truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for strength, credibility, relevance, and reliability. The following are examples of grounds:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

Information is usually a powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational will more likely be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. Thus, grounds can also include appeals to emotion, provided they aren’t misused. The best arguments, however, use a variety of support and rhetorical appeals.

3. Warrant : A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant . The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit. The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?” For example,

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos , ethos or pathos , or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

4. Backing : The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Backing can be confused with grounds, but the main difference is this: Grounds should directly support the premises of the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,

Hearing aids are available locally.

This statement works as backing because it gives credence to the warrant stated above, that a hearing aid will help most people hear better. The fact that hearing aids are readily available makes the warrant even more reasonable.

5. Qualifier : The qualifier indicates how the data justifies the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them immediately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For example,

Hearing aids help most people.

The qualifier “most” here allows for the reasonable understanding that rarely does one thing (a hearing aid) universally benefit all people. Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect:

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations can be used to bolster weak arguments, so it is important to recognize them. They are often used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus, they slip “usually,” “virtually,” “unless,” and so on into their claims to protect against liability. While this may seem like sneaky practice, and it can be for some advertisers, it is important to note that the use of qualifiers and reservations can be a useful and legitimate part of an argument.

6. Rebuttal : Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example, if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

Even if you do not wish to write an essay using strict Toulmin structure, using the Toulmin checklist can make an argument stronger. When first proposed, Toulmin based his layout on legal arguments, intending it to be used analyzing arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not realize that this layout would be applicable to other fields until later. The first three elements–“claim,” “grounds,” and “warrant”–are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the last three—“qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”—may not be necessary for all arguments.

Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a newspaper or a magazine think piece or a scholarly journal. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument. Use the structure above to diagram your article’s argument.

Key Takeaways: Types of Argument

• Arguments in the Rhetorical Modes —models of writing that can be used for an argument, including the rhetorical modes: narration, comparison, causal analysis, process, description, definition, classification, and exemplification.
• Arguments of Persuasion —used to change someone’s thinking on a topic or person.
• Arguments of Evaluation —critical reviews based on logical evaluation of criteria and evidence for that evaluation.
• Arguments of Fact and Explanation —establishes that a fact is true (the former) or why it is true (the latter).
• Arguments of Interpretation —critical analysis writing in which one makes an argument about what data mean. Data can come from texts, objects, surveys, and scientific experiments.
• The Rogerian Argument Model —an argument model designed to bring about consensus and mutual understanding rather than conflict.
• Toulmin’s Argument Model —six interrelated components used to diagram an argument, drawn from both rhetorical and academic argument.

What this handout is about

This handout will define what an argument is and explain why you need one in most of your academic essays.

Arguments are everywhere

You may be surprised to hear that the word “argument” does not have to be written anywhere in your assignment for it to be an important part of your task. In fact, making an argument—expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with evidence—is often the aim of academic writing. Your instructors may assume that you know this and thus may not explain the importance of arguments in class.

Most material you learn in college is or has been debated by someone, somewhere, at some time. Even when the material you read or hear is presented as a simple fact, it may actually be one person’s interpretation of a set of information. Instructors may call on you to examine that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new view of your own. In writing assignments, you will almost always need to do more than just summarize information that you have gathered or regurgitate facts that have been discussed in class. You will need to develop a point of view on or interpretation of that material and provide evidence for your position.

Consider an example. For nearly 2000 years, educated people in many Western cultures believed that bloodletting—deliberately causing a sick person to lose blood—was the most effective treatment for a variety of illnesses. The claim that bloodletting is beneficial to human health was not widely questioned until the 1800s, and some physicians continued to recommend bloodletting as late as the 1920s. Medical practices have now changed because some people began to doubt the effectiveness of bloodletting; these people argued against it and provided convincing evidence. Human knowledge grows out of such differences of opinion, and scholars like your instructors spend their lives engaged in debate over what claims may be counted as accurate in their fields. In their courses, they want you to engage in similar kinds of critical thinking and debate.

Argumentation is not just what your instructors do. We all use argumentation on a daily basis, and you probably already have some skill at crafting an argument. The more you improve your skills in this area, the better you will be at thinking critically, reasoning, making choices, and weighing evidence.

Making a claim

What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim” or “thesis statement,” backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority of college papers, you will need to make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a “topic” about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold. See our handout on thesis statements .

Claims can be as simple as “Protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged,” with evidence such as, “In this experiment, protons and electrons acted in such and such a way.” Claims can also be as complex as “Genre is the most important element to the contract of expectations between filmmaker and audience,” using reasoning and evidence such as, “defying genre expectations can create a complete apocalypse of story form and content, leaving us stranded in a sort of genre-less abyss.” In either case, the rest of your paper will detail the reasoning and evidence that have led you to believe that your position is best.

When beginning to write a paper, ask yourself, “What is my point?” For example, the point of this handout is to help you become a better writer, and we are arguing that an important step in the process of writing effective arguments is understanding the concept of argumentation. If your papers do not have a main point, they cannot be arguing for anything. Asking yourself what your point is can help you avoid a mere “information dump.” Consider this: your instructors probably know a lot more than you do about your subject matter. Why, then, would you want to provide them with material they already know? Instructors are usually looking for two things:

• Proof that you understand the material
• A demonstration of your ability to use or apply the material in ways that go beyond what you have read or heard.

This second part can be done in many ways: you can critique the material, apply it to something else, or even just explain it in a different way. In order to succeed at this second step, though, you must have a particular point to argue.

Arguments in academic writing are usually complex and take time to develop. Your argument will need to be more than a simple or obvious statement such as “Frank Lloyd Wright was a great architect.” Such a statement might capture your initial impressions of Wright as you have studied him in class; however, you need to look deeper and express specifically what caused that “greatness.” Your instructor will probably expect something more complicated, such as “Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture combines elements of European modernism, Asian aesthetic form, and locally found materials to create a unique new style,” or “There are many strong similarities between Wright’s building designs and those of his mother, which suggests that he may have borrowed some of her ideas.” To develop your argument, you would then define your terms and prove your claim with evidence from Wright’s drawings and buildings and those of the other architects you mentioned.

Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your point with evidence. The strength of your evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument. See our handout on evidence . You already have the natural inclination for this type of thinking, if not in an academic setting. Think about how you talked your parents into letting you borrow the family car. Did you present them with lots of instances of your past trustworthiness? Did you make them feel guilty because your friends’ parents all let them drive? Did you whine until they just wanted you to shut up? Did you look up statistics on teen driving and use them to show how you didn’t fit the dangerous-driver profile? These are all types of argumentation, and they exist in academia in similar forms.

Every field has slightly different requirements for acceptable evidence, so familiarize yourself with some arguments from within that field instead of just applying whatever evidence you like best. Pay attention to your textbooks and your instructor’s lectures. What types of argument and evidence are they using? The type of evidence that sways an English instructor may not work to convince a sociology instructor. Find out what counts as proof that something is true in that field. Is it statistics, a logical development of points, something from the object being discussed (art work, text, culture, or atom), the way something works, or some combination of more than one of these things?

Be consistent with your evidence. Unlike negotiating for the use of your parents’ car, a college paper is not the place for an all-out blitz of every type of argument. You can often use more than one type of evidence within a paper, but make sure that within each section you are providing the reader with evidence appropriate to each claim. So, if you start a paragraph or section with a statement like “Putting the student seating area closer to the basketball court will raise player performance,” do not follow with your evidence on how much more money the university could raise by letting more students go to games for free. Information about how fan support raises player morale, which then results in better play, would be a better follow-up. Your next section could offer clear reasons why undergraduates have as much or more right to attend an undergraduate event as wealthy alumni—but this information would not go in the same section as the fan support stuff. You cannot convince a confused person, so keep things tidy and ordered.

Counterargument

One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. Recall our discussion of student seating in the Dean Dome. To make the most effective argument possible, you should consider not only what students would say about seating but also what alumni who have paid a lot to get good seats might say.

You can generate counterarguments by asking yourself how someone who disagrees with you might respond to each of the points you’ve made or your position as a whole. If you can’t immediately imagine another position, here are some strategies to try:

• Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could possibly disagree with the position you are arguing, but someone probably has. For example, some people argue that a hotdog is a sandwich. If you are making an argument concerning, for example, the characteristics of an exceptional sandwich, you might want to see what some of these people have to say.
• Talk with a friend or with your teacher. Another person may be able to imagine counterarguments that haven’t occurred to you.
• Consider your conclusion or claim and the premises of your argument and imagine someone who denies each of them. For example, if you argued, “Cats make the best pets. This is because they are clean and independent,” you might imagine someone saying, “Cats do not make the best pets. They are dirty and needy.”

Once you have thought up some counterarguments, consider how you will respond to them—will you concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your audience should nonetheless accept your argument? Will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken? Either way, you will want to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger than opposing arguments.

When you are summarizing opposing arguments, be charitable. Present each argument fairly and objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want to show that you have considered the many sides of the issue. If you simply attack or caricature your opponent (also referred to as presenting a “straw man”), you suggest that your argument is only capable of defeating an extremely weak adversary, which may undermine your argument rather than enhance it.

It is usually better to consider one or two serious counterarguments in some depth, rather than to give a long but superficial list of many different counterarguments and replies.

Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original argument. If considering a counterargument changes your position, you will need to go back and revise your original argument accordingly.

Audience is a very important consideration in argument. Take a look at our handout on audience . A lifetime of dealing with your family members has helped you figure out which arguments work best to persuade each of them. Maybe whining works with one parent, but the other will only accept cold, hard statistics. Your kid brother may listen only to the sound of money in his palm. It’s usually wise to think of your audience in an academic setting as someone who is perfectly smart but who doesn’t necessarily agree with you. You are not just expressing your opinion in an argument (“It’s true because I said so”), and in most cases your audience will know something about the subject at hand—so you will need sturdy proof. At the same time, do not think of your audience as capable of reading your mind. You have to come out and state both your claim and your evidence clearly. Do not assume that because the instructor knows the material, he or she understands what part of it you are using, what you think about it, and why you have taken the position you’ve chosen.

Critical reading

Critical reading is a big part of understanding argument. Although some of the material you read will be very persuasive, do not fall under the spell of the printed word as authority. Very few of your instructors think of the texts they assign as the last word on the subject. Remember that the author of every text has an agenda, something that he or she wants you to believe. This is OK—everything is written from someone’s perspective—but it’s a good thing to be aware of. For more information on objectivity and bias and on reading sources carefully, read our handouts on evaluating print sources and reading to write .

Take notes either in the margins of your source (if you are using a photocopy or your own book) or on a separate sheet as you read. Put away that highlighter! Simply highlighting a text is good for memorizing the main ideas in that text—it does not encourage critical reading. Part of your goal as a reader should be to put the author’s ideas in your own words. Then you can stop thinking of these ideas as facts and start thinking of them as arguments.

When you read, ask yourself questions like “What is the author trying to prove?” and “What is the author assuming I will agree with?” Do you agree with the author? Does the author adequately defend her argument? What kind of proof does she use? Is there something she leaves out that you would put in? Does putting it in hurt her argument? As you get used to reading critically, you will start to see the sometimes hidden agendas of other writers, and you can use this skill to improve your own ability to craft effective arguments.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ede, Lisa. 2004. Work in Progress: A Guide to Academic Writing and Revising , 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Gage, John T. 2005. The Shape of Reason: Argumentative Writing in College , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 2016. Everything’s an Argument , 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Understanding Arguments

Facione (2010) defined analysis as the ability “to identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions, or other forms of representation intended to express belief, judgment, experiences, reasons, information, or opinions” (p. 6). The process of analyzing involves breaking a piece of work apart, examining what the elements mean separately, and figuring out how they are related to each other, with the goal of understanding the meaning of the work as a whole.

Written material is composed of words that make up sentences, which in turn make up paragraphs, which in turn make up chapters, and so forth (Kurland, 2002). The elements in a well written text will be logically organized and a reader’s approach to analyzing them will generally depend on the reader’s goals and the primary themes that interest them. For example, a psychologist’s analysis of a work on mental health will differ from that of a psychiatrist or theologian. The first may focus on the behavioral aspects, the second on the clinical or biological aspects, and the third on spiritual aspects. Because scholarly literature is generally written by researchers or experts who wish to contribute to the knowledge of a particular subject, it is to be analyzed as an argument or communication within that particular social context.

The reader’s analysis can focus on three aspects: content, language, and structure (Kurland, 2002). When analyzing the content one may ask the following questions:

• Whom is the author addressing?
• What is the author’s purpose?
• What evidence is used to support the author’s argument?
• What is the context of the work?

When analyzing the structure of the argument, one would ask questions such as:

• How is the argument built? What comes first?
• Do the points follow a logical sequence or timeline?
• How did the author divide the sections?
• Did the author present a problem and its solution?
• Did the author use a compare and contrast analysis?

When analyzing the language, one would ask questions such as:

• What is the tone?
• Does the word selection reveal any biases?
• Is the language clear and vigorous?

As you analyze the text, it is also important to make connections between what you are reading and what you already know. Are any of the points made in conflict with your worldview or perhaps in conflict with the views of other respected scholars in the field? Is the text significant? If so, what makes it significant? Does it make a worthwhile contribution to the field?

The act of inferring is an important component of the critical reading process as it involves making judgments and drawing conclusions. A report published by the National Foundation for Educational Research (2008) found that a reader’s ability to make correct inferences resulted in (a) better reading comprehension, (b) an appreciation of their relationship to the writer and the text, (c) and reading and thinking critically. An inference (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) is defined as “the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former.” Facione (2010) provided a more comprehensive definition; he defined it as being able to

identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypotheses; to consider relevant information and to deduce the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation. (p. 6)

When inferring, the central question is: “What is the author really saying?” Inferences are made in everyday communication often without much thought. For instance, a husband may tell his wife “do not forget the girls.” From this simple statement the wife may infer several things that are not explicitly stated. She may infer that (a) he is referring to their two daughters, and/or (b) he is reminding her to pick them up from some place. Inference involves reading between the lines. To help her decide what her husband means, she relies primarily on the context, that is, what she already knows and what is most logical: he is her husband, and they have two teenage daughters who are out with friends. One could infer that by girls he is referring to random women; however, in this particular context, that inference though logical is unreasonable. Thus, for inferences to be accurate they must be sensitive to the context.

Making inferences, particularly when one does not have the benefit of a close personal relationship with the author or intimate knowledge of the author’s views, can be tricky and it requires a great deal of care. Like the husband in the example above, writers are trying to communicate a point and the reader combines the words, assesses how they are related to each other, and tries to understand the ideas or meaning behind the words. Readers will generally rely on indicators or clues within the text and prior knowledge and assumptions to make inferences. This process is thus both intuitive and deliberate, and care must be taken when using prior knowledge. Making inferences based primarily on the text will yield the most useful benefits for a reader of academic literature.

Readers must also note that there is a difference between a reasonable inference and a correct one. One may make reasonable inferences based on a text and prior knowledge; however, these may not be correct. One way of ensuring that one’s inferences are correct is to review the evidence and try to determine whether specific reasons can be given to justify the conclusions that have been drawn. Inferences are, after all, speculations that are based on evidence. They are not quite the product of deductive reasoning, so it is not unusual for two people to read the same material and make different inferences. The following example demonstrates this point: two people may see a man in tattered clothing lying in a gutter and from this one may infer that the man is homeless and the other that the man needs help; the first assumes only homeless people lie in gutters while the second assumes that a person lying in a gutter needs help (Paul, 1995). Note that Paul’s (1995) example also illustrates the intimate relationship between inferences and assumptions. The key to making valid inferences is thus a careful evaluation of the evidence. Kurland’s (2000) principle “the more evidence we have before us, and the more carefully we reason, the more valid our inferences” is apt. As you read and think through written material, it is important to also pay attention to the assumptions that underlie the inferences you make.

Assumptions

An assumption is a statement or fact that is taken for granted. It has also been defined as an element that “bridges the gap between an argument’s stated evidence and conclusion … a piece of support that isn’t explicitly stated but that is required for the conclusion to be valid” (Kaplan, 2008, p. 30). Although inferences and assumptions are not identical, they are related in that inferences often find a basis in what is assumed. Understanding assumptions is thus a crucial component of the critical reading process because it enables the reader to:

• Identify what is holding an argument together.
• Identify strengths and weaknesses of an argument.
• Find possible points of critique.

Finding hidden assumptions can be tricky, especially when one is reading dense academic literature. However, identifying them is important because most logical flaws are rooted problematic assumptions. Here are a few strategies one can employ to identify assumptions:

• Evaluate the argument and determine whether it is valid. If it is not, what additional premises should be provided to make it so?
• Look for the gap in the argument. Is there a piece of information missing that may explain how the author concluded X from Y?
• Find a significant counterexample to the point made. This will enable one to identify what the author ignored.
• Assess the terms and categories. What meanings are ascribed to key terms? Are the meanings reasonable and justified? Do they reveal any biases?

Interpretation

Ultimately, the goal of the reading process is to understand the overall meaning of the text. A writer may paint a picture for the reader, but it is ultimately the reader who ascribes meaning to what is read. The meaning ascribed to the text will be influenced by the reader’s biases, knowledge of other literature, inferences, and so forth. Interpretation has to do with making sense of or assigning meaning to something. Facione (2010) defined it as the ability “to comprehend and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures, or criteria” (p. 5). It involves the ability to determine what is significant, recognize and describe a problem without bias, making distinctions between main ideas and subideas, and so forth (Facione, 2010). This skill is particularly important for graduate school students because of the sheer volume of reading that is expected of them and because much of academic writing involves synthesizing the ideas of multiple authors. To be able to perform these tasks effectively, one must be able to interpret texts. A key skill involved in interpretation is the ability to summarize. When one can summarize each paragraph or each key point, one is on the way to effectively interpreting the overall meaning of the text. However, this is only the beginning as one must also be able to draw out the implications of the author’s arguments.

Implications

An implication is a conclusion drawn from some facts. In making connections between the text and the world, it is important to think about the possible consequences that might result if the author’s views are accurate. This, however, must be done carefully in order to avoid falling into the slippery-slope problem, in which one assumes without warrant that a given action will result in a series of increasingly undesirable consequences. For instance, an instructor may argue that he/she cannot make an exception for a particular student because he/she will have to make an exception for all students. This, however, need not be the case as the conclusion/consequence does not logically follow from the premise/action.

Implications provide useful material for critiquing or undermining arguments, so recognizing and drawing them out is an important component of the critical reading process. Drawing implications must begin with an understanding of the facts that are explicitly stated and the conclusions drawn by the author.

Facione, P. (2010). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts . http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf

Kaplan. (2007). LSAT comprehensive program (2008 ed.).

Kispal, A. (2008). Effective teaching of inference skills for reading (Report No. DCSF-RR031). National Foundation for Educational Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501868.pdf

Kurland, D. (2010). The fundamentals of critical reading and effective writing . http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htm

Paul, R. (1995). Why students and teachers do not reason well. In J. Wilson & A. J. A. Binker (Eds.), Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (3rd ed., pp. 151-178). Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Didn't find what you need? Search our website or email us .

