8.1 Argumentation

​

If you want to convince others of your point of view, you formulate an (academic) argumentation. An argumentation is the defence of a premise by means of argumentations. A point of view is an statement that is under debate. You provide argumentations to substantiate the validity and desirability of your claims, with the aim of convincing others. An argumentation consists at least of a point of view, an argument and a conntecting statement, but can be more extensive. In an argumentation, a linear reasoning is set out, in which the argumentation is presented step by step.

​

The following text on argumentation is based in part on Koetsenruijter, Willem and Pauline Slot. Hoe schrijf ik een betoog. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers, 2013.

​

 

Academic research and academic argumentations

An academic research can be considered as an argumentation that contributes to a scientific discussion. An academic argumentation is aimed at the development of the discipline and includes:

• an introduction with reason, objective, importance, history of the research/debate, theoretical framework

• academic reasoning and academic language

• conclusion

• notes and bibliography according to the specified style sheet

 

You can recognize elements of academic research with academic argumentations as follows:

 

                               Academic research                                                Academic argumentation

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose                answer question/solve problem                            convince

​

Content                answering the research question                          argumentation of the statement

​

Structure              based on research question and sub-question    based on argumentations

​

Conclusion           answer to research question                                  newly formulated position

 

​

Your thesis is expected to consist of both thorough research and a well-structured argumentation. How can this be accomplished?

• The thesis contains both explanatory text parts and argumentative text parts. Explanatory text parts are for example the theoretical framework or a literature review. In these text parts, nothing new is argued as matters that are not under discussion are explained. In argumentative parts of the text you defend statements.

• You start with (preliminary) research and write a research proposal. By means of your choice of case studies, the theoretical framework and the research method, you position yourself in the research field. In the Introduction you argue , on the basis of argumentations, why you consider these choices to be the best.

• The argumentation is in fact your defence of a point of view by means of the most important argumentations that have emerged from the sub-study in the chapters. The argumentative characteristics of the chapters lies in that a linear reasoning is set out, in which the argumentation (your sub-study) is presented step by step.

• The conclusion presents the result: the answer to the main question and/or the new position formulated afterwards. Your thesis will be assessed on both the quality of the research and the transparent structure of the argumentation.

 

Dialectic

A academic argumentation is dialectical in nature. Such an argumentation concerns the discussion in which sound argumentations are decisive. At the end of a verbal discussion, the parties ideally convinced each other on substantive grounds and are thus in agreement. In a written argumentation, the peer reviewer assesses how convincing the argumentation is. This form of argumentation, or better yet dialogue, develops our thinking step by step. An argumentation is then a move in an academic debate.

 

Premise

A premise is the start of an argumentation or debate. In an academic research, as explained above, a point of view or position is often the result of a substantiated written argumentation.

A good position:

• is not too general

• is not too far reaching

 

Generalities are often vague and therefore difficult to substantiate with argumentations. Moreover, they are usually not that interesting. Therefore, you must formulate your position precisely.

​

If the scope of a position is very broad, the burden of proof becomes too great. Only one exception needs to be found to undermine the position. If you say that all Dutch people believe something, then only one Dutch person needs to be found who believes otherwise and the position is refuted. A good position is therefore limited in such a way that it can be properly substantiated or is substantiated with argumentations. Instead, you could say that most Dutch people believe something.

 

The argumentation theory also recognizes the following types of positions:

• factual: they concern matters that can, in principle, be objectively determined

• evaluative: they concern subjective judgements

• leading: they advocate a certain action

These positions are widely used in everyday life but are not taken into account here.

 

​

Argumentation Scheme

An argumentation or reasoning consists of three parts:

• premise

• explicit argumentation

• argumentative connectors, often implicit, also called "concealed argumentations".

 

There are five kinds of argumentative connectors:

• property

• comparison

• cause

• factually observable effect

• desired or undesired effect

 

When you assess your own reasoning or that of someone else, not only look at the explicit argumentation but also look for the argumentative connectors and see if it can pass critical assessment. The concealed argumentation is often a general statement that is valid in many cases, but which offers no guarantees. Only if both argumentations are sound, the premise is properly substantiated.