Read our website accessibility and accommodation statement .

• Previous Page: Academic Arguments
• Next Page: Developing Arguments
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

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

3 Chapter 3: Building a Basic Argument

Arguments are formed of many different components, frequently involving the use of evidence to support claims. However, there are typically only five pieces to an academic argument, and almost any sentence in a college-level paper should serve on of the following roles.

PRIMARY CLAIM

The purpose of an argument—the central idea on which the rhetor is attempting to change the mind of the receivers—is the primary claim of the argument. Often, a primary claim is called a thesis statement, although not every thesis-based approach is created equal. Additionally, while thesis statements frequently come in the beginning of the paper, some academic writing places its primary claim later in the work.

Overview:  The primary claim in an argument tells us the nature and scope of that argument. Most importantly, it determines its receivership. For example, an argument that “the death penalty should be abolished” is not written for those that already dislike the death penalty. Instead, this argument needs to reach out to those that support the death penalty. In other words, coming up with a primary claim tells a writer who he or she is arguing with. A paper that asserts “North America is not the same continent as Australia” has no place in academic writing, because very few people would disagree. An argument is only appropriate to an academic paper if there are people who might disagree and who might do so for understandable reasons.

Application:  In academic writing, ideally, the primary claim emerges only  after  research has been done and the student knows what evidence is available. This is because the argument should be the conclusion of the critical thinking process. A student should begin with a topic, and then the student should decide two things: what arguments exist regarding the topic and which position is best supported by the available evidence. Constructing arguments from the evidence is usually a lot more educational than constructing an argument from personal opinion.

One of the advantages from a research-first approach is that it means students will become informed about their subjects and about those with a variety of beliefs before they begin writing. In other words, they get a head start on understanding their audiences.

What to Avoid:  While many students will have been taught to come up with a thesis statement first, with the next stage to be looking for sources to support that thesis statement, all this really does is reinforce whatever biases or prejudices the student had in the first place. For example, if Student A were to begin a paper thinking that “speed limits should be raised” and were then to go out and just find a handful of sources that agree, then the student has not learned anything. All that has happened is the student has shown that a few other people agree. With more than 7 billion people on the planet, finding a few friends might be nice, but it’s not really educational.

SUPPORTING CLAIM

A supporting claim is any argument that, if accepted, will make it easier to prove the primary claim. Sometimes, this involves making a distinct argument that only helps to prepare an audience. More often, it involves establishing a piece of fact (also see evidence) or advocating for a judgment of value.

Overview:  Most of the time, the real conflict is not over whether or not a single claim is valid. Instead, the conflict is over related issues. For example, whether or not handguns are effective in self-defense is often debated. What an audience believes about this claim will play a key role in determining whether or not the audience supports laws that allow people to carry concealed handguns. Frequently, under-developed and ‘short’ essays suffer because they simply list supporting claims as if they are universally accepted truths. Instead, a meaningful argument has to establish its supporting claims, as well, in order to establish validity and sway readers.

Application:  In academic writing, supporting claims do most of the real work. Once a supporting claim has been proven, it becomes easier to convince a receiver to accept the primary claim. For example, if Student A is writing a paper on why his or her school needs to build a new parking deck, then a reasonable supporting claim might be “there is not enough parking on campus.”

Student writers need to remember that a supporting claim is, itself, an argument. Evidence needs to be presented in support of the argument and rival viewpoints need to be considered. It is equally important to remember the importance of supporting claims when looking at other writing. If an article or a website makes a series of claims and all of those claims are based on a faulty premise, then the validity of the whole chain of arguments is called into question.

What to Avoid:  As noted above, supporting claims require evidence and logic just as much as any other part of a paper. Therefore, when a student simply lists reasons why he or she supports the primary claim, s/he is not making an argument. Avoid this type of ‘listing’ in favor of treating each supporting claim as a chance to explain the reasons why the claim is a valid position.

At the same time, try not to assume that a ‘supporting claim’ is the same thing as a topic sentence for a paragraph. A truly contentious supporting claim might require multiple paragraphs of discussion.  Likewise, a truly complex paragraph might include more than one supporting claim.

BACKGROUND STATEMENTS

Not  everything  is an argument for everyone. Often, there are basic facts or even value positions that the writer and the readers both agree on. Finding this common ground is an essential component of nearly any argument, and establishing the common ground as such is an important part of any piece of academic writing.

Overview: Often, background statements are observations of the  status quo  or simple moral statements that most people will take as a given. For example, observing that ‘the legal drinking age in the United States is 21’ or that ‘Springfield is the capital of Illinois’ are both  background statements.  Claiming that the drinking age should be lowered is going to be a matter of debate with many audiences. However, simply observing what it is at the moment is likely to be easier to find agreement on. Even something like ‘murder is wrong,’ which is actually a moral stance that has all sorts of exceptions and quibbles built in for most people, is likely to garner general agreement from many readers.

Application: In academic writing and college-level arguments, a background statement helps to establish what is and what is not being argued. A student writer might begin with a statement such as “the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776.” In doing so, the writer is letting readers know that this fact is being taken for granted. Likewise, a student in another class might assert that “the religions of the world disagree on many issues.” This claim could, truthfully, be debated. However, most readers will likely agree with such a claim without asking for a lot of evidence.

In more advanced writing, though, more specific claims might be taken for granted. Part of the purpose behind having students write academic papers is that it helps them to understand what academic audiences do and do not accept in the form of assumption. Readers of biology papers, for example, seldom expect the paper to  prove  the legitimacy of germ theory; such papers thus focus on their main subject matter. As is usually the class, the reader’s expectation is what matters.

What to Avoid:  Most importantly, don’t assume that just because something seems to be obviously true that it is, in fact, something that most readers will agree with. Instead, student writers should explore the topic they are writing about and learn what is and what is not commonly agreed upon.

Many students fail to grasp one of the most important aspects of academic writing—the essays and papers in a college-level course often exist to force a student to evaluate or reevaluate some piece of knowledge or some bit of opinion that has been assumed to be true (see Writing to Learn). In other words, the student isn’t the person who gets to decide what basic facts are taken for granted; the community that the student is addressing makes that decision and the student is supposed to adapt.

ELABORATIONS

If you’ve ever found yourself having a conversation and then providing an example or a more detailed explanation of whatever you  just said , then you have engaged in elaboration. Most writers do not say something just once—instead, they repeat themselves multiple times, changing the words and the sentence structure in order to help people to understand their points.

Overview:  When reading a text book or an instruction manual, most readers pause and think ‘ huh?’  at least once or twice. The problem is not that the textbook is flawed (it might be, but not because it makes a student think!) Instead, the problem is that there is almost always some degree of interference. Complex subjects are difficult to understand on the first pass. Even well-written sentences sometimes need additional details added to them so that readers know exactly how to take them. As a result, good writers try to do two things that are a little contradictory: they try to avoid cluttering their writing with needless words and they try to add explanations (more words) to their writing in order to make it easier to understand.

Application:  Chances are that student writers will face a consistent challenge—page requirements. It is possible, certainly, to convey a minimum amount of information in a minimum number of words. Answering a question about  when  the Civil War happened is relatively straightforward. Answering the question about  why  it happened takes more effort.

Remember that the goal of many writing assignments is not the paper itself. It is the thought that goes into the paper. Therefore, just like a math teacher is going to ask students to show their work, so that the teacher knows both whether or not the students guessed and where any mistakes occurred, a teacher scoring a paper wants to know what led student writers to make the claims that they make. Student writers need to show their work by  elaborating  upon their thought process.

Additionally, however, many readers need to be convinced. Sometimes, this is going to involve a writer going into detail in order to explain the causes behind the Civil War. Other times, it might require that the student writer make sure to provide examples of times and places that  other wars  happened for comparison. Both cases of elaboration, however, involve the student thinking about the topic of the paper and then putting it into greater context. In this way, the need for elaboration explains those page requirements.

What to Avoid:  Don’t make the mistake of assuming that directly repeating a sentence and just using a thesaurus to change a few words is elaboration. Each new sentence needs to do something new. A follow-up can expand or narrow the scope of the previous one, or it can provide an example, or it can provide background on a subject. In any case, don’t assume that  more words  is elaboration if you don’t know what you are elaborating on.

CONCESSIONS

Just as many people claim that the best way to win a fight is not to have one, sometimes the most effective means of making an argument is by limiting its scope. A concession gives ground to those who disagree with the writer in some fashion, thereby reducing the ability of readers to disagree with the writer.

Overview:  Concessions serve both ‘logical’ and ‘rhetorical’ functions. On one hand, conceding ground limits what the writer has to prove. For example, the claim “Americans are healthier than ever before” might be tough to prove. However, the claim “Many Americans are healthier than they were 10 years ago” is a little easier. The writer only needs to research a decade instead of a couple of centuries, and the word ‘many’ keeps the writer from having to prove that  all  Americans are healthier.

Additionally, agreeing with a reader is a way to help establish a bond or common ground. For example, in an argument about obesity, the writer might concede “recently, many people have begun to make an effort to cut back on junk food.” This allows the reader to nod and agree before the next sentence “However, not enough people are making this change” advances the actual argument. The writer concedes that  some  people are doing better, just not everybody.

Application:  College-level arguments require concessions. Students must constantly limit the scope of their arguments, for a number of reasons. Sometimes, the student just doesn’t have the ability to argue some facts (e.g. a student might concede that fatty acids can counteract some of the harms of obesity, simply because the student does not understand how this might or might not work). At other times, the student might make a concession to avoid a headache (e.g. that same obesity paper might concede that low-fat foods are getting more popular, just because it’s not worth the time it would take to find out actual growth rates in low-fat-food sales). Yet another form of concession comes for the sake of narrowing an argument down to a manageable size (e.g. the paper concedes that exercise is just as important as diet, but then focuses on diet as ‘an important half of the equation’).

Students have to be willing to make concessions in order to present more balanced, more persuasive, and more contained arguments

What to Avoid:  Avoid making unqualified statements and imbalanced arguments. Words like  all ,  every ,  never , and  best  are typically out of place in academic writing. Words like  most ,  seldom , and  superior  will often work better. Additionally, students should avoid making arguments that give readers no choice but to agree with a radical position or to reject it—frequently, the readers will reject it. As an aside, students should probably avoid sources that make unqualified arguments, themselves.

Writing Academic Arguments Copyright © by Joshua P. Sunderbruch. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

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

13 Judging Arguments

J. anthony blair, 1. introduction [1].

This chapter reviews what is involved in identifying, interpreting, displaying, evaluating and responding to arguments. The term ‘judging’ encompasses all these activities, since all of them call for judgment. Most critical thinking textbooks focus on arguments that are reason-claim complexes. These are arguments about what is claimed to be true or reasonable to believe or what to do. Their conclusions are either propositions—sentences with truth values (i.e., are true or false, probable or improbable, plausible or implausible)—or else they are prescriptions—recommendations or imperatives, (which are not true or false, but rather are sensible or ill-advised, wise or foolish, virtuous or vicious, and so on). It might turn out that different kinds of judgment are appropriate for these two kinds of aims of argument.

[Other chapters in this book go into these matters in greater detail. In Chapter 10, pioneers and experts in diagramming arguments, Martin Davies, Ashley Barnett & Tim van Gelder, explain how to use computer programs to teach students how to map the structure of arguments. In Chapter 14, Christopher Tindale offers a theoretically up-to-date introduction to using fallacy analysis in evaluating arguments.]

Here “judging arguments” includes: (1) judging that a particular text of discourse is or contains an argument, (2) judging just what the contents and structure of each such arguments consist of, (3) judging the strengths and weaknesses of each such argument, and (4) judging how best to respond to the argument(s). Correspondingly, judging arguments in this sense will have these four components, in this order: (1) argument identification, (2) argument analysis or mapping, (3) argument evaluation, and (4) responding to an argument.

The order matters, because each successive judgment presupposes the successful completion of its predecessor(s). Also, the judging can break off at any point. Obviously if it’s determined that there is no argument, the exercise ends at (1). But sometimes although it is clear that someone is trying to argue, their communication can be so unclear that it is impossible to decide just what the argument is supposed to be, so the exercise ends at (2). Furthermore, it’s often the case that there is no response to make beyond registering and defending one’s assessment of the argument, so the exercise ends at (3).

Finally, while these four judgments can be distinguished, in practice there is usually interaction among them. For instance the presence of illatives such as ‘since’ and ‘therefore’ can signal (among other things) both (1) the presence and (2) the structure of an argument. Also, often the analyst’s attribution of (2) one structure instead of another can depend on which of the two renders (3) the more plausible or stronger argument. [2] And (4) what response to make to an arguer obviously depends partly on (3) how one assesses the merits of the argument, and perhaps even on (2) how one has analyzed the map of the argument.

2. Identifying arguments

Sometimes a writer will identify his or her contribution to a discourse as an argument:

“My argument for this claim is this:….”

“There are several reasons for adopting this view. First, ….”

“Not everyone agrees with this claim. Here is why I think it is true. ….”

And so on. (Such self identifications will be mistaken if what the speaker or writer has produced is not an argument, but, for example, merely an assertion, or an explanation.)

Critical thinking textbooks almost invariably point out that people use semantic cues to make clear that they intend to be communicating an argument. Words such as ‘therefore,’ ‘since,’ ‘because’ and ‘so’ can mark the illative relation of support or consequence, and thereby be signs of the presence of argument. Unfortunately, they are not foolproof signs, for all of the so-called illatives can be and often are used to perform other speech functions besides signaling the premise-conclusion relation indicative of an argument. So additional cues need to be considered.

Arguments can be anticipated in a variety of contexts . Disagreements typically give rise to arguments, so discourse in a context of disagreement can be expected to be argumentative. Some venues are institutionalized to require arguments. In criminal and civil trials, lawyers are expected to argue, and judges are expected to give arguments for their rulings. Even when doubt has not been expressed, there can be informal customs or institutionalized norms that place the burden of proof on anyone who would assert a claim, as in the case of scientific reports, scholarly articles in the humanities, or the aforementioned judges’ rulings. The so-called “editorial” pages of newspapers, which contain editorials by the paper’s editors, opinion pieces by regular or occasional columnists, and letters to the editor , are places where controversies are addressed (or initiated), and so where any “side” needs to be backed up by the reasons that its advocate thinks support it and that might persuade others to accept it.

Experienced speakers or authors write and speak with the audience they are addressing or hope to reach in mind. If you can anticipate the kinds of doubts or questions the likely intended audience will harbor about the claims asserted, you can identify where the writer or speaker needs to be providing arguments. This can help to identify their presence in parts of the text that otherwise are hard to account for.

Yet another indication of the presence of an argument in a stretch of discourse is that some of the assertions “make sense” as support for one of the others. That is, even if there are no cues, if some of the assertions were to be taken as support for another one and that would be a plausible argument, then the discourse may reasonably be taken as containing a plausible argument, if there are no contrary indications.

3. The structure of arguments: Argument mapping

Since the reason a critical thinker attends to arguments is to judge whether they provide the support for their claims that they’re alleged to, the critical appraiser needs to understand accurately just what that support is supposed to be. That means getting a clear picture of the route that the author’s reasons take in providing that support. Maps or diagrams showing the structure of an argument’s reasoning can be drawn by hand; they can also be displayed on a computer’s monitor. Drawing a diagram, or fashioning one on a computer monitor, that displays the route(s) the reasoning taken is called “argument mapping”. Maps or diagrams showing the structure of an argument’s reasoning can be drawn by hand; they can also be displayed on a computer’s monitor. In either case, sets of conventions have to be adopted (and learned by the reader or viewer). Thus any argument-mapping program will need what old-fashioned geographical maps used to call a “Legend”. [Argument mapping, including computer-assisted argument mapping, is discussed in detail in Chapter 10.]

The analyst faces several choices when dealing with with arguments “on the hoof”—i.e., “in their native habitats” or “as found”. Below are described various aspects of an argument’s structure. It should not be overlooked, however, that these structural properties are determined by functional properties of the discourse. For instance, what counts as a premise or a conclusion is determined by the functions of the sentences in the discourse. Does p serve as support for q ? If so, then p is a premise and q is a conclusion; or does q serve as support for p ? If so, then vice versa .

3 .1 Ordering

There is no convention in English composition for the order in which premises and conclusions appear in a text containing an argument, and in practice any order may be found. Thus it’s to be emphasized that ‘conclusion’, when used to refer to the claim being defended in an argument, has a different meaning than when it is used to refer to the final section of a text.

The analyst will have to identify which assertion states the conclusion, and decide on a convention for organizing the premises spatially on the page.

3 .2 Deletion

In addition to the sentences expressing the premises and conclusion of an argument, typically there are parts of the discourse that are not elements of the argument. They might be performing other functions, such as clarifying, or explaining, or they might be simply irrelevant to the argument. Such material can be set aside, not to appear on the map of the argument.

3 .3 Multiple-arguments

Frequently single arguments are combined in various ways. There can be a single main conclusion, but one or more of the premises directly supporting it are themselves the conclusions of other arguments. Or there can be more than one line of reasoning supporting the same conclusion. Some theorists hold that meta-arguments are supplied because arguments are always occasioned by doubts, disagreements, questions or challenges, either from an actual interlocutor or from one imagined or anticipated by the arguer. If so, the arguer who inserts a meta-argument must have anticipated some challenge. Other theorists, while they grant that this is often or even usually the case, hold that arguers can offer additional arguments to cement their case, whether that’s needed to answer doubts or not. [3] Yet others hold that, at least in some special fields if not generally, there are conventions that require every assertion to be defended unless one of the standard exemptions applies (e.g., it is self-evident, or in some sense primitive, or defended elsewhere) even if there are no actual or anticipated doubts.

Here is a simple example, in this case an argument about what to do, taking 1 to be meant to convey that the addressee should take her raincoat.

1  You’ll be wanting to take your raincoat. 2  It might rain this afternoon. 3  At least, that was the forecast on this morning’s news. 4  You won’t want to get your new dress soaked.

Here, 2 and 4 combine to support 1 , and 3 supports 2 .

3 .4 Addition

Consider simple arguments like these. “You should take your raincoat. It’s going to rain.” Or “He’ll be late for dinner. His train’s been delayed.” In each case, how does the reason offered provide grounds for the conclusion? In each case there’s an understood connection. If you’ll want to have your raincoat if it rains, then if it’s going to rain, you should take your raincoat. In the other case, if his not arriving at the regularly scheduled time will cause him to be late for dinner and if the train’s being delayed means he’ll arrive later than scheduled, then he will be late for dinner. By adding an obviously true piece of unexpressed information, the analyst can make the reasoning of the argument more perspicuous.

How does one know what to add? One approach is to add the associated conditional (AC) of the argument as a new premise. The associated conditional is the conditional statement former by taking the conjunction of the stated premises as its antecedent and the conclusion as its consequent. For the above examples, this advice would yield these reconstructions:

A. 1. It’s going to rain. 2. If it’s going to rain, you should take your raincoat. (AC) 3. You should take your raincoat.

B. 4. His train has been delayed. 5. If his train has been delayed, he will be late for dinner. (AC) 6. He’ll be late for dinner.

Adding the associated conditional renders the argument deductively valid (by modus ponens ), but it does so often at the cost of adding a questionable new premise. In arguments about what to do, like A, it overlooks the possibility of contrary considerations. If you are going to be indoors the whole time and/or if your raincoat would be an unwanted encumbrance, 2. is ill-suited advice. In arguments about what to believe like B, it overlooks possible conditions of rebuttal. If dinner will be delayed too, for some other reason, 5. might be false; or if the delay is too long he will miss dinner altogether, and 5. would be false. If any of such arguments’ premises is false, the conclusion is not supported. This result has led some theorists to call for a modification of the associated conditional, and sometimes of the conclusions too, to make the argument plausible, consistent with the known commitments of the arguer. Thus the first argument might be restated as:

C. 7. It’s going to rain. 8. You’ll want your raincoat if it rains. 9. You should take your raincoat.

And the second might be restated as:

D. 10. His train has been delayed. 11. The train delay will probably delay his arrival until after dinner begins. 12. He’ll probably be late for dinner.

As Hitchcock (2017, p. 60) has noted, the traditional treatment of such arguments has variants:

Ennis (1982), for example, distinguished two types of what he calls ‘gap fillers’: used assumptions and needed assumptions. Govier (1987, 1992) favours a policy of ‘no supplementation without justification’ (1992. p. 50), which leads her to focus on the first of these types, what the arguer implicitly accepts or can reasonably be assumed to accept; she does however allow that one may supply a ‘missing premise’ which is implied by ‘the direction of the reasoning’, a notion for which she gives no theoretical analysis. Van Eemeren and Grootendost (1984, 1992) regard the unexpressed premiss as implicit in the argument, thus focusing on the second of Ennis’s two types. Anderson and Belnap (1961, p. 719) treat the task of evaluating the inference of an enthymeme neither as one of discovering some unstated claim which the arguer accepts nor as one of discovering some further premiss which is implicit in the argument, but rather as one of discovering an additional true sentence from which in combination with the stated premise the conclusion follows logically.

Hitchcock himself objects to the notion that it is necessary to supply unexpressed premises. He argues that every argument assumes a general conditional that its proponent thinks warrants the inference from the stated premises to the conclusion. Some such conditional inference license is presupposed by every argument. It is not another premise, just unexpressed, for if it were, the argument would require yet another inference license warranting the new set of premises as adequate support for the conclusion. But then the new inference license would have to be treated as another unexpressed premise to be added to the premise set, giving rise to the need for yet another inference license, and so on ad infinitum.

3 .5 Restatement

Most theorists of argument analysis allow for restating the arguments in a text in order to make the reasoning of the arguments more perspicuous. For instance arguers will use pronouns to refer to people and things in their arguments, and when arranging the premises in an order that exposes their steps towards the conclusion there can be a number of ‘he’s and ‘she’s and ‘it’s that are confusing. It doesn’t change the sense of the argument if these are replaced by their referents. Arguers employ synonyms for stylistic variation, but it can be clearer if the same term is used for a given referent throughout the reconstructed argument.

However, there are limits to restatement. Often the associations of given words lend force to the argument, and if a particular term used by the arguer is substituted by the analyst when reconstructing the argument, the argument can lose some of its persuasive power. Also, if question-begging value laden terms are replaced during reconstruction, possible illicit devices will be cleansed and the argument can be made to appear less specious than it is.

On balance, probably a good rule of thumb is as far as possible to leave the language of the original argument untouched, and make changes only if the argument is otherwise unintelligible.

4 Evaluating arguments

This topic turns out to be more complicated than many textbooks seem to assume. Many suggest that to evaluate an argument one needs to determine whether its premises are true, and if so, whether they support its conclusion. An argument is thus to be accepted or rejected, on these grounds. But think of D.J. O’Keefe’s distinction between an argument that someone makes (argument 1 ), and an argument that two (or more) people have (argument 2 ). An argument that people are having can possess a number or virtues, or their corresponding vices. It can be judged to be friendly or unfriendly, sympathetic or hostile, constructive or destructive, pig-headed or accommodating, personal or detached, and so on. These and similar qualities do not apply to an argument that someone makes . Arguments of the latter sort are more or less convincing, provide strong or weak support, and so on.

Arguments about what to do introduce further complications. For while the audience might agree with the values and goals and the means-ends relations appealed to in the argument in support of the prescription, and thus grant that they constitute good reasons for it, its members might at the same time espouse other values and goals that weigh against the prescription and that in their judgment carry more weight. Thus, while granting the merits of the argument as far as it goes, they do not agree that it provides adequate support for its conclusion. To be decisive, such arguments need to include a premise to the effect that the audience will find no overriding contra-considerations, and such a premise will be difficult to defend.

Scholars grounded in different fields tend to work with different conceptions of argument, and as a result, to evaluate arguments differently. Communication theorists tend to focus on argu ing —the characteristics of the communicative exchange in various kinds of arguments that that people have with one another. Theorists from linguistics backgrounds tend to focus on the pragmatics of argu ing —the different uses to which arguments are put, the way language works in arguings, and the practical functions of arguing. Philosophers tend to be interested in the logic of the argu ments used in arguing and the conditions under which such arguments contribute to justified belief and knowledge acquisition. Rhetoricians tend to focus on arguments about what to do (Kock 2017).

4 .1 Soundness

There have been various approaches to determining what makes for a good argument—“good” in the sense that its audience should either be convinced by it or in the sense that it should influence the audience to be inclined towards accepting its conclusion.

As ‘sound’ is often used in logic, a “sound” argument has true premises and they either logically entail the conclusion or they provide strong inductive grounds for accepting the conclusion. Some would both strengthen and weaken the truth condition here, so that a “sound” argument’s premises are either known (by arguer and target audience) to be true, or else are reasonably believed (by them) to be true.

Some regard these two criteria—combinations of premise truth or reasonable believability with inferential deductive validity or with inductive strength—as exhaustive. “A good argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong”, it is said. That view is true by definition of you define ‘inductively strong’ to cover any argument that has a good inference that is not deductively valid. “Inductive strength” thereby becomes a catch-all, to denote a property of any good argument that is not deductively valid. Others recommend distinguishing a wider variety of ways non-deductively valid arguments can be good arguments nonetheless.

Many theorists today classify logically good arguments as either deductively valid or defeasible . An argument that is rationally compelling but not deductively valid is said to be defeasible. Thus a strong inductive argument is defeasible, but so are some arguments that aren’t typical inductive arguments. An appeal to authority would be an example. Moral arguments that appeal to rules that can have exceptions are defeasible. The premises of a strong but defeasible argument provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion, even though a situation is conceivable in which some additional statement that is consistent with the premises but inconsistent with the conclusion is also true.

Two approaches to determining whether an argument is good side-step the dispute over whether “deductively valid and inductively strong” exhaust the class of rationally compelling arguments. One approach is to check to see whether the argument scheme employed is appropriate and correctly used; the other approach is to employ the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency.

4 .2 Argument scheme assessment

Here is how Walton, Reed and Macagno (2008, pp. 1-2), leading theorists of this approach, introduce the idea of argument schemes:

Argumentation schemes are forms of argument (structures of reasoning) that represent common types of arguments used in everyday discourse, as well as in special contexts like those of legal argumentation and scientific argumentation. They include the deductive and inductive forms of argument that we are already so familiar with in logic. However, they also represent forms of argument that are neither deductive nor inductive, but that fall into a third category sometimes called defeasible, presumptive, or abductive. Such an argument can rightly carry weight, or be a plausible basis for acceptance.

Walton et al. include a compendium of 60 schemes representing “the most commonly used forms of argument” (2008, p. 308; see pp. 308-346). [4] To each scheme is attached a set of “critical questions” ( ibid ., p. 3). These are questions that test an argument instantiating such a scheme in any circumstance and which, if answered satisfactorily in any particular case, authorize the argument as holding, at least tentatively.

Walton, who is recognized world-wide as an authority on argument scheme theory, introduces it thoroughly in Chapter 11, above. The reader who wants to know about it can turn there for a detailed account.

Using argument schemes to assess arguments does not require having on hand a list of schemes with their accompanying critical questions and looking these up, like checking in a book of recipes. Instead, the assessor can formulate the pattern of reasoning that the argument in question exhibits and then sketch the conditions that would have to be satisfied for any argument of this pattern to be plausible, thereby creating the pertinent critical questions. If the use of the argument in question on this occasion satisfies those conditions, it can be judged to be plausible; otherwise, not.

4 .3 Checking Acceptability, Relevance and Sufficiency

Another general method of assessment is to use the criteria triad of Acceptability, Relevance and Sufficiency—ARS. The contention is that an argument is good if, but only if, its grounds are acceptable, relevant and sufficient. Govier (e.g., 1992) uses “adequacy of grounds” in place of “sufficiency”. What constitutes each of these elements needs to be specified. [5]

Here is a sketch of an analysis of the acceptability of premises as a criterion of argument cogency. Being acceptable is a property of a sentence, p, in relation to a person, S . In this method of argument assessment, however, acceptability is the special case of a criterion for the adequacy of unsupported premises in an argument, A . A premise of an argument, A, is unsupported if no reasons are offered as part of A in its support. Such premise acceptability is relative to any person, S, who is a member of, or joins, the audience to which A is addressed. A premise is acceptable to S if S is entitled to accept it.

S is entitled to accept p when p is an unsupported premise of an argument, A , addressed to S or to an audience of which S is a member, or that S entertains, and:

• S knows that p , or S believes that p and is entitled to believe that p , or;
• p is known to be true or reasonable to believe in S ’s cognitive environment, or;
• p follows from assertions S is entitled to accept.

The idea is that an arguer does not have to defend premises that the interlocutor and members of the audience know to be true, or that they believe on good grounds, or that are matters of common knowledge that the arguer can reasonably take them to know or reasonably believe, or that are implied by any of these.

For S to accept a premise, p , of A is for S to act in assessing A as if p is true. S can be entitled to accept a premise but not accept it. That is, a person might fail or refuse to accept a premise he or she ought to accept. And S can accept a premise that S is not entitled to accept.

Relevance and sufficiency are criteria for the adequacy of the link between the acceptability of the premises and the acceptability of the conclusion. The reasons offered must be probatively relevant to the acceptability of the conclusion for S. They have a bearing on the acceptability of the conclusion for the interlocutor or audience. Their truth would, in the absence of any other grounds, make it more likely or more plausible that the conclusion is true than would be the case if they were not true. (A reason , as the term is used here, is not identical to a premise , although a single premise can be a reason. Usually reasons consist of sets of two or more premises that are only jointly relevant.) Note that this “bearing” concept does not allow for degrees of relevance. Offered grounds either have a bearing, or they don’t. There is another concept of relevance according to which evidence can be more or less relevant. According to this latter, “weight”, concept, relevance signifies strength of support, and using the distinctions I am making here, this latter kind of relevance bears on the sufficiency of the grounds.

It has been argued that relevance is redundant, since sufficiency already presupposes it. You can’t have enough evidence unless what you count as evidence is already relevant. That is true. However, people’s arguments sometimes include irrelevant reasons. Those have to be identified and set aside before judging the sufficiency of the relevant ones that remain.

Sufficiency is the requirement that the relevant reasons offered supply enough of the right kinds of evidence to entitle the interlocutor or members of the audience to accept the conclusion as it is qualified. In many cases one example constitutes anecdotal evidence, and bears hardly any weight in supporting a conclusion that generalizes to all or even most members of a class. In others, one example can suffice as proof, e.g., that something is possible. In many cases, the findings from a well-drawn stratified random sample of 2000 people can justify a probabilistic generalization applying to 350 million people (see Chapter 18, on generalizing). So both the quantity and the quality of the evidence are important for assessing its sufficiency as support for a conclusion. Whether the reasons in support of a claim count as sufficient also depends on whether alleged reasons for not accepting the claim, or alleged reasons for rejecting any of those arguments, have been successfully refuted. What counts as “enough” will vary with the precision and the generality of the standpoint. If no direct evidence for the standpoint at issue is given, it can be independently supported by arguments for rejecting alternatives to it.

These sketches of the modified ARS criteria need to be filled in, but the assumption is that they too are general in the respect that deductively valid and inductively strong reasoning and arguments, as well as those with other kinds of good consequence relations, all will pass their test.

The argument scheme approach and the ARS approach both assess the argument as a whole. A couple of other well-known approaches assess just the adequacy of the inference from the premises to the conclusion, and come into play independently of whether the premises are known to be true, or are reasonable to accept.

4.4 Testing by possible counter-examples

Testing by possible counter-examples is a way of assessing the strength of the link between reasons and conclusion. The reasons have to be appraised separately. The method is this: Step 1: think of considerations that are consistent with the given reasons but inconsistent with the claim being argued for (i.e., think of counter-examples). Step 2: Decide how likely or plausible are the possible counter-examples. Step 3: Draw the appropriate conclusion about the strength of the inference in the argument. Depending on whether any such counter-examples are conceivable, and if so, either probable or plausible to some extent, the reasoning can be determined to be deductively valid, or invalid but with some degree of inductive strength, or invalid but more or less reasonable.

Table 1: Testing by counter-example

Table 1 does not depict it, but likelihood (and unlikelihood), and plausibility (and implausibility) here name continuums, ranging from probability or plausibility that run so high as to be treated as certainties, at one extreme, down to, at the other extreme, improbability or implausibility that run so high as to be unquestionably false, utterly improbable, or wildly implausible. (See Pinto, Blair & Parr 1993, Ch. 6.)

4.5 Assessing the warrants of inferences in arguments

Under the influence of Stephen Toulmin’s (1956) suggestion that arguments are more like legal briefs than mathematical proofs, some theorists hold that in arguments the inferential step is authorized by a presumed warrant. This warrant is not another premise; it is an assumption that is supposed to entitle one to draw the conclusion in question from the premises claimed to support it. Here is a statement of this view by David Hitchcock, its originator and most prominent advocate:

A conclusion follows from given premisses if and only if an acceptable counterfactual-supporting generalization rules out, either definitively or with some modal qualification, simultaneous acceptability of the premisses and non-acceptability of the conclusion, even though it does not rule out acceptability of the premisses and does not require acceptability of the conclusion independently of the premisses. … An inference claim is thus the claim that a counterfactually-supporting covering generalization is non-trivially acceptable. (Hitchcock 2017, p.180 quoting Hitchcock 2011, p. 209)

Applying this warrant-defining statement to an example, we get:

1 st premise : My coach says I have great promise to make the national team but I need more coaching and training, which a particular summer soccer school would provide.

2 nd premise : My coach is in a position to know such things [e.g., she has the experience and the expertise to be a reliable judge of soccer ability, national team standards, and so on]

Conclusion : I have a chance to make the national team if I get the coaching and training this summer soccer school would provide.

Warrant : If someone in a position to know such things were to say of a young soccer player that she has great promise to make the national team if but only if she obtains more coaching and training, then if that young soccer player were to get more coaching and training, she probably would have a reasonable chance to make the national team.

Given the premises, the conclusion follows if, but only if, the warrant is “non-trivially acceptable”. If the warrant is acceptable and the premises are true or otherwise acceptable, it is a good argument: one is entitled to accept the conclusion.

4.6 Evaluating practical arguments —( about what to do )

The conclusion of a practical argument is not that some proposition is true or probable or otherwise acceptable, but that some action or policy should be chosen, or that some decision should be made. Its conclusion will be supported by appeals to ideals, or goals or other values and by claims about how the recommended action will bring about or reflect these goals or ideals. Any disagreement might be about what values are relevant, or, when there is agreement about what values are applicable, the disagreement might be about how to weigh them. For instance many Americans might agree that peace, order and good government are important values, but many might weigh life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more heavily if the latter values came into conflict with the former. To be sure, one can argue for the greater importance of, say, liberty over order in a given case, or vice versa, but this argument too will turn on values or goals. At certain point, disputants might have to agree to disagree.

In light of this kind of disagreement, two kinds of critical questions can be raised in assessing practical arguments. One is whether all the values or ideals bearing on the disagreement have been mentioned. It might turn out that some overlooked value will change the argument. Another question is whether the means-ends arguments being used are correct. Is the action being argued for really required to reach that objective? In the end, however, the critic’s objections will often come down to a difference in values deemed relevant, or to a difference in the weighting of the values agreed to be relevant. When there has been a thorough and open-minded discussion of the issues, the verdict might have to be that the disputants simply weighted the values differently.

Notice that when as decision in the end comes down to subjective preferences and these clash, “sufficiency” can apply only as a criterion of whether the best case for each side has been made. By hypothesis, once the best case for each side has been argued and these have been understood and appreciated by each side, the final decision is not the outcome of further argument.

4.7 Checking for fallacies

Many textbooks include lists of fallacies judged to trip up arguers or to be used by unscrupulous arguers to disguise poor arguments or shore up a weak case. Presumably textbook publishers include this material to meet a demand.

The current scholarly literature on fallacies, however, is not always reflected in these textbook treatments. For instance, it used to be held that a fallacy was a misleading pattern of argument, one designed to look valid and sound sound but that in fact was neither. Fallacies were thus viewed as counterfeit arguments as Fearnside and Holther’s (1959) titled asserted: Fallacy, The Counterfeit of Argument . Today, the dominant view in the philosophical literature, following Walton (1995), is that fallacies are mis-deployments of otherwise innocent and useful argument schemes. In the speech communication literature, many follow van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984) and van Eemeren (2010), who argue that fallacies are best conceived as violations of the rules for reasonable discussions designed to resolve a difference of opinion, occurring when a desire to win the argument overrides the commitment to reasonableness that engaging in argumentation presupposes. It’s not clear that a fallacy-free argument is thereby a good argument, but a fallacious argument is flawed. Hence, checking for fallacies might be treated as a preliminary assessment—rooting out the worst arguments.

In light of the continuing interest in fallacies as a tool for argument appraisal, and with a view to offering an up-to-date picture of fallacy theory to instructors, this book includes a separate chapter, Chapter 14, devoted to the topic, “Introduction to the study of fallaciousness”, by Christopher Tindale, taken from his book Fallacies and Argument Appraisal (2007).

5. Responding to arguments

What is the appropriate way to respond to an argument that one has assessed and made a considered judgment of its strength? It is useful at this point to keep in mind that our evaluations are judgment calls. Not that they are subjective intuitions (although we do form quick initial opinions). There are criteria for logically good, rhetorically good, and dialectically good arguments. But there can be and often are reasonable disagreements over whether a criterion has been met and over whether the standards being invoked for each criterion are appropriate in kind and rigor. Argument assessments may have to be defended by further arguments and are always subject to reappraisal. Hence it is wise to express one’s verdict about an argument with a healthy dose of humility. The arguer, or other critical reviewers of the argument, might well have good rejoinders to your critique—points that had not occurred to you and that on reflection have both merit and implications requiring you to modify your initial judgment.