 

You will find the argumentative connector by using an argumentation scheme:

1. define premise and argumentation

2. place argumentation and premise in the following sentence: "if (argumentation), then (premise)"

3. generalize this sentence and you have found the concealed argumentation.

 

Each of the five argumentative connectors has its own argumentation scheme, derived from step 2. Step 2 then becomes:

• (argumentation) is a property of (premise)

• what applies to (argumentation) is comparable to what applies to (premise)

• if (argumentation), then that leads to (premise)

• if (argumentation/effect), then (premise/cause)

• if (argumentation) is the (un)desired effect, then (premise)

 

If one argumentation is used, we speak of a simple argumentation.

 

​

Argumentation structure

Usually one argumentation is not enough or an argumentation requires further strengthening. We then speak of a complex argumentation.

 

Argumentations that support other argumentations are subordinate. Together they form a chain. These subordinate argumentations are placed vertically under the argumentation they support. Each subordinate argumentation has a concealed argumentation that must be able to pass critical assessment.

Schematic:

​

      Premise

↑

Argumentation 1

↑

Argumentation 1.1

 

 

If you need multiple argumentations, then the relationship between the argumentations is horizontal. All main argumentations have the same function and hierarchy: they support the premise. This is called complex argumentation.

Schematic:

 

    Premise

↑                            ↑                             ↑

    Argumentation 1        Argumentation 2      Argumentation 3

 

Each of the main argumentations can be supported by subordinate argumentations.

 

A special form of multiple argumentation is the corresponding conditional: this is the case when two (or more) argumentations are inextricably linked. Two partial argumentations together form an argumentation and only together do they support the position. They are only sound in combination as they depend on each other.

Schematic:

​

    Premise

          ↑

Argumentation 1.a     —↑—      Argumentation 1.b

 

The schematic representation of a complex argumentation is an argumentation structure. For your argumentation, you can expand these structures and combine them into one composite structure, so that you keep an overview of the entire argumentation. Put arrows in the scheme to show the relationships between the argumentations. Check whether the order of argumentations in your argumentation structure is correct by using the Because/Therefore Test: you must be able to replace an upward arrow (from argumentation to premise) with 'therefore' and you must be able to replace a downward arrow (from premise to argumentation) with 'because'. An organizational structure forces you to make the connections explicit and to organize them logically. You can write out an argumentation structure on paper, but software is also available to create beautiful argumentation structures.

 

One more remark about the 'concealed' argumentation: this argumentative conditional is generally not included in the argumentation structure. Only if you want to support a concealed argumentation, it is necessary to do that.

 

​

Argumentations

Finding argumentations

There are several different ways to find argumentations: by studying sources, by searching the internet, by consulting experts or making a mind map.

​

You could also consider the five types of argumentation: property, comparison, cause, factually observable effect and (un)desired effect. Perhaps you could add another type of argumentation to the argumentations you already have.

​

You can combine the aforementioned ways to find argumentations with the argumentation structures: first, you try to gather as many ideas as possible (diverge) and then, you cluster those ideas into logically coherent chunks using argumentation structures (converge). See Year 2, Creativity. 

 

Selecting argumentations

You have now collected and organized a lot of argumentations. Now you need to make a selection because a text is not always convincing if you include every single argumentation. Some rules of thumb are:

• Use a limited number of your strongest argumentations that best support your argumentation. In general, conciseness is important, so keep it clear. This applies to both the horizontal and vertical argumentations. 

• Choose those argumentations that best suit the setting in which you are writing: with a scope focused on the premise that you want to support and that fits your intended audience.

 

Counterargument

Be aware of counterarguments. You can prepare for objections to your argumentation by anticipating the possible counterarguments. For instance, you can do this by contrasting different views and making clear why you have or haven't chosen certain views for your research.

Successfully refuting the argumentations of others does not relieve you of the burden