It’s often a good idea to distinguish between one’s judgment as to how good the argument is and one’s judgment as to how best to respond to the arguer, if you are conversation partners. Suppose you find the evidence offered to be woefully weak. It might be more productive not to say that, but instead to suggest that the argument would be a lot stronger if evidence such as X, or Y, could be added. The point is that how you communicate your judgment of the argument should depend on what you hope to achieve by what you say. Do you want to help the arguer produce a stronger argument? If so, obviously avoid insulting criticism of the argument as it stands. Do you want to convince the arguer that the argument is fatally flawed (e.g., if it is circular or question-begging)? In that case, there’s no avoiding pointing out how it is, though it might be possible to do so without using offensive labels. For instance, instead of labeling (e.g. “You’ve set up a Straw Man!”), being conciliatory (e.g., “That would be a good objection if that were my view, but my view is different, namely ….”). In short, think of the effect of your critique on the author and think of your objective in communicating with the author, and make your comments serve your objective.

This chapter has introduced four aspects of judging arguments in texts of discourse: determining whether there is any argument in the di s course, analyzing the structure of the argument, different ways of evaluating the logic of the argument, and various ways of responding to it. Soundness, appropriate use of an argument scheme and the ARS approach were reviewed as methods of overall argument appraisal. Testing for counter-examples and assessing the argument’s warrant were discussed as ways of assessing the merits of the reasons-conclusion link in an argument. Fallacy identification was listed sep a rately because some fallacies involve problems with the reasons and others problems with the r easoning. The possibility was raised that arguments about actions or policies (what to do) are to be assessed differently from arguments about propositons (what to believe).

Anderson, Alan Ross & Belnap, Nuel D. Jr. (1961). Enthymemes. Journal of Philosophy 58 (23): 713-723.

van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob. (1984). Speech Acts in Arg u mentative Discussions . Dosrdrecht: Foris.

van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob. (1992). Argumentation, Co m munication and Fallacies . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, The Pragma-Dialectical Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, Frans H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse . Amsterda: John Benjamins.

Ennis, Robert H. (1996). Critical Thinking . Upper Saddle Rivere, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fearnside, W. Ward & Holther, William B. (1959). Fallacy, The Counterfeit of Argument . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hitchcock, David. (1987). Enthymematic arguments. In Argumentation, Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Arg u mentation 1986 , Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J.

Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (Eds.,), pp. 289-298. Dordrecht: Foris.

Hitchcock, David. (2011). Instrumental rationality. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. 7 th International Workshop, argMAS 2010 Revised Selec t ed and Invited Papers , Peter McBurney, Iyad Rahwan & Simon Paarsons (Eds.), pp. 1-11. Heidelberg: Springer.

Hitchcock, David. (2017). On Reasoning and Argument, Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Govier, Trudy. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation . Dordrecht: Foris.

Govier, Trudy. (1992). A Practical Study of Argument , 3 rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Johnson, Ralph H. & Blair, J. Anthony. (2006). Logical Self-Defense . New York: IDEA Press.

Kock, Christian. (2017). Deliberative Rhetoric, Arguing About Doing . Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.

O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the Amer i can Forensic Association 13 (3): 121-128.

O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R.Cox & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and R e search . Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois University Press.

Pinto, Robert C., Blair, J. Anthony & Parr, Katharine E. (1996). Reasoning, A Practical Guide for Canadian Students. Scarborouogh,ON: Prentice-Hall Cana

Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Diedre. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tindale, Christopher W. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tindale, Christopher W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, Stephen, N. (1956). The Uses of Argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walton, Douglas. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris & Macagno, Fabrizio. (2008). Argumentation Schemes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• © J. Anthony Blair ↵
• Taking an author to intend the interpretation that yields the best argument from among the possible interpretations of a text that is unclear or ambiguous is an employment of the Principle of Charity as it applies to argumentation. One justification for invoking such charity is that the stronger argument puts the position in a better light, and both because she wants to put forward the best case for her position; the critic the arguer and the critic want to deal with the stronger argument: the arguer,, because he doesn’t want to waste time critiquing the weaker argument only to have the arguer withdraw it and replace it with the stronger one. ↵
• For instance: “You can’t have seen Aunt Muriel in the Hudson Bay store in Windsor last week: there is no Hudson Bay store in Windsor any more, and anyway, Aunt Muriel died a year ago.” Here the arguer gives two reasons for accepting the conclusion, each one of which is by itself decisive. So why offer both if one alone is sufficient to establish the conclusion? There can no longer be reasonable doubt that the conclusion is true after just one of the reasons was mentioned. ↵
• Argument scheme theory is still under development. For instance, the Pragma-dialectical school holds that all schemes are variations of three basic types: symptomatic argumentation, similarity argumentation and instrumental argumentation (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992), whereas Walton et al. (ibid.) acknowledge no such classification. ↵
• Johnson & Blair 2006 is the locus classicus for an earlier version of the test. What is proposed here is slightly different. ↵

Studies in Critical Thinking Copyright © by J. Anthony Blair is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Organizing Your 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.

This page summarizes three historical methods for argumentation, providing structural templates for each.

How can I effectively present my argument?

In order for your argument to be persuasive, it must use an organizational structure that the audience perceives as both logical and easy to parse. Three argumentative methods —the  Toulmin Method , Classical Method , and Rogerian Method — give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument.

Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment’s directions if you’re unsure which to use (if any).

Toulmin Method

The  Toulmin Method  is a formula that allows writers to build a sturdy logical foundation for their arguments. First proposed by author Stephen Toulmin in  The Uses of Argument (1958), the Toulmin Method emphasizes building a thorough support structure for each of an argument's key claims.

The basic format for the Toulmin Method  is as follows:

Claim:  In this section, you explain your overall thesis on the subject. In other words, you make your main argument.

Data (Grounds):  You should use evidence to support the claim. In other words, provide the reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.

Warrant (Bridge):  In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. As a result, the underlying assumption that you build your argument on is grounded in reason.

Backing (Foundation):  Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.

Counterclaim:  You should anticipate a counterclaim that negates the main points in your argument. Don't avoid arguments that oppose your own. Instead, become familiar with the opposing perspective.   If you respond to counterclaims, you appear unbiased (and, therefore, you earn the respect of your readers). You may even want to include several counterclaims to show that you have thoroughly researched the topic.

Rebuttal:  In this section, you incorporate your own evidence that disagrees with the counterclaim. It is essential to include a thorough warrant or bridge to strengthen your essay’s argument. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis, your readers may not make a connection between the two, or they may draw different conclusions.

Example of the Toulmin Method:

Claim:  Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.

Data1:  Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air-polluting activity.

Warrant 1:  Due to the fact that cars are the largest source of private (as opposed to industrial) air pollution, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.

Data 2:  Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.

Warrant 2:  Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that the decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.

Data 3:  Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.

Warrant 3:  The combination of these technologies produces less pollution.

Counterclaim:  Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages an inefficient culture of driving even as it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging the use of mass transit systems.

Rebuttal:  While mass transit is an idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work. Thus, hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.

Rogerian Method

The Rogerian Method  (named for, but not developed by, influential American psychotherapist Carl R. Rogers) is a popular method for controversial issues. This strategy seeks to find a common ground between parties by making the audience understand perspectives that stretch beyond (or even run counter to) the writer’s position. Moreso than other methods, it places an emphasis on reiterating an opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction. The persuasive power of the Rogerian Method lies in its ability to define the terms of the argument in such a way that:

• your position seems like a reasonable compromise.
• you seem compassionate and empathetic.

The basic format of the Rogerian Method  is as follows:

Introduction:  Introduce the issue to the audience, striving to remain as objective as possible.

Opposing View : Explain the other side’s position in an unbiased way. When you discuss the counterargument without judgement, the opposing side can see how you do not directly dismiss perspectives which conflict with your stance.

Statement of Validity (Understanding):  This section discusses how you acknowledge how the other side’s points can be valid under certain circumstances. You identify how and why their perspective makes sense in a specific context, but still present your own argument.

Statement of Your Position:  By this point, you have demonstrated that you understand the other side’s viewpoint. In this section, you explain your own stance.

Statement of Contexts : Explore scenarios in which your position has merit. When you explain how your argument is most appropriate for certain contexts, the reader can recognize that you acknowledge the multiple ways to view the complex issue.

Statement of Benefits:  You should conclude by explaining to the opposing side why they would benefit from accepting your position. By explaining the advantages of your argument, you close on a positive note without completely dismissing the other side’s perspective.

Example of the Rogerian Method:

Introduction:  The issue of whether children should wear school uniforms is subject to some debate.

Opposing View:  Some parents think that requiring children to wear uniforms is best.

Statement of Validity (Understanding):  Those parents who support uniforms argue that, when all students wear the same uniform, the students can develop a unified sense of school pride and inclusiveness.

Statement of Your Position : Students should not be required to wear school uniforms. Mandatory uniforms would forbid choices that allow students to be creative and express themselves through clothing.

Statement of Contexts:  However, even if uniforms might hypothetically promote inclusivity, in most real-life contexts, administrators can use uniform policies to enforce conformity. Students should have the option to explore their identity through clothing without the fear of being ostracized.

Statement of Benefits:  Though both sides seek to promote students' best interests, students should not be required to wear school uniforms. By giving students freedom over their choice, students can explore their self-identity by choosing how to present themselves to their peers.

Classical Method

The Classical Method of structuring an argument is another common way to organize your points. Originally devised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and then later developed by Roman thinkers like Cicero and Quintilian), classical arguments tend to focus on issues of definition and the careful application of evidence. Thus, the underlying assumption of classical argumentation is that, when all parties understand the issue perfectly, the correct course of action will be clear.

The basic format of the Classical Method  is as follows:

Introduction (Exordium): Introduce the issue and explain its significance. You should also establish your credibility and the topic’s legitimacy.

Statement of Background (Narratio): Present vital contextual or historical information to the audience to further their understanding of the issue. By doing so, you provide the reader with a working knowledge about the topic independent of your own stance.

Proposition (Propositio): After you provide the reader with contextual knowledge, you are ready to state your claims which relate to the information you have provided previously. This section outlines your major points for the reader.

Proof (Confirmatio): You should explain your reasons and evidence to the reader. Be sure to thoroughly justify your reasons. In this section, if necessary, you can provide supplementary evidence and subpoints.

Refutation (Refuatio): In this section, you address anticipated counterarguments that disagree with your thesis. Though you acknowledge the other side’s perspective, it is important to prove why your stance is more logical.  

Conclusion (Peroratio): You should summarize your main points. The conclusion also caters to the reader’s emotions and values. The use of pathos here makes the reader more inclined to consider your argument.  

Example of the Classical Method:  

Introduction (Exordium): Millions of workers are paid a set hourly wage nationwide. The federal minimum wage is standardized to protect workers from being paid too little. Research points to many viewpoints on how much to pay these workers. Some families cannot afford to support their households on the current wages provided for performing a minimum wage job .

Statement of Background (Narratio): Currently, millions of American workers struggle to make ends meet on a minimum wage. This puts a strain on workers’ personal and professional lives. Some work multiple jobs to provide for their families.

Proposition (Propositio): The current federal minimum wage should be increased to better accommodate millions of overworked Americans. By raising the minimum wage, workers can spend more time cultivating their livelihoods.

Proof (Confirmatio): According to the United States Department of Labor, 80.4 million Americans work for an hourly wage, but nearly 1.3 million receive wages less than the federal minimum. The pay raise will alleviate the stress of these workers. Their lives would benefit from this raise because it affects multiple areas of their lives.

Refutation (Refuatio): There is some evidence that raising the federal wage might increase the cost of living. However, other evidence contradicts this or suggests that the increase would not be great. Additionally,   worries about a cost of living increase must be balanced with the benefits of providing necessary funds to millions of hardworking Americans.

Conclusion (Peroratio): If the federal minimum wage was raised, many workers could alleviate some of their financial burdens. As a result, their emotional wellbeing would improve overall. Though some argue that the cost of living could increase, the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

writingxhumanities

A "how to" guide for UC Berkeley writers

Making an Argument

Sometimes your instructor will give you a paper prompt. Here’s some advice on how to write in response to a prompt . And here are tips for responding to specific terms in prompts  such as “analyze,” “compare,” “define.”

When your instructor doesn’t provide a detailed prompt, you will have to come up with a topic on your own. Are some topics better than others, and why? And what kinds of arguments do writers in the humanities make about those topics? 

Arguments in the humanities are usually made in order to draw connections, whether these are connections between elements within a text, between texts, or between a text and one or more of its contexts. 

• Within a text: how does some textual element (form, character, image, theme) contribute to the meaning of the work as a whole?
• Between texts: the classic format is “compare and contrast” (though you still need to make an argument based one or more elements of your comparison rather than simply identifying similarities and differences), but you might think also about how one text might influence, translate, or adapt another.
• Between a text and context: contexts might include one or more facets of the historical, social, political, economic, or even the biographical. Literary theories and critical methodologies might also provide interpretive contexts for your argument. 

In most humanities essays, emphasis is placed on how these connections work, and why they are important for understanding a text. The most interesting questions, in other words, are not ones that can simply be answered “yes” or “no,” or “good” or “bad,” but ones that invite you to analyze how and why .  Even when you are asked to evaluate a text as a work of art or an ethical performance, your evaluation must be based upon a considered discussion of the terms of your judgement and how the text you are discussing fulfills or falls short of these expectations. 

You’ve probably heard of “writing as a process,” but this phrase can be used to mean different things. The writing process is often imagined as moving only in one direction: you read a text, come up with a thesis statement, gather evidence that proves that thesis, outline your essay, and then write that essay in a fixed five-paragraph structure, consisting of an introduction with a single-sentence thesis statement, three body paragraphs that contains your analysis of evidence you’ve found in your text, and a conclusion that restates your thesis statement.

This is sometimes the way that “writing as a process” is taught in high school. But at the college level, writing is best practiced as a recursive mode of inquiry. The process of writing shapes the way we think about and investigate our objects of study. Ideally, your thesis will deepen and develop over the course of writing a paper, becoming more nuanced as you return to the text again and again to consider additional evidence and further implications of—or perhaps objections to—your argument. Unlike in mathematics or logic, your goal when writing in the humanities is not to “prove” your argument, but to explore or examine an idea.

You might think of an essay in terms of the critical moves of its argument:

• Your essay should advance a single argument, which is also often called a thesis . Your thesis should be focused –if you’re analyzing a novel in a five-page paper, for example, you’ll need to focus on perhaps just a single scene, character, or repeated detail. Your thesis should be supportable —it has to rely on textual evidence rather than your subjective opinion or speculation. And your thesis should not be obvious -—it needs to be an argument about a text that you could imagine an intelligent reader disagreeing with.
• Your thesis is important not only as a statement that appears in your introduction, but also as the main claim that you make over the course of the entire essay. The supporting claims that you make in your body paragraphs may be able to stand on their own, but they should all be in service of the main claim. Hence, your main claim should not be limited to the initial form that it takes as the thesis statement in your introductory paragraph, but rather should evolve over the course of the paper as you establish your supporting claims.
• Then, there are the actions you take to make those supporting claims, which include summary , description , observation , contextualization , analysis , and interpretation . You’ll also want to think about the logic of the organization of these moves: how your sub-claims relate to your main claim. For more on working with textual evidence, see How can I use textual evidence to make an argument?
• To make your argument stronger and more complex, you may want to include counterclaims (claims that someone else might make against your argument), rebuttals (answering the questions raised in those counterclaims), and qualifications (acknowledging the limitations of your argument).
• One of the most challenging and crucial components of an argument is articulating what’s at stake. Sometimes the stakes of an argument are referred to as an answer to the question “so what?” Such significance will provoke your reader to think: “I see why this matters. I never thought of it that way”; or “You make a good, relevant point that enriches my reading of the text”; or even “I’m not entirely convinced, but you made me see this text in a new light.”

The most effective pieces of textual evidence are interpretively rich: they allow you to make compelling, unexpected, and nuanced claims that push your argument in new directions. (For more on using close reading to find those pieces of evidence, see Reading Between the Lines .) Depending on the particular focus of your paper, a good piece of evidence might exhibit some significant formal quality you want to draw attention to (things like alliteration, rhyme schemes, repetition, unexpected syntax, etc.) or reveal the psychology of a character. Avoid quoting textual evidence simply to summarize the plot, showcase general or widely known information about the text, or (of course) just to take up space in your 5-page paper requirement.

Some tips for using textual evidence to support an argument:

• Make sure to foreground your interpretation of the quoted material— sandwiching quotations in your own thought is a great way to do this.
• Quote only those textual details that exemplify the aspect of the text you are discussing.
• If you’re citing a written text, only give the most relevant bits of a quotations, using ellipses to “hide” irrelevant material within or between quoted sentences or lines. (Obviously, take care not to “hide” a part of the text that contradicts the quote you’ve chosen or the interpretation you are making about it!) Ellipses are just one way to handle that problem; click here for more on using quotations with clarity and style .
• It’s worth saying again: avoid using textual evidence to summarize the plot, to demonstrate general or widely known information about the text, or as filler to meet your minimum required word count!

For additional materials, go to Teaching Making an Argument in the For Instructors  section of this website.

Writing Arguments: An Overview

What is an argument? Think about attorneys arguing a criminal "Who dunnit?" The prosecutor claims the gardener did it: The gardener's attorney says, "Prove it!" The burden falls on the prosecutor arguing the case to supply the damning evidence. The defense need only counter the claim with an argument casting doubt on the prosecution.

Facing the same audience, each attorney will try to persuade the jury. The judge sees to it that the arguments are presented in an orderly fashion. One will inevitably hold more water than the other. After considering the merits of each, the jury will return. The bailiff will hand the judge a folded piece of paper. The verdict will either be: "Guilty-the evidence is overwhelming-the gardener did it" or, "Not-it's doubtful the gardener did it-the evidence was insufficient."

An argument is a formal presentation of evidence that supports a particular claim or position regarding an issue of interest to a specific audience. Its persuasive strength rests on the rhetorical skills of the author-the art of wielding the rational, emotional and stylistic tools of language in a skillful and conscious effort to persuade. Its logic is built upon rational premises and follows to a conclusion reasonable people are willing to accept.

Formal vs. Informal Arguments

The difference between a formal and an informal argument is in the burden of proof. A formal argument clearly states the claim or position it argues and presents a well-developed chain of evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion supporting the claim. The chain of evidence itself may include a wide variety of elements ranging from personal experience to statistical data and expert testimony.

Informal arguments contain little or no supportive evidence. "I did the dishes last night" may be all that's necessary to encourage your roommate to do them tonight but it's hardly an argument designed to convince or persuade. Its primary purpose is merely to assert, or point something out, nothing more.

Informal arguments are the stock-in-trade of radio and TV talk-shows, op-ed pages and letters to the editor. Generally speaking, they're used to instigate discussion among individuals holding different opinions. Quite often they are used to provoke a confrontation between those who flat-out disagree with each other (e.g., The O'Reilly Factor and The Jerry Springer Show ). Seldom do they end in a consensus of opinion or a reasonable conclusion.

Academic Arguments

An academic argument is a formal argument constructed according to the specific conventions of the academic discipline in which it is presented. A literature argument, for instance, will typically include evidence from the literary text in question; a biology argument will include data from field or laboratory research.

Before beginning your argument, ask your instructor what academic conventions you will be expected to follow. Though many elements will remain the same, the norms for stating a claim or position, organizing the argument's evidence, structuring and styling its presentation and citing its sources will differ from one discipline to the next and from context to context.

Common to all academic arguments, however, are the following:

• The claim must be arguable: A disagreement or a number of legitimate points of view must exist regarding the claim. If everyone in the audience is in agreement there really isn't anything to argue over.
• The argument must be rational: An argument must be based in fact not emotion. The claim must be meticulously considered, the evidence thoroughly researched and carefully selected; the audience correctly assessed.
• The logic must be cohesive: A claim must be argued linearly, step-by-step, with appropriate transitions revealing the logic that ties one point to the next. If a minor point doesn't add to the main point, it doesn't belong.

Credit must be given where credit is due: All outside sources must be documented (e.g., footnotes, endnotes, and in-text citations) using a citation format approved by the academic discipline into which the argument falls.

LeCourt, Donna, Kate Kiefer, & Peter Connor. (1996). Writing Arguments: An Overview. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=53

Writing Studio

Identifying and evaluating arguments.

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF: Identifying and Evaluating Arguments Return to Writing Studio Handouts

An argument differs from a description, a statement of belief or opinion, a hypothetical scenario, a command, or a mere set of facts. While each of these may have its own intents and purposes, an argument uses a series of statements to convince a listener or reader that certain facts, conditions, or positions are true.

Premises and Conclusions

An argument’s premise is an initial or foundational statement or assumption that sets forth the reason or evidence, and from which the conclusion of the argument follows. Often, the premises and the conclusions of an argument can be identified by the use of key words or phrases.

The following words and phrases might indicate a premise :

• as indicated by
• for the reason that
• in as much as
• may be inferred from
• seeing that

The following words and phrases might indicate a conclusion :

• accordingly
• entails that
• we may conclude
• it must be that
• it follows that
• consequently
• implies that
• as a result

Useful Questions for Evaluating an Argument

1. what assumptions does the writer make.

Does the writer assume that you will come to the text with certain knowledge, or that you will share certain of his or her values?

2. Does the writer have an agenda?

If the writer has a particular political slant, for example, where does it show through in the argument? Does it sway or influence his or her interpretations of the evidence? How?

3. How does the author use language?

What is the writer’s tone of voice? Are there specific words that you find intriguing, effective, ineffective, or downright bizarre? Are there specific rhetorical “moves” being made, effectively or ineffectively?

4. How convincing is the writer’s evidence?

Does it come from trustworthy and credible sources? Is it relevant? Does the writer interpret that evidence in a way that makes sense?

5. How convincing is the writer’s overall argument?

Do you think the writer accomplishes what she set out to accomplish? Depending on the assignment, your answer to this question may be your thesis!

Last revised: 7/2008 |  Adapted for web delivery: 2/2021

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

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

III. Rhetorical Situation

3.10 Facts and Opinions

Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson

Facts are statements that can be definitely proven using objective data. The statement that is a fact is absolutely valid. In other words, the statement can be pronounced as true or false. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. This expression identifies a true statement, or a fact, because it can be proved with objective data.

Opinions are personal views, or judgments. An opinion is what an individual believes about a particular subject. However, an opinion in argumentation must have legitimate backing; adequate evidence and credibility should support the opinion. Consider the credibility of expert opinions. Experts in a given field have the knowledge and credentials to make their opinion meaningful to a larger audience; this credibility is sometimes called “ethos” and is one way that we make our arguments persuasive. For example, you seek the opinion of your dentist when it comes to the health of your gums, and you seek the opinion of your mechanic when it comes to the maintenance of your car. Both have knowledge and credentials in those respective fields, which is why their opinions matter to you. But the authority of your dentist may be greatly diminished should they offer an opinion about your car, and vice versa. In writing, you want to strike a balance between credible facts and authoritative opinions. Relying on one or the other will likely lose more of your audience than it gains.

This section contains material from:

Crowther, Kathryn, Lauren Curtright, Nancy Gilbert, Barbara Hall, Tracienne Ravita, and Kirk Swenson. Successful College Composition . 2nd edition. Book 8. Georgia: English Open Textbooks, 2016. http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Impartiality or fairness; dispassionate or detached. Also refers to the goal, aim, or intention that someone or a group of people hope to achieve.

3.10 Facts and Opinions Copyright © 2022 by Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Handbook for Judicial Officers — Delivery of judgments

The architecture of argument [1].

Professor J Raymond [2]

The question of how best to structure judgments is an ongoing one. This article is based on the premise that judges should convey their reasoning in a form that reflects the simple and repetitive logic of the law. It provides a seven-step recipe for writing clearly structured judgments that convey logical reasoning and contain context before details, clearly partitioned issues and succinct arguments.

I once had the following exchange with a gracious judge who allowed me to review his work in a tutorial session.

“I had trouble figuring out what’s going on in this case until I got to page 15,” I said. “This is where you get around to mentioning the issues.” “Yes, professor, I can see that.” “And now that I know what the issues are, it seems to me that probably twelve of the first fifteen pages could be omitted, since they have nothing to do with any of the issues.” “Yes, professor, I agree.” “Just out of curiosity, why did you wait until page 15 to enunciate the issues?” “Well professor, to tell the truth, I didn’t know what the issues were myself until I got to page 15.”

It was an instructive admission. Writing is often a means of discovering what we think. It is not unusual for judges and lawyers to discover the case as they write it.

They make a mistake, however, when they require their readers to wander through the same process of discovery — to follow them down blind alleys, wrong turns, false starts and irrelevant facts until the issues finally pop up like mushrooms after rain.

The universal logic of the law

Every legal argument can be distilled to the same simple structure, a variation of the classic categorical syllogism:

These facts (narrate facts) ... viewed in the context of this law/contract/regulation/precedent/section of the Constitution/principle of equity (choose one) ... lead to this conclusion (relief sought).

The logic never varies. At trial the judge’s job is to discover this pattern of thought in the morass of facts, distortions, outright lies, genuine issues and spurious arguments that the contending parties allege. The attorney’s job is to assist the judge in reducing the facts and evidence to this pattern.

In jurisprudence, only four arguments can occur:

the litigants may contest factual allegations; or

they may claim that the other side has cited the wrong law; or

they may argue that although the other side has cited the right law, they have misinterpreted it; or

they can agree about the facts and the law, but disagree about how one applies to the other.

Every case boils down to some combination of these four basic disputes. There are no others. Litigants may argue about things outside the law: technicalities in accounting procedures, similarities among patented products, or the reliability of laboratory tests. But these arguments involve other disciplines. They are not legal arguments.

Even when some procedural issue is argued (venue, for example, or timeliness), the argument will always be the same. One side will allege certain facts in the context of a controlling law, principle or standard; and the other side will either dispute the facts, or argue that the wrong law has been cited, or that the right law has been misinterpreted or misapplied.

When several issues are involved, each must be resolved with the same logic: certain facts, considered in the context of a particular law, lead to an ineluctable conclusion.

The logic of jurisprudence is the same in trial courts and courts of appeal. The only difference is that at trial, litigants are likely to argue about both facts and law, whereas in courts of appeal arguments tend to focus on the law — the appellant arguing that the court below has applied the wrong law, or misinterpreted or misapplied the right one. Appellate courts are not equipped to examine the evidence itself. They cannot call witnesses, examine exhibits or indulge litigants in the sort of lengthy, unpredictable, and often disorderly proceedings that characterise a trial. Courts of appeal may hear arguments about the admissibility or sufficiency of certain evidence, but except in rare circumstances they will not second-guess trial courts on the inferences of fact drawn from whatever evidence they deem admissible.

Because the pattern of legal logic is always the same, the structure of an effective judgment at any level is identical to the structure of a good brief. These genres have different audiences, but the same purpose: to persuade. There is one important difference. A judgment has the advantage of authority. A judge can issue an order instead of merely asking for one.

A universal outline for judgments

If the logic of the law is so simple and repetitive, why do judges and lawyers have so much trouble organising what they write?

Because despite the appearance of logic, litigation is always messy and uncertain. It relies on “facts” inferred from observations that cannot be replicated, reported by witnesses who may or may not be telling the truth or by experts who are generally contradicted by opposing experts. Inferences made from events described by witnesses rarely achieve the reliability of science. Even evidence that claims to be “scientific” can be contested by other data or other interpretations of the same data or by arguing that the data has been contaminated.

Nor do issues arise from the facts with a logical inevitability. Good lawyers can find many issues in any set of allegations, some more likely than others to benefit their clients. Unanticipated issues and surprising facts may arise during the trial, and sometimes on appeal.

In addition, the logic of the law often melts like a pocket watch in a surreal painting. Analogies, which are the basis of common law (the claim that the case at bar is essentially like a precedent), always limp. Precedents are always distinguishable.

Furthermore, the language of the law is rotten with ambiguity. Despite the best efforts of legal drafters, a motivated reader can find more than one meaning in any text. A word like “murder” may seem plain enough — until we have to decide how it applies in cases of abortion or assisted suicide. A term like “marriage” may seem plain enough — until we have to decide when cohabitation becomes marriage, or whether one member of a same-sex union can claim spousal benefits on the other’s insurance policy. Absolutely no word in the law is immune from the ambiguity it might contract, like a contagious disease, in the context of a novel set of facts. What seems like “plain meaning” when a legal text is drafted disappears in a swirl of indeterminacy when the text is applied to facts the drafters did not anticipate.

Jurisprudence requires lawyers and judges to control the chaos by conveying their reasoning in a form that seems logical. Instead of controlling the chaos, however, they often reproduce it — failing to identify or to partition the issues; rambling through facts and allegations without distinguishing the credible from the implausible; switching from one party’s version to the other’s as if judges were court reporters; reproducing the testimony instead of analysing it. Their arguments meander, just as their thoughts must have meandered. They produce a stream of consciousness instead of an orderly sequence, a diary of dawning awareness instead of an engine of logic in which a result emerges from an application of law to fact. They forget that the goal of jurisprudence is to pluck the essential issues, the relevant facts and controlling laws from the maelstrom of arguments, allegations, precedents, principles and pretensions that rage about during a trial. It is not an easy task. But it would be easier if judges would remember the simple logical structure that they must identify in the resolution of every issue in every case.

Many jurisdictions publish rules to assist lawyers in organising their submissions. These rules generally make excellent sense. “First, tell us what the issues are,” they seem to say, reflecting an awareness that facts have no significance until they are placed in the context of issues. “Then tell us what the case is about” — reflecting the frustration of judges who have to read dozens of pages before discovering the basic fact situation from which the case arises. And finally, “Organise the rest of the judgment in a logical and predictable order” — a plea from readers who are continually surprised by what turns up next in an argument.

Paradoxically, judges sometimes forget that their readers want precisely the same things: context before details, clearly partitioned issues and succinct arguments. Rules for appellate procedure generally work just as well on both sides of the bench, and at every level, all the way to Supreme Court.

A seven-step recipe for organisation

Here is a recipe for organising a judgment in even the most complex case:

identify and partition the issues

prepare an LOPP/FLOPP analysis for each issue

arrange the analysis of issues like rooms in a shotgun house

prepare an outline with case-specific headings

write a beginning

write an ending,

review your draft with a checklist and a friend.

Identify and partition the issues

Plan the body of the judgment before settling on an introduction.

Use a stack of note cards, or half sheets of paper, or the equivalent space on a computer screen. On each card write the word “Issue”, followed by a brief statement of any question you will have to decide.

At trial, the issues may be either questions of fact or questions of law. At the end of the trial you will have to present your findings and support them with reasons enough to satisfy the court of appeal, if not the losing party. During the trial you may have to provide written responses to preliminary or interlocutory motions — again, with reasons that will survive on appeal.

At trial, the issues are any reasonable and relevant question raised by either party. To these, some judges add questions that either they or the court of appeal might think ought to have been raised, even if only to mention them as a way of anticipating what might be raised at a different level.

When judges are responsible for finding facts, they have to support their findings with credible reasons. (Paradoxically, juries do not have this obligation: they find facts without revealing their reasons.) When a jury is responsible for finding facts, you are relieved of your responsibility to provide reasons for these findings; but at the same time you become responsible to guide the jury’s deliberations by composing directions that they can understand and that will also satisfy a court of appeal’s demand for legal accuracy. Either task alone would be difficult enough; achieving both at once is just short of miraculous.

On appeal, you should have the assistance of counsel in identifying and articulating the issues. At either level, judges in some jurisdictions use case-management procedures to have counsel clarify the issues among themselves before addressing the court.

Determining the issues early is essential to efficiency in writing and economy in the result. You cannot distinguish relevant facts and arguments from pointless digressions until you have determined precisely what questions the court is being asked to settle. If the issues change as the case proceeds, prepare cards for the new ones and discard those that become irrelevant.

Partitioning the issues is essential to the structure of your judgment. Unless each issue is clearly separated from the others, your judgment will seem like a vast swamp — shapeless and devoid of direction. Dividing your judgment into discrete issues enables you and your readers to focus on the analysis of each one individually.

Prepare an LOPP/FLOPP analysis for each issue

The easiest way to organise the analysis of each issue is to follow this pattern:

LOPP (Losing Party’s Position)

FLOPP (Flaw in Losing Party’s Position)

CONCLUSION.

For example: LOPP: Respondent contends that he had not been informed of the penalty clause in the contract. FLOPP: The evidence shows that both the respondent and his attorney received the contract thirty days before signing it. CONCLUSION: Therefore respondent’s contention that he was unaware of the penalty clause has no merit.

When the conclusion is obvious, it may be effective to leave it unstated, allowing your readers to make the inevitable inference on their own. These inferences will, of course, become explicit in the form of findings or orders at the end of the ruling as a whole. Sometimes it is effective to refer to an unstated conclusion as if it were so obvious that it can be safely tucked away in a subordinate clause (for example, “Because the respondent had ample time to examine the contract before signing it ...”). Understatement of this sort can be more powerful than rhetorical excess. It implies that any reasonable reader would agree.

Be careful about using highly charged language to characterise the losing party’s position. Charged language is a rhetorical weapon that often backfires. It pleases readers who agree with you in advance, but it alienates impartial readers, and infuriates the losing party and anyone who may be sympathetic to the losing party’s point of view. There are, of course, exceptions, when judicial indignation is perfectly appropriate and effective. But charged language is often a sign that an argument is based on passion rather than law. Normally, a civil society wants judges to rise above emotion and blatant political preferences. People who pay attention to the courts want reasons, not feelings nor even ideals — reasons that seem firmly grounded in law. Express the losing party’s position as effectively as you can — as if you were representing that party yourself — and then identify the flaw in that position with surgical detachment. If you cannot find the flaw in your best statement of the losing party’s position, you may need to reconsider your conclusion.

Although the final logic in a judgment always resembles a categorical syllogism (controlling law/relevant facts/conclusion), actual courtroom argument is dialectical: one party argues X, the other argues Y. Lawyers are always responding to the opposing party’s position. This dialectic should be easy to find in the analysis of each issue:

One party says X. The other party says Y. The court says X (or Y, or possibly Z).

The LOPP/FLOPP pattern suggested earlier captures this dialectic. But because the court’s position is essentially identical with the prevailing party’s position, it is often possible to skip one of these steps.

LOPP: One party says X. FLOPP: But the court says Y because ...

There is no reason to say what the winning party has argued, since the court has adopted that position as its own.

Although the LOPP/FLOPP pattern generally works, there are a few exceptions.

One exception occurs when the controlling law is a principle of equity or a matter of judicial discretion that must be exercised without clear and definitive standards. In determining custody, for example, or visitation rights, family court judges can help calm raging emotions by downplaying the notion of a “losing” party. Divide the judgment into factors (for example, “proximity to schools”, “access to extended family” or “the child’s safety”). Under each heading, simply compare and contrast conditions at mum’s house with conditions at dad’s house. A simple objective description will suffice; often the inferences will be obvious.

An adverse ruling in family court is never easy to accept; but disappointed parents will find it easier to respect a decision that focuses on the child’s best interest rather than on a finding that either party has been found a less competent parent. Even when the decision is actually based on the unsuitability of one parent, it does no harm for the record to acknowledge whatever parental strengths can be attributed to that parent along with the weaknesses that are critical to the decision.

Another exception to the LOPP/FLOPP pattern occurs when judges are finding facts. It generally makes sense to begin with the position of the party with the burden of proof, whether that party loses or wins.

Plaintiff argues that the respondent’s equity in the condominium at the time of the divorce was $250,000. Respondent, however, presented evidence that the equity was roughly half that amount. After carefully weighing the evidence presented by each side, I find that ... because ...

In an actual judgment each of the first two sentences would be followed by a summary of the evidence presented, and the third sentence would be followed by an indication of why the judge found one party’s evidence more persuasive than the other’s.

This is trickier than it seems. Many trial judges believe that by expressing reasons for findings, particularly for findings based on credibility of witnesses, they invite the court of appeal to second guess them and to reach different conclusions. On the other hand, failure to give reasons can tempt the court of appeal to remand on grounds that the findings were not supported by sufficient evidence. Balance is the key. Trial judges should support their findings with sufficient reasons to show that they are not arbitrary and capricious. Whenever possible, they should cite specifics — for example, evidence from documents, consistencies or inconsistencies in testimony, conformity to or deviation from normal human behaviour, awareness of motives for telling the truth or for concealing it, etc. In other words, judges can and should reveal exactly the sort of thought processes that they tell jurors to follow in reaching a verdict.

In general, the LOPP/FLOPP pattern will help you think clearly about the application of fact to law. It can also protect you from your own biases. Nothing is more frustrating to the bar and to the public than a decision that is not supported by a clear and logical application of law to facts. And nothing can be more damaging to public trust in the integrity of the judiciary.

Arrange the analysis of issues like rooms in a shotgun house

The most frequent cause of obscurity in jurisprudence on both sides of the bench is not technical language or complex issues or arcane subjects. It is haphazard organisation.

The easiest way to organise a judgment is to imitate the structure of what in some parts of the United States is called a shotgun house — a house in which each room follows the other in a straight line leading from a front porch to a back porch. The front porch is the introduction, the back porch the conclusion. Each room between contains the analysis of a particular issue.

Once you have determined the issues, arrange them in a sequence that makes sense. If you have written each issue on a separate card, you can spread the cards across a table and select the sequence that works best.

Sometimes there will be threshold issues (standing, for example, or jurisdiction or timeliness); normally these are dealt with first. Sometimes issues can be grouped in categories (for example, three dealing with the admissibility of evidence, two dealing with jury instructions, five dealing with sentencing). Sometimes the issues can be arranged in a logical chain, each issue dependent on the other for its viability. Sometimes each issue is completely independent of the others. In this situation, consider arranging the issues chronologically, if the material allows it.

After reaching a decision on a dispositive issue, the others generally become moot. On occasion, however, judges will analyse these moot issues anyway, on the theory that if they are reversed on the dispositive issue, ruling on the others will save the litigants the trouble and expense of further litigation. If you do this, be sure to announce your intention in advance. Do not surprise your readers by having them read your analysis of a dozen issues only to discover at the end that the moving party had no standing in court.

The analysis of each issue should be self-contained, like a stanza in a poem or a room in a shotgun house (stanza actually means “room”). You should have as many rooms as you have issues.

In some cases, a section equivalent to a foyer needs to be added: an antechamber just after the introduction and before the analysis of the first issue. This section is necessary in cases that cannot be understood without a detailed narration of facts or a review of procedural history.

Although a “foyer” for an extended facts, background or procedural history may be necessary at times, more often than not it can be avoided by writing a beginning that provides an essential overview (see Write a beginning , below), saving necessary details for the analysis of the issue to which they are most relevant. Narrating the detailed facts twice — in the beginning and in the analysis of the issues — creates unnecessary work for yourself and your readers.

Prepare an outline with generic and case-specific headings

If a judgment is very short — two or three pages — it may need no headings. In longer texts, headings are extremely helpful, particularly to readers who want to read your argument as quickly as possible.

In judgments that include a table of contents, headings provide a roadmap, foreshadowing the journey you want your reader to take. Within the document, headings serve as signposts marking the boundaries between various stages of the journey. They show where the analysis of each issue ends and another begins. To serve these functions effectively, headings must be as brief as possible. They should not be entire arguments (though it is often effective to put a brief summary of an argument immediately after a heading).

There are two kinds of headings: generic and case specific. Words and phrases like “Introduction”, “Background”, “Order”, “Cases cited”, “Issues” and “Findings of fact” are generic headings. Generic headings can be transferred from case to case, regardless of the facts and issues.

Although generic headings are useful, even more useful are case-specific headings — headings like “Was the warrant valid?” or “What is the meaning of obscenity in s 905?”. These headings differ from generic headings in that they are tied to the facts of a specific case. They mark boundaries between the analysis of separate issues. Case-specific headings enable future readers (such as lawyers and law students) to go directly to those sections they suspect might be helpful to other cases.

There are three ways to phrase a case-specific heading. You can phrase it as an argument:

The University of Montevallo is not an Agency of the State.

You can phrase it as a question:

Is the University of Montevallo an Agency of the State?

Or you can phrase it as a topic:

State Agency.

Some judges prefer argumentative headings, never wanting to pass up an opportunity to press their point of view. Others think topics or questions are more effective as headings because they convey a sense of detached objectivity, which is in itself a persuasive stratagem. It is a matter of personal preference, based upon the authorial persona you want to create and on the way you think a particular reader or set of readers is likely to react.

Even though you should write every judgment as if you expect your readers to follow it from beginning to end, chances are they will not. Effective headings will aid those readers who raid your text like marauding pirates, looking for what interests them and ignoring the rest. Make it easy for them to find whatever they are looking for.

No matter how you phrase them, however, headings should be clearly foreshadowed by the end of the introductory section (see Write a beginning , below). And they should be phrased in such a way that they are intelligible to an educated non-lawyer who knows nothing about the case in advance.

Here, for example, is a heading that requires far too much knowledge of local law:

Issue One The holder of a perfected security interest is not entitled to negate the State’s rights under the statutory “warrant hold” provision of the VIP Government Code, s 403.055(a).

The same issue could have been stated much more clearly in plain English:

Issue One Can the State withhold Medicare funds from creditors of a bankrupt nursing home that has failed to pay its taxes?

Write a beginning

It may seem odd to suggest writing an introduction at this stage, after you have already developed the heart of your argument. But you are not in a position to write an introduction until you know what you are going to introduce. Sometimes you have no idea what the issues are, or how many, or how they should be resolved, until you have drafted an LOPP/FLOPP analysis for each issue.

Avoid beginning with technical, dry or uncontested assertions. Imagine, for example, the reaction of weary readers with busy schedules when they see an opening paragraph like this:

Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-5(b), Defendant National Compuchip Corporation (“Compuchip”) challenges the Claim Construction Brief filed on February 27, 2003 by Plaintiff Laserop, Inc (“Laserop”), on issues of claim construction for US Patent Nos 5,944,807 (“the ’807 patent”) and 6,098,141 (“the ’141 patent”). Exhs A and B, The Laserop patents. Compuchip’s proposed interpretation of the terms and phrases in the claims of the ’807 and ’141 patents are set forth in Compuchip’s Interpretation Chart for the Claim Terms/ Phrase Recited in the Asserted Claims of US Patent No 5,944,807 (“the ’807 patent”) and US Patent No 6,098,141, which is attached hereto as Exh C.

If you are a typical reader, you probably did not read this example in its entirety. You skipped over it as soon as your eyes glazed over. Yet some judges are convinced that they are bound by tradition, rules or logic to begin their judgments with a reference to the rule that gets one party or the other into court. There is something logical about this convention; after all, how can we decide a case if the litigants have not established standing and jurisdiction? But then again, if there is no contest about standing or jurisdiction, why waste the opening lines establishing something that can be safely presumed?

Then, too, once they have mastered the numerical references in a particular case or a particular statute or a particular set of rules, some judges forget that shorthand references are meaningless to readers who are not already intimately familiar with the same material. References like “Local Patent Rule 4-S(b)” and “the ’807 patent” do not actually communicate information; they merely remind a small set of readers in the know. Granted, this beginning would make sense to the parties involved in the case, but it wouldn’t tell them anything new. So to whom is it useful?

When jurisdiction and standing are uncontested, starting with “Pursuant to” is like putting a hotdog stand on prime real estate. The first paragraph and the last are possibly the only places where you can count on the reader’s attention. Why waste this space by filling it with uncontested assertions or with information the reader can be presumed to know?

Similarly, imagine the reaction of their readers who encounter opening lines like these:

Declaratory judgment (article 453 cpc) This Court, having examined the proceedings and the exhibits, considered the arguments of counsel, and duly deliberated, doth now render the following Declaratory judgrnent:

This self-congratulatory gambit serves no purpose. It is a sort of judicial throat clearing. It enables you to put something on paper before getting around to the case at hand. Why not just get around to it? Skip the throat clearing.

An effective introduction provides two things: a synopsis of the facts and a brief statement of the issues. Begin with what you would tell your next door neighbours if they were curious about the case. Use ordinary, neighbourly language. Avoid jargon. Tell a brief story indicating the human conflict, “who did what to whom” or “who’s arguing about what”. Then state the issues — the questions of fact or law that you need to settle.

In cases destined for the highest courts, often the fate of the particular litigants is less important than what the decision will mean for other litigants in similar situations. If the issues have far-reaching implications — if, for example the suit is intended to establish or to challenge an important public policy — you might start with the issues and then summarise the facts.

The combination of facts and issues provides the context that gives meaning to everything that follows. In addition, by delineating the issues in a few lines, you can foreshadow the structure of the argument to follow. Here is an example:

Harry Saunders was convicted of assault, battery, rape and murder, each in the first degree. According to the evidence, Saunders wore gloves and a mask when he committed these crimes, concealing his identity from his victim and from witnesses on the scene. In this appeal, Saunders argues that the lineup in which he was identified was suggestive, that articles of clothing used in his identification were illegally seized from his apartment, and that he had no access to counsel at key points during the investigation.

This beginning is exceptional not only for what it does, but perhaps more importantly for what it does not do. It does not establish standing or jurisdiction with the ubiquitous phrase, “Pursuant to Rule 123 appellant asks ... ”. It has no legal jargon or long, tangled sentences. In fact, there is nothing in this opening that would seem odd or technical in a good newspaper. And that, despite whatever misgivings you might have about the media, is an excellent standard for legal writing.

The writer (a judge in Idaho) also avoided citing specific sections of the code and specific references to precedent. He did not feel obliged to tell us that assault, battery, rape and murder are illegal activities (for example, “contrary to sections w, x, y and z of the Criminal Code”). Nor did he feel obliged, at this stage, to tell us what statutes, precedents or standards the appellant had invoked in support of his claims. This may be essential information at some point — the precedents will have to be cited and distinguished, the statutes and standards may have to be quoted if there is any dispute about their meaning or the application to this particular set of facts. But details of this sort should be saved for the sections in which issues are analysed. No need cluttering the opening paragraph with more information than the reader needs at this point.

This beginning provides the necessary context for understanding the analysis that follows. You can even predict the headings: “Lineup identification”; “Search and seizure”; “Access to counsel”. And in predicting the headings, you are predicting the structure of the rest of the document. You are, in effect, promised an easy and interesting read. Although judges are not obliged to make their writing interesting, doing so does have the effect of helping the reader pay attention to the argument.

In this case, the writer felt the need to interpolate a detailed narration (foyer) between the opening paragraphs (the front porch) and the analysis of the first issue (the first in a series of rooms). He did this by telling the story of the lineup in which Mr Saunders was identified, beginning with “There were three lineups. The first occurred ... The second occurred ... The third occurred ... ”.

In most cases a simple story-plus-issue is the best way to gain the reader’s interest and attention. But the temptation to write abstractly is hard to resist. Here is the opening paragraph in a case about unlawful detention:

[1] This is an application supported by an affidavit in which the applicant is seeking to be admitted to bail pending her trial. The affidavit discloses that the applicant who has been in custody since October, 1985 was on 3rd December, 1985 committed to the High Court for trial for the offence of Infanticide. On 18th December, 1985 she applied to the High Court at Kitwe to be admitted to bail pending her trial.

This is an adequate beginning, but it reads like an abstract problem in the law instead of what it really is, a case about a young woman who has been improperly held in jail without bail. Starting with the story would have given the case the sense of urgency and human significance it deserved:

[1] Rosemary Chilufya has been in jail for nearly five months, awaiting trial on a charge of infanticide. The High Court has refused to set bail, on the ground that infanticide is a form of murder, and murder is not a bailable offense. A threshold issue in this case, however, is whether the Supreme Court has the authority to ...

Stating the issues effectively requires steering a course midway between too much detail and too little. The example below provides too much detail — too much because it overwhelms the reader and predicts what follows in bewildering specificity:

(1)  The issues in this appeal in respect of the Appellant’s 1994 taxation year are: (a)  Whether the Appellant, in determining LCT liability under Pt 1.3 of the Act, is entitled to deduct the amounts of the Estimates from its “capital”, or whether such amounts are to be included in its “capital”: (i)  as “reserves” pursuant to ss 181(1) and 181.2(3)(b), or (ii)  as “other surpluses” pursuant to s 181.2(3)(a); (b)  Alternatively, if the Estimates are “reserves” or “other surpluses”, whether the Appellant, in computing its income under Pt I of the Act, is entitled to deduct the amounts of the Estimates from its revenue; (c)  Whether the Appellant, in determining LCT liability under Pt 1.3 of the Act, is entitled to deduct the $37,481,776 amount as a “deferred tax debit balance” within the meaning of s 181.2(3)(h).

The other extreme is to provide too little detail:

The issue is whether the tax returns filed by the appellant in 1994 were accurate.

This version does not predict the structure of what follows, nor does it give the reader a glimpse of the grounds on which each side bases its argument.

It is also possible to provide too much and too little detail at the same time — too much by including information the reader does not need at the outset; too little by not explaining what is at stake and by presuming a reader who knows the code by heart:

The issue is whether the appellant is entitled to deductions pursuant to ss 181(1), 181.2(3)(a), 181.2(3)(b) and 181.2(3)(h) of Pt 1.3 of the Income Tax Act .

A good statement of issues foreshadows the structure of what follows and provides the reader with a glimpse of the grounds of the argument.

It does not cite laws, precedents or records that can be more usefully cited in the analysis section. In this particular case, after a brief description of what the appellant claimed in his tax returns, the issues might have been effectively stated like this:

The issues are: Whether the appellant is entitled to deduct the amounts of the estimates from its “capital”. Whether the appellant is entitled to deduct the amounts of the estimates from its revenue. Whether the appellant is entitled to deduct the $37,481,776 as a “deferred tax debit balance”.

A good beginning makes the reader want to read more. A notable example is this introduction in a per curiam by the Ontario Court of Appeal: [3]

(1)  Professor Starson is an exceptionally intelligent man. His field of expertise is physics. Although he has no formal qualifications in that field, he is in regular contact with some of the leading physicists in the world. In 1991 he co-authored an article entitled “Discrete Anti-Gravity” with Professor H Pierre Noyes, who teaches physics at Stanford University and is the Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Professor Noyes has described Professor Starson’s thinking in the field of physics as being ten years ahead of its time. (2)  Unfortunately, Professor Starson has a history of mental illness, dating back to 1985. He has been diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar affective disorder. On several occasions during the last 15 years he has spent time in mental institutions. In November 1998 Professor Starson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of uttering death threats. In January 1999 the Ontario Review Board ordered that he be detained at the Centre of Addiction and Mental Health (the Centre).

Notice that this passage does not call attention to itself as writing . The words are transparent, invisible, like lenses through which we see characters and events. The writer does not seem to be trying to write. The art conceals the artifice. It is as if the story wrote itself. But of course it did not. A beginning like this is carefully crafted, a combination of talent and craft.

In this case, the plot thickens when we find out that the unusual Professor Starson “has a history of mental illness”. And it thickens further when we discover a few sentences later that he does not want the medication the Ontario Review Board wants to give him, because it would cloud his mind and hinder his ability to conduct his theoretical research.

A beginning like this entices the reader to continue reading. Who would not be curious to know how the case was resolved?

Write an ending

Your concluding section may include only an order. However, if you think the court above yours, or the press, or the losing party might miss the essence of your analysis, use your conclusion as a summation. Repeat your analysis, but in different words, and succinctly. Brevity is essential.

The concluding section also provides an opportunity for obiter dicta — instructions to the Bar on related matters that are not logically essential to the case you are deciding. And when your decision is based on common sense or pure equity, the concluding section can include what I like to call the “to-rule-otherwise” trope. Judges rely on this device when they have little or no law to justify their decisions. “To rule otherwise would be to invite ...” they say, and then list the horrible, unjust and illogical things that would follow from a different decision.

In a very short judgment, where repeating the reasons would be tedious, a conclusion that includes an order without repeating the reasons may be adequate:

(1)  For the reasons above, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court for Barbour County, Alabama, Clayton Division. In addition, defendants will pay all just costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of the improper and groundless removal of this case.

In a judgment of any complexity, however, an ending of this sort misses an opportunity to revisit the argument. A brief review of the analysis, like the one below, can assist the reader.

Conclusion Defendant, Tarwater Tobacco Co, has succeeded in having this case removed from state to federal court on the ground that Tarwater’s local agents were named as co-defendants by the plaintiff as a ruse (“fraudulent joinder”) to obtain a favourable local venue. The standards for removal on the basis fraudulent of joinder are quite high. In this case, Tarwater would have had to prove either that there is no possibility of a verdict against the local defendants, or that the complaint against them was based on false information. Tarwater has met neither standard. There is no evidence of fraudulent information in the joinder. Nor is there any question that a jury would find against Tarwater’s local agents if the facts alleged are proved at trial. For these reasons, we respectfully request the court to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Barbour County, Alabama, Clayton Division, from which it was removed. We also request the court to order that costs and attorney’s fees be assigned to Tarwater. Their failure to provide credible evidence for their claim amounts to a frivolous delaying tactic, taxing the plaintiff with unnecessary costs and taxing the resources of this court.

It may seem paradoxical that a good ending resembles a good beginning (which, in turn, often resembles a good head note). The resemblance is not accidental. Your audience does not necessarily read from top to bottom. If they get lost in an argument, they may flip to the end, hoping to find a synopsis there. They will not be helped by a conclusion that says merely “For the foregoing reasons ...”, sending them right back to the thicket they had just abandoned. An effective conclusion summarises those foregoing reasons in a nutshell, in plain English, without repeating citations and references that are already included in the body. Here is how the Ontario court concluded the case about Professor Starson:

[14] Putting aside any paternalistic instincts — and we think that neither the Board nor the appellants have done so — we conclude that Professor Starson understood, through the screen of his mental illness, all aspects of the decision whether to be treated. He understands the information relevant to that decision and its reasonably foreseeable consequences. He has made a decision that may cost him his freedom and accelerate his illness. Many would agree with the Board that it is a decision that is against his best interests. But for Professor Starson, it is a rational decision, and not one that reflects a lack of capacity. And therefore it is a decision that the statute and s 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms permit him to make. [15] The appeal is dismissed.

Enough said.

Review your draft with a checklist and a friend

Persuade a friend, preferably a non-lawyer with no knowledge of the case, to help you review your draft with the following checklist:

Ask your friend to tell you, after reading only the first page, who did what to whom and what issues need to be settled.

Test the overall structure by asking your friend, after reading only the introduction, to guess what headings will follow. If there is a good match between the introduction and the structure that follows, your friend should be able to guess, in substance, the case-specific headings that separate the analysis of each issue from the others.

Ask your friend to tell you, after reading the last full page, what you decided and what grounds you give for the decision.

Ask your friend to locate the beginning and the end of the analysis of each issue, and to tell you the losing party’s argument and the flaw you found in it.

Check for economy and consistency. If you announced five issues at the outset, be sure that you have analysed five issues. Delete any information that is irrelevant to the issues. Look for repeated information; see if it can be mentioned in one place and omitted in the other.

If your friend doesn’t answer any of these questions to your satisfaction, don’t explain. Revise.

A well-written judgment is as smooth as a grape. There is nothing extra. Once you reduce it to essentials and organise it coherently, you are ready to revise and polish for style.

Recommended reading

B Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Court , OUP, New York, 1999.

J Raymond, “Legal Writing: An Obstruction to Justice” (1978) 30 Alabama Law Review 1.

J Raymond, “Writing to Be Read: or, Why Can’t Lawyers Write Like Katherine Mansfield?”, New Zealand Law Conference: The Law and Politics, Conference Papers, 1993, vol 2, pp 210-216. Reprinted in (1997) 3 TJR 153.

J Raymond and R Goldfarb, Clear Understandings: A Guide to Legal Writing , Random House, New York, 1983.

S Stark, Writing to Win , Doubleday, New York, 1995.

[1] Previously published in (2004) 7 TJR 39, updated 2021.

[2] Professor Emeritus, the University of Alabama, former editor of College English; President, The International Institute for Legal Writing + Reasoning.

[3] Starson v Swayze (unrep, 14 June 2001, Ontario CA).

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• Commercial Courts Act
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

K Rajasekharan

Tips on preparing Written Arguments

A civil case essentially is all about claim of some legal right by one party and the denial of it by the other party, resulting in a judgement by a dispassionate judge functioning as an arbiter or umpire. 

In a criminal case, the prosecution charges the accused guilty of some criminal offence punishable under the penal law and the accused defends the charges, ending up in a judgement of either conviction or acquittal.

What is an argument?

When we think of a system of written arguments it is better for us to have some clarity on what an argument is.

The word "argument" is often used to refer to a heated dispute, a quarrel, or a shouting-match. But the term argument essentially refers to "a set of propositions, or statements, which are designed to convince a reader or listener of a claim, or conclusion, and which include at least one reason (premise) for accepting the conclusion." 

An argument is "a claim or proposition put forward along with reasons or evidence supporting it."  It is "an attempt to support a conclusion by giving reasons for it." 

In short, an argument is a collection of statements. It should have a conclusion the argument attempts to establish. The others in the collection are called the premises, which are supposed to lead to convince that the conclusion is true.

Oral arguments in hearing

Hearing in a court case, in which each party puts forth his arguments, takes place at the last leg of its proceedings.

Normally the plaintiff begins the presentation of his oral arguments in a civil case. However, the defendant has the right to begin the argument if the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff, and contents that the plaintiff himself is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks.

On the day of hearing, the party having the right to begin states his case and produces his evidence in a civil case. The other party states his case and produces his evidence in support of his case.

The party beginning the case may then reply generally on the case. The parties can address oral arguments before the court and submit written arguments with the permission of the court.

In criminal case, the prosecution produces evidence to prove the allegation of crime beyond all reasonable doubt. The defendant’s duty is to disprove what the prosecution charges against him and nothing more.

Submitting written arguments

A party to a case can submit written arguments in support of his case to the court before he concludes his oral arguments, if the court permits. The written arguments thus submitted should form part of the records of the case.  

The Order XVIII Rule 2(3A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) recognizes submission of such written arguments. The provision is in force since 2002. The provision says any party can address oral arguments in a case and before he concludes the oral arguments shall submit the written arguments in support of his case to the court, if the court so permits. The written arguments shall form part of the record.  A copy of the written arguments is to be simultaneously furnished to the other party.

The Section 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) also provides for filing written arguments, before concluding one’s oral arguments, to the court in a criminal proceeding. The Section says a party to a proceeding may after the close of his evidence address concise oral arguments. Before concluding his oral arguments he may submit a memorandum to the court which would form part of the record of the court. A copy of the memorandum shall be simultaneously furnished to the opposite party.  No adjournments shall be granted for the purpose of filing the written arguments unless the court considers it necessary and records it in writing.

A broad outline of written arguments

In general the written arguments, like the oral ones, must include the following essential ingredients:

State the facts : you must state the facts of your case, back and forth, based on the record.

State the law : You must be able to state how you want the court to adopt and apply the law. If you want your client to win, you must state how you want the court to apply it.

State why your client should win : You should state in your arguments why your client should win. You must give some coherent reasons for that. An advocate’s job is to convince the court that your client ought to win, and give the court a legally-permissible route to do that.

State the court what you want it to do : You must be able to state the court what you want it to do. You should convince the court it can do what you want it to do.

Arguments need to be concise and brief

The pattern of written arguments may vary from case to case. But in general the written argument note should set forth concisely and under distinct headings the arguments in support of the case. The note should be brief and concise and should come with distinct heads. It should include in it the list of dates, the admitted facts and the disputed ones.

Submission of argument note is a mechanism to assist the court too. Therefore simply filing a list of connected judgments and attaching Xerox copies of them does in no way assist the Court in its adjudicatory process.

Similarly filing long-winded arguments, without proper structure and arrangement, does no good to the court.

Stress on key points

The key issues to be decided in the case by the court should be duly formulated as questions or propositions. The note should stress on those propositions or issues.

In case the issues have been framed, distinctly reasoned arguments on each issue should be included in the note of arguments.

However two or more closely intertwined issues can be conveniently addressed together, as you can see in some judgements.

Structure of the arguments

On each issue, the fact relating to every issue should be stated in support of every proposition (a statement that affirms or denies something) at first. That means for each proposition, the arguments should start with facts on which proposition or issue is grounded.

Then, the statutes applicable to that particular issue should be cited with excerpts from closely relevant - only relevant - judgements. That should then be followed by citation of closely connected case-laws - both for and against.

The case laws in favour of and against your arguments should be included so as to make the note properly balanced. Otherwise, the note containing one sided arguments cannot be treated as a proper one.

Cite Supreme Court judgements first

The judgements from the Supreme Court must be placed first. Then the judgements from the High Court under which your court comes must be placed next. Finally those judgments from other High Courts must be placed thereafter.

In each group of citations, the judgments are to be arranged in the reverse chronological order (the recent one should come first) so as to make out the precedence easily.

For each important case you want to rely on, a brief resume of the factual scenario in which the judgment was rendered, must be stated and that should be followed by the excerpts of the relevant portions.

The old judgment, which has been cited and reaffirmed in a later judgment, need not be cited. In such a scenario, the later judgement alone needs to be cited. But if the later judgment merely follows the old one and says absolutely nothing new, then the old judgment, which lays down the law and carries the reasoning, should be cited as the first. The later judgment ought to be noted as the one that simply follows or affirms the earlier judgment. In such a citation, the earlier judgment may be excerpted or discussed together with a brief resume of the factual scenario in that case.

After the judgments have been cited or portions excerpted, the ratio-decidendi ( it is the reasoning part based on which the conclusion is arrived at) of the judgment needs to be stated. It is, in fact, the ratio-decidendi , but not just the conclusion (or the obiter dicta ), that forms as the binding precedent.

Include contention of the other party

If the opposite party has raised some contentions, they must be answered in your argument note. Such contentions shall not be left ignored for the court to find an answer. Of course, it is the court’s duty to choose between two contentious points. But the duty of the advocate is to assist the court in finding the law and reasoning.

When all the issues or propositions have been stated, the arguments should be summed up in such a way that the Court can get a fair idea of where the arguments are leading to or rest.

Throughout the written arguments, the reference and page numbers of every document or judgment must be given in such a way that it can be easily referred to for confirmation.

Keep the arguments short

It is always better to keep the arguments so brief. Submitting a long mass of incoherent arguments will not be appreciated. The structuring of the arguments (what comes first and what comes next and so on) is of great importance.

The written argument note in an ordinary case may not normally exceed around five pages so as to be brief and readable. Of course there are exceptions. The copies of the judgments accompanying the written arguments should have relevant portions highlighted for easy use of the court.

The photocopies of the relevant pages of the documents already on case record with relevant portions highlighted should also be attached to the written submissions for easy and convenient referencing by the Court.

If such an approach as stated above is followed, the Court can save its precious time for quality work. Then there should be little possibility for the court to land up in appalling errors in judgement.

Some general tips on how to write

Always keep written arguments simple, plain and effective. It is better not to write like an articulate lawyer. Rather it is always well paying if you try to make the note simple enough in such a way that a stranger could read and understand it. 

Use a style which is clear, concise and focused. Use language that is active, all-inclusive (covering every aspect), and visual (that provides a mental picture) in such a way it gives the readers a vivid picture of the things with colour, context and action.

While writing the arguments think like a judge and then write them for the judge who is going to read and act upon it. Judges are under heavy time pressure due to overwork. So avoid placing hard-to-read materials in the form of argument note before him.

In the argument note you should try to appeal to the judge’s sense of reasonableness and fairness. Please provide enough explanation that could go very well with their perceptions and attitudes. You must anticipate the Court’s concerns in all possible ways and provide some persuasive answers to each one of them. You must start with the strongest point and then move on to the weaker ones down the line.

Use a short overview that tells the court in a nutshell what the case is all about. The overview should contain the point you are trying to make in the case. You need not put all your supporting arguments there.

First find the key theme of your case and stick on to it.  Every case should have a central theme and some sub themes revolving around it. You must find the central theme of your case based on the facts and applicable laws which will create a strong case for you. The theme may have two contrary issues, creating a duality.

While writing imagine as if you are telling someone what your case is about and why they should care. Use a method of disguised story telling along with providing proper reasoning. Such a method will draw the attention of anyone so naturally.

Let a second person have a look over your note. Ideally this should be someone who has a critical mind to cut the clutter and cull out the unnecessary ones from the numerous arguments.

The appearance of the note is important. Remember that the first impression counts. A good-looking document will help its reader get the point quicker and retain it longer. A well-organized, easily-accessible reader-friendly document is persuasive. To sell your idea you must use a tantalising pack of arguments.

You must include a clear and detailed “Table of Contents”. Make headings meaningful. Avoid long paragraphs. Use bullets or other aids to make the document visually easier one to read. Use white spaces in text for making reading still easier.

Avoid writing too much or too little. Find a meaningful balance between both. Avoid using legalese (the term legalese refers to a style that uses the abstruse technical vocabulary of the law). Use ordinary, simple-to-understand language. You must try to think professionally, but still keep conversational and unpretentious style. Avoid acronyms, clichés and verbose fillers as far as possible.

Additional Reading

• Mst. Kiran Chhabra And Anr. v Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain  available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164999544/
• Oral and written arguments in Higher courts ( The Report No 99 of Indian Law Commission) available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report99.pdf
• Written arguments by Prof Anbazhakan in Jayalalitha case is available at  https://www.thehinducentre.com/multimedia/archive/02129/3__Written_Argumen_2129205a.pdf

The author, now practising at Thrissur District Court and can also be reached at [email protected]

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

52793 Views

Category Legal Documents , Other Articles by - K Rajasekharan  

Recent Articles

• Empower Your RJS Dream: A Look at the Best Coaching Options in Jaipur
• Legal Support for Startups in India: A Comprehensive Overview
• Relinquishment Deed
• Courts to Release Seized Vehicles. Futile to Keep Vehicles at Police Stations for Long
• Hidden Realities: A Closer Look At Prostitution In India
• MCQs of the Day
• Streamlining Legal Workflows with Wondershare PDFelement
• Equal Justice For All: Unveiling The Power Of Article 14
• Demat Account Essentials: Your Gateway to Investing!

More »

Popular Articles

• SC Issues Guidelines To Courts For Protection Of Couples
• In Absence Of Proper Identification Parade Being Conducted, Identification For First Time In Court Can't Be said To Be Free From Doubt: SC
• Breaking Barriers: The Evolution Of Equality In Hindu Succession

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,43,916 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

What To Bring To A Summary Judgment Hearing

A party in a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment to request a final decision in their favor without going to trial. Absent a trial, the case turns on what the parties bring to the hearing in the way of evidence and argument. In this post, we will explore tangible and intangible things to bring with you to the summary judgment hearing.

The proper mindset

Don’t avoid moving for summary judgment because you think it’s hard to get. Indeed it is hard to get, but it’s a good thing to have. Done right, it saves you tons of time and money. So if you feel you have a solid chance to win, learn what you need to know and go for it. 

Likewise, upon receiving a motion for summary judgment from your opponent, don’t give up. Neither should you fight without the proper legal know-how or resources to succeed. Lawyers rely on the ignorance of pro se litigants and often file summary judgment motions no matter how weak their cases are, simply to intimidate you. This often works and they win when they shouldn’t. So learn what you need to know about the summary judgment procedure. Then go in for the win.

Knowledge of your case and your opponent’s case 

Get a fair hearing in court.

No one expects a fair outcome when one side has a lawyer but the other side doesn’t. Level the playing field with Courtroom5.

Before the hearing, evaluate your case. This evaluation should help you anticipate the arguments the opposing party may raise and practice questions the judge may ask. It will also strengthen your position. Review the relevant facts, elements (what each party has to prove), legal arguments, and supporting evidence to identify any weaknesses or potential areas of contention. Read How to Find the Strengths and Weaknesses in Your Case to assist in your evaluation.

Compile evidence that supports your motion or opposition. This consists of:

• Evidence collected during discovery, including answers to interrogatories, document requests, requests for admissions, and deposition responses, is the strongest evidence for or against genuine disputes on the facts.
• Affidavits or declarations in support of your motion or opposition. These are written statements made under oath, attesting to certain facts relevant to your case. They must be sworn, come from the affiant’s or the declarant’s personal knowledge of events, and mirror the planned testimony in court were a trial to take place. 
• Expert opinions can provide authoritative and credible perspectives on complex or technical issues. Utilize these resources to provide additional evidence and demonstrate the existence of (or lack of) genuine disputes that would warrant a trial.

Once you’ve collected all your evidence, organize it for easy access during the hearing. This will facilitate a clear and focused presentation. An evidence table is useful for quick viewing, as is a summary of the evidence that concisely presents the key facts and their significance to your arguments.

A well-written argument 

Based on the rules in your jurisdiction, including any local rules, prepare a written motion or response that does the following: 

• Presents a concise clear introduction with an overview of your position and the basic law of summary judgment in your jurisdiction.
• Backs up your arguments with the evidence you’ve gathered. Attach that evidence to your motion or response. 
• States facts you rely on and supports each of those facts with admissible evidence.
• The moving party writes an argument (a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment) that (1) sets out clearly and succinctly those facts that are not in dispute ; (2) outlines the argument for summary judgment; (3) explains that the law is on the moving party’s side and requires a ruling in their favor; (4) provides references to relevant legal authority, such as statutes, case law, or regulations, and (5) provides a compelling analysis of facts that are not in dispute.
• The non-moving party writes a response (a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment) that (1) sets out clearly and succinctly material facts that are in dispute ; (2) points out any gaps in the moving party’s facts or evidence; (3) directly addresses each argument raised in the motion; and (4) provides a compelling analysis of why certain facts are genuinely in dispute and why summary judgment should not be granted.

Knowledge of court rules and procedures

Acquainted yourself with the rules and procedures of the court related to summary judgment. Pay close attention to any time limits and filing requirements. By understanding and following these rules, you will ensure that your presentation proceeds smoothly and is not hampered by procedural errors.

Your best oral argument

Prepare your oral argument and practice, practice, practice. The argument should be an outline of main points. You should also anticipate potential questions or challenges from the judge. Practice responding to those challenges effectively. Consider conducting a mock hearing with friends and family to get feedback and refine your presentation.

• At the hearing, the person filing the motion will present their argument first. They will argue that there are no genuine disputes in the material facts of the case and that they should, as a matter of law, get summary judgment. The written document is the guide. There will be no witness testimony at the hearing. The moving party will rely on evidence from depositions, affidavits, interrogatories, and any other evidence gathered in discovery. 
• The opposing party will then argue against the motion, highlighting facts in dispute. Opposition to the motion should point out gaps in the movant’s evidence or show that the motion is premature.
• After hearing the facts and evidence and asking questions, the judge will decide whether to grant the motion or deny it. The judge may decide the issue at the hearing or consider and write a decision later.

Preparation is the key to success when it comes to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. By carefully evaluating your case, conducting thorough research, and crafting persuasive arguments, you can effectively present your position to the court. Remember to organize your evidence, prepare a well-written brief, and practice your oral argument to ensure a compelling performance. This way, you will be better equipped to navigate this critical phase of the legal process and increase your likelihood of achieving a favorable outcome.

Get the justice you deserve

Don’t Go To Court Without Courtroom5

When you’re in court without a lawyer, you may not even have the right questions, much less the best answers. Let us help you prove your case.

👇 Recommended LLS Courses to Excel in this Opportunity​

Home » Judiciary Corner » A Beginner’s Guide to Judgment Writing for Judiciary Exams 

A Beginner’s Guide to Judgment Writing for Judiciary Exams 

• May 25, 2022
• No Comments

Hey, aspirants! Welcome to Lawctopus’ Judiciary Corner .

There are many aspects to judiciary exams. These include general and legal knowledge, current affairs, law subjects, and English comprehension to name a few.

One such aspect is writing judgments during the Mains examination. But this pattern is not followed in all judiciary exams. Few states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu have prescribed judgment writing.

So buckle up if you are preparing for any of the states mentioned above and learn the tips and tricks for judgment writing for the Mains examination.

Types of Judgment Writing

In the exam, students will come across Civil and Criminal judgment writing.

In Criminal Judgment writing, you frame charges by comprehending the facts presented. On the other hand, Civil judgment writing is about framing of issues. Though both seem easy and identical, the format, law, and writing patterns are different.

Contents of a Judgment

Title of judgment.

A judgment should consist of the following:

• Name of the Court
• Designation of the Judge
• Place of Court

If it is a civil judgment, candidates need to mention Civil Suit No. and Date of Institution. For criminal law answers, candidates must include FIR No., Police Station, date of the institution, etc.

Candidates must have seen that judgments begin with admitted facts. So, the first thing that needs to be done before you directly start writing is to highlight the facts involved in the issue. Write 2-3 paras depending upon the problem.

After mentioning the facts, briefly mention the dispute in case of civil judgment or charges for a criminal matter.

Now it is time to discuss the issues involved. Here the presence of mind of the candidate is needed because wrong identification of issues can go negatively for you. Use your logic and identify the law applicable to frame charges and issues carefully. In case you can’t decide, take some more time and re-read your given facts again.

Evidence and Laws Applicable

Now is the time to mention any Annexures provided in the question paper and laws which will settle the issue or decide the conviction. Citing

Ratio Decidendi

The most crucial step while writing a judgment is reasoning. How and why you reached a conclusion is important. Merely saying because you think so is not good enough.

The reasoning provided by the candidate should be logical and supported by Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The application of mind should be the utmost priority of the candidate.

Candidate, please note that a well-applied judgment will definitely fetch you high marks.

Books & Internet Sources

• Art Of Judgment Writing (Judgment & Dispensation of Justice) by Y P BHAGAT Edition 2020
• Judgments and How to Write Them by S.D. Singh
• JUDGMENT WRITING- By Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula, Andhra Pradesh
• The Art of Writing a Judgment- The Hindu Article

For more articles relating to the art of answer writing, click here.

Join Our Judiciary Corner WhatsApp Group

Get Daily Updates

Join Our Judiciary Corner Telegram Group

Get an Internship

A Fail-proof 6 Step Method

Add a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

🎦 Learn about the Career Opportunities in Law. Register for Mahindra University's Free Webinar

For Advertisements on Lawctopus

• +91 90235 43927
• [email protected]
• Office hours: 11AM - 7PM

For Lawctopus Law School

• +91 80474 94091
• [email protected]

Download our eBook on

Get An Internship

Ultimate Guide to Writing Your College Essay

Tips for writing an effective college essay.

College admissions essays are an important part of your college application and gives you the chance to show colleges and universities your character and experiences. This guide will give you tips to write an effective college essay.

Want free help with your college essay?

UPchieve connects you with knowledgeable and friendly college advisors—online, 24/7, and completely free. Get 1:1 help brainstorming topics, outlining your essay, revising a draft, or editing grammar.

Writing a strong college admissions essay

Learn about the elements of a solid admissions essay.

Avoiding common admissions essay mistakes

Learn some of the most common mistakes made on college essays

Brainstorming tips for your college essay

Stuck on what to write your college essay about? Here are some exercises to help you get started.

How formal should the tone of your college essay be?

Learn how formal your college essay should be and get tips on how to bring out your natural voice.

Taking your college essay to the next level

Hear an admissions expert discuss the appropriate level of depth necessary in your college essay.

Student Stories

Student Story: Admissions essay about a formative experience

Get the perspective of a current college student on how he approached the admissions essay.

Student Story: Admissions essay about personal identity

Get the perspective of a current college student on how she approached the admissions essay.

Student Story: Admissions essay about community impact

Student story: admissions essay about a past mistake, how to write a college application essay, tips for writing an effective application essay, sample college essay 1 with feedback, sample college essay 2 with feedback.

This content is licensed by Khan Academy and is available for free at www.khanacademy.org.

Advertisement

4 Takeaways From the Abortion Pill Arguments

Several justices questioned the remedy of applying nationwide restrictions to mifepristone because it would be the first time a court had second-guessed the F.D.A.’s expert judgment on a drug.

• Share full article

By Pam Belluck

• March 26, 2024

A majority of the Supreme Court seemed inclined on Tuesday to reject a bid to sharply limit access to abortion pills.

During about 90 minutes of argument, most of the justices seemed doubtful that the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, even had standing to bring the challenge . The justices, including several in the conservative majority, questioned whether the plaintiffs could show that they faced the moral harm they claimed to suffer from the availability of the pill, mifepristone.

The case centers on whether changes the Food and Drug Administration made in 2016 and 2021, which broadened access to the drug, would have to be rolled back.

Those changes made it possible for patients to obtain prescriptions for mifepristone by telemedicine and receive abortion pills in the mail, which has greatly increased the availability of medication abortion.

Several justices questioned the remedy the plaintiffs seek: to apply nationwide restrictions to the drug in a case that would have very broad implications because it would be the first time a court had second-guessed the F.D.A.’s expert judgment about drug safety.

“This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump.

Here are some takeaways:

The plaintiffs’ claims of being entitled to sue were met with great skepticism.

To have standing, plaintiffs must show they face concrete harm from the policy or action they are challenging in court. In this case, the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations, say they face moral harm because patients who take abortion pills might seek treatment afterward at emergency departments in hospitals where some of those doctors work.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, arguing for the government, said the plaintiffs did not “come within 100 miles of the kinds of circumstances this court has previously identified” as grounds for standing. She cited the fact that the doctors do not prescribe abortion pills and are not forced to treat women who take abortion pills. More crucially, she pointed to the fact that because serious complications from abortion pills are very rare, these doctors would not often encounter a woman who had experienced a serious complication requiring them to provide treatment.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Erin Hawley, countered by saying the doctors had treated abortion pill patients in emergency departments. She cited the written declarations in the case of Dr. Christina Francis and Dr. Ingrid Skop.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether those doctors had provided examples of “actually participating in the abortion to end the life of the embryo or fetus.” She added, “I don’t read either Skop or Francis to say that they ever participated in that.”

The justices also questioned whether the anti-abortion organizations in the case have standing. Those organizations contend that they experience harm because in order to challenge the abortion pill, they have had to divert resources from other advocacy efforts.

Justice Clarence Thomas seemed skeptical of that claim, saying that having to prioritize how an organization spends its time and money would apply to “anyone who is aggressive or vigilant about bringing lawsuits. Just simply by using resources to advocate their position in court, you say now, causes an injury. That seems easy to manufacture.”

There was a lot of discussion about conscience protections.

Federal conscience protections allow doctors and other health care providers to opt out of providing care that they object to on moral or religious grounds. In many hospitals, doctors register their conscience objections in advance so they are never called upon to participate in care they object to.

Lawyers for the government and for a manufacturer of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, said that if the anti-abortion doctors did encounter an abortion patient, they could easily invoke conscience protections and pass the case to another doctor who did not have moral objections. The plaintiffs are “individuals who do not use this product, do not prescribe this product and have a conscience right not to treat anyone who has taken this product,” said Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer representing Danco.

Ms. Hawley said there were sometimes occasions in emergency departments where the plaintiffs would not have time to opt out, forcing them to “choose between helping a woman with a life-threatening condition and violating their conscience.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there was “a mismatch” between what the anti-abortion doctors are claiming they have experienced and the remedy they are seeking. “The obvious common-sense remedy would be to provide them with an exemption, that they don’t have to participate in this procedure,” Justice Jackson said.

Noting that such a remedy already exists in the form of conscience protections, she said: “I guess, then, what they’re asking for in this lawsuit is more than that. They’re saying, ‘Because we object to having to be forced to participate in this procedure, we’re seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all. ”

Justice Barrett asked about the plaintiffs’ claim that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires emergency departments in hospitals to treat patients with urgent medical issues, would override doctors’ conscience objections and force them to treat patients who have taken abortion pills anyway. Ms. Prelogar said that would not happen because EMTALA applies to hospitals, not individual doctors, so doctors with moral objections could opt out.

The case could affect the government’s role in regulating drugs — and possibly in regulating anything.

Many experts on regulatory policy and leaders in the pharmaceutical industry have said that if the court decides to undermine the scientific expertise of the F.D.A. , it would deter companies from developing new medications and would ultimately hurt patients who would not have those medications available. They say it could also shake the regulatory authority of other government agencies.

Several justices asked about this issue. “Do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?” Justice Jackson asked Ms. Ellsworth, the lawyer for the manufacturer. Ms. Ellsworth said that was a concern, noting that two studies the plaintiffs had cited to show mifepristone was unsafe had been recently retracted .

“That is why FDA has many hundreds of pages of analysis in the record of what the scientific data showed,” Ms. Ellsworth said. “And courts are just not in a position to parse through and second-guess that.

A 19th-century anti-vice law made an appearance.

The Comstock Act, enacted in 1873, bars the mailing of drugs that can be used to terminate pregnancies.

Justices Alito and Thomas asked whether the act, which has not been used in decades and has been narrowed by the courts and Congress, applied, as the plaintiffs claim.

“The Comstock provisions don’t fall within F.D.A.’s lane,” said Ms. Prelogar, who said that the F.D.A.’s responsibility was to determine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and to regulate them. She also pointed out that the Justice Department issued an opinion that the Comstock Act applied only if the sender intended for the recipient of the materials to “use them unlawfully.”

Ms. Ellsworth warned of what might ensue should the court decide the act applied. “I think this court should think hard about the mischief it would invite if it allowed agencies to start taking action based on statutory responsibilities that Congress has assigned to other agencies,” she said.

Pam Belluck is a health and science reporter, covering a range of subjects, including reproductive health, long Covid, brain science, neurological disorders, mental health and genetics. More about Pam Belluck

"I would have given them an F": Professor says Trump lawyers would fail his constitutional law class

Trump team's supreme court brief on criminal immunity gets low marks, by wayne unger.

This article was originally published on The Conversation .

Former President Donald Trump claims that the president of the United States is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

On March 19, 2024, Trump filed his brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith for Trump’s alleged criminal attempts to overturn the 2020 election .

Trump argued in the brief that the Supreme Court must dismiss the criminal indictment against him because his alleged conduct constituted official acts by a president and that presidents must be afforded absolute immunity for their official acts.

To support his contention, Trump cites Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers , and other writings from legal scholars. Trump argues that these documents show presidents hold absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

But as a constitutional law scholar, I know that those writings, in fact, say the opposite. They say U.S. presidents are not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

If a student of mine had submitted a brief making the arguments that Trump and his lawyers assert in their Supreme Court filing, I would have given them an F.

Sitting in judgment

It is standard practice for a person involved in a lawsuit and their lawyers to quote past cases and other legal writing to support their arguments.

It is also common for litigants to quote the Supreme Court justices themselves – either from their past opinions or other writings, such as law review articles – to advance their arguments.

But it is not standard practice to characterize those cases and documents as saying one thing when they say the complete opposite.

Trump begins by citing Marbury v. Madison from 1803, which is one of the court’s most consequential cases. He argues that Marbury v. Madison said that a president’s official acts “ can never be examinable by the courts .”

But Trump ignores the paragraph that immediately follows that passage in the Marbury opinion, which states that when Congress “proceeds to impose” legal duties or directs the president to “perform certain acts,” the president “is so far the officer of the law (and) is amenable to the law for his conduct.” In other words, when Congress enacts a law, the president must follow it.

Trump also argues that, according to the Constitution, “federal courts cannot sit in judgment directly over the President’s official acts.”

This assertion is contrary to scores of cases where federal courts have reviewed presidential acts. While the federal courts have generally refused to direct the president to perform a specific task, federal courts regularly determine whether a president’s actions are legally permissible.

Take Biden v. Nebraska . President Joe Biden sought to cancel more than $400 billion in federal student loans. Biden argued that he had the authority to do so under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act passed by Congress in 2003 – known as the HEROES Act . That act grants the secretary of education the authority to “waive or modify” student loan programs during national emergencies.

Several conservative-leaning states challenged the loan forgiveness, and the Supreme Court concluded that Biden did not have the legal authority to cancel the federal student loans under the HEROES Act because the plan was not a “waiver” or “modification.” Here, as they did in countless other cases, the federal courts sat “in judgment directly over the President’s official acts.”

Citing Kavanaugh

But the main legal question remains – whether a president holds, as Trump claims, absolute immunity from criminal investigations and prosecutions for a president’s official acts.

From a policy perspective, Trump claims that “functional considerations” warrant the absolute immunity that he seeks because if a president is subject to criminal liability, that legal exposure “will cripple … Presidential decisionmaking.”

Donald Trump speaks at the Save America March rally on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

To further this claim, Trump relies on a 2009 law review article by Judge Brett Kavanaugh , then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who now sits on the Supreme Court. Trump quotes Kavanaugh, who wrote that “a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President,” which Trump provides as evidence of support for the position that a president requires absolute immunity.

But even a cursory reading of Kavanaugh’s article reveals that Kavanaugh argued only for a deferral of a criminal prosecution until after a president leaves office.

As Kavanaugh states, “The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.”

Simply put, the underlying premise of Kavanaugh’s article is that a president can be held criminally liable for his conduct.

Civil cases vs. criminal cases

It is true, however, that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for their official acts. That issue was settled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald .

In that case, A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Air Force. According to Fitzgerald, he was terminated in retaliation for his testimony before Congress about cost overruns of $2 billion on a transport plane project.

After tapes emerged in which then-President Richard Nixon was heard ordering that Fitzgerald be fired , Fitzgerald sued Nixon for retaliatory termination. The Supreme Court concluded that a president enjoys absolute immunity for his acts “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”

Nixon v. Fitzgerald is a civil case. Trump urges the court to extend the presidential immunity established in this civil case to criminal matters. But he overlooks the fundamental difference between the civil justice system and the criminal justice system.

Wayne Unger , Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

Watch CBS News

Supreme Court seems poised to reject abortion pill challenge after arguments over FDA actions

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: March 26, 2024 / 8:06 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to side with the Food and Drug Administration in a  case involving a commonly used abortion pill and recent agency actions that made the medication easier to obtain, as the justices raised questions about whether a group of doctors challenging the moves demonstrated they had the proper basis to sue in federal court.

At the center of the legal battle is the pill mifepristone, which is taken along with another drug to terminate an early pregnancy. Approved by the FDA in 2000, more than 5 million patients have taken mifepristone, according to the agency, and studies cited in court filings have shown it is safe and effective.

In 2016 and 2021, the FDA took steps to make mifepristone more accessible, including allowing it to be taken later into a pregnancy and delivered through the mail without an in-person doctor's visit. A group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations challenged those changes, claiming the FDA violated the law.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing a decision from a federal appeals court  that found the agency's actions were unlawful. A ruling in the case, known as FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, that unwinds those changes would threaten to curtail access to mifepristone nationwide, even in states with laws protecting abortion access.

Oral arguments

Rolling back the FDA's actions would "inflict grave harm on women across the nation," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court. She reiterated that the ruling from the lower court marks the first time any court has restricted access to a FDA-approved drug by second-guessing its judgment about the conditions required to ensure its safety. 

The justices focused most of their questions on whether the doctors who filed the lawsuit against the FDA had shown that they may be injured by its actions, and whether those alleged injuries could be traced to the FDA's easing of the rules. If the court decides that the doctors do not have legal standing to sue, it could order the case dismissed without deciding whether the FDA acted lawfully when it relaxed the requirements for obtaining mifepristone.

In one exchange with Erin Hawley, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the medical associations and doctors, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there is an "infinitesimally small" chance that a pregnant woman who may need medical attention after taking mifepristone would end up in a hospital where one of the member physicians is working.

Hawley pointed the justices to declarations from two doctors, filed in an earlier stage in the case, that she said showed they had been complicit in terminating a pregnancy for a patient who experienced complications from a medication abortion. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back, and said it didn't appear that either doctor actually participated in the procedure.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Hawley to point the court to one individual who could show they would be harmed by the FDA's rules for mifepristone.

"You need a person to be able to come in and meet the court's regular standing requirements," she said. "Who is your person?"

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they struggled with the reach of a decision that would roll back the FDA's 2016 and 2021 changes nationwide. Jackson said there is a "significant mismatch" between the injury claimed by the doctors and the remedy they sought — a nationwide order blocking the FDA's latest actions.

"They're saying because we object to having to be forced to participate in this procedure, we're seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all," she said.

Gorsuch echoed Jackson's point, observing that there recently have been a "rash of universal injunctions."

"This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide, legislative assembly on an FDA rule," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why the courts couldn't provide narrow relief that applied only to the doctors involved in the lawsuit, as opposed to targeting the FDA more broadly.

Access to mifepristone has remained unchanged while legal proceedings in the case have continued, since the high court issued an order last April preserving its availability . That relief will remain in place until the Supreme Court hands down its decision, expected by the end of June.

Arguments in the case are took place less than two years after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 to unwind the constitutional right to abortion and return the issue to the states. It also comes on the heels of new findings that medication abortions in the U.S. have risen since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A study published Monday in the medical journal JAMA found that the number of self-managed abortions obtained using pills grew in the six months after the high court reversed Roe. Research from the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that supports abortion rights, published last week showed that medication abortions accounted for 63% of all abortions that took place within the U.S. health care system in 2023, up from 53% in 2020.

The dispute over mifepristone

The challenge to the FDA's efforts surrounding mifepristone was filed in November 2022 — more than two decades after the drug was made available in the U.S. — by a group of medical associations that oppose abortion rights. Brought in federal district court in Texas, the groups, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, challenged the FDA's initial 2000 approval and its more recent changes in 2016 and 2021.

As part of those actions, the FDA allowed mifepristone to be taken up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, instead of seven weeks, reduced the number of in-person visits required from three to one, allowed more health care providers to prescribe the drug and lifted a requirement that it be prescribed in-person.

The organizations claimed the FDA did not have the authority to approve mifepristone for sale and failed to adequately consider the drug's safety and effectiveness.

The federal judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, agreed that the FDA's 2000 approval and subsequent actions were likely unlawful. He blocked the FDA's initial action allowing the drug to be sold in the U.S.

But Kacsmaryk put his ruling on hold, and a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court intervened. The high court ultimately  maintained access to mifepristone while legal proceedings continued. 

Months later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the FDA's 2000 approval of the abortion pill, but said the agency violated the law with its more recent changes. The appeals court's decision, though, is preempted by the Supreme Court's earlier April 2023 order protecting access.

The Justice Department and Danco Laboratories — the maker of Mifeprex, the brand-name version of mifepristone — asked the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit's ruling, and it agreed to do so in December. 

The legal issues in the case

In asking the justices to reverse the appeals court's decision, the Biden administration has argued that the medical associations and their physician members do not have legal right to sue. The doctors do not prescribe the drug and haven't identified a single case where a member has been forced to complete an abortion for a woman who shows up at an emergency room with an ongoing pregnancy, Prelogar said.

"They stand at a far distance from the upstream regulatory action they're challenging," she said of the anti-abortion rights physicians, and argued the theories they raise are "too attenuated as a matter of law — the court should say so and put an end to this case." 

Many of the questions the justices asked Prelogar focused on the question of standing. "Shouldn't somebody be able to challenge that in court? Who? Who would have standing to bring that suit?" asked Justice Samuel Alito, who posed the hardest questions to Prelogar and a lawyer for Danco.

He claimed that the argument advanced by the Biden administration indicates that even if the FDA violated the law, nobody has the proper basis to sue.

"There's no remedy, the American people have no remedy for that," said Alito, who authored the Supreme Court's majority opinion overturning Roe and appeared the most sympathetic to the doctors' theories.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to confirm that under federal law, doctors cannot be forced to violate their conscience to perform or assist in an abortion. Prelogar said federal conscience protections, which would allow the doctors to opt out of providing care they morally object to, give broad coverage to doctors in that circumstance.

But Hawley argued that their members object not only to abortion, but also to "being complicit in the process that takes an unborn life."

She told the court that the FDA failed to comply with the basic requirements of federal law when making mifepristone more easily accessible, and failed to consider or explain the cumulative effects of the its more recent actions.

Justice Clarence Thomas raised the Comstock Act, an obscure, 150-year-old law that prohibits the mailing of any drug that can be used for abortions.

The anti-abortion rights doctors claimed that the law prohibited the FDA from lifting the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, but the 5th Circuit did not reach that argument. The Justice Department told the Supreme Court in filings that it should not either, and its Office of Legal Counsel said in December 2022 that the law does not prohibit the mailing of mifepristone and misoprostol, the second drug taken in a medication abortion.

The ripple effects of a decision

If the justices do reach the legal issues raised in the case, the Justice Department and Danco have urged the court to find that the FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions were lawful.

The agency relied on a "voluminous body of medical evidence" on mifepristone's use over decades when it determined that the 2016 changes would be safe, Prelogar wrote in a filing to the court. In any event, the district court was wrong to second-guess the determinations that Congress empowered the FDA to make, she said.

"To the government's knowledge, this case marks the first time any court has restricted access to an FDA-approved drug by second-guessing FDA's expert judgment about the conditions required to assure that drug's safe use," Prelogar wrote.

Pharmaceutical companies and former heads of the FDA have warned the court that a decision upholding the 5th Circuit threatens to undermine the agency's drug-approval process and could lead to persistent legal challenges of its approval decisions.

The lower court's approach, if left intact, "would allow courts to substitute their lay analysis for FDA's scientific expertise and to overturn the agency's approval and conditions of use for drugs — even after they have been on the market for decades," a group of former commissioners and acting commissioners told the court in a brief. 

"The resulting uncertainty would threaten the incentives for drug companies to undertake the time-consuming and costly investment required to develop new drugs and ultimately hinder patients' access to critical remedies that prevent suffering and save lives," they said.

A slew of pharmaceutical companies and executives separately stressed the importance of drug companies being able to rely on the courts to respect the FDA's scientific judgements.

"If a court can overturn those judgments many years later through a process devoid of scientific rigor, the resulting uncertainty will create intolerable risks and undermine the incentives for investment regardless of the drug at issue," they said in a brief . "This, in turn, will ultimately hurt patients."

But lawyers for the medical associations and their members that oppose abortion rights argued that the FDA failed to give a "satisfactory explanation" for its decision to lift the in-person dispensing requirement and called the studies the agency relied on "deeply problematic."

Withdrawing the in-person visit requirement in 2021 eliminated the opportunity for health care workers to screen for ectopic pregnancies and other conditions, the associations argued. In 2016, the FDA removed "interrelated safeguards without studies" that examined the changes as a whole, they continued.

The group Americans United for Life, which is backing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, claimed that the FDA has promoted access to abortion pills without medical supervision, which have increased health and safety risks to women and interfered with their care.

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Florida man sentenced for threatening to murder Supreme Court justice

Arizona organizers say abortion ballot measure qualifies to be on ballot

Biden speaks with China's Xi in first call since November meeting

Trump barred from attacks on judge's daughter in New York case gag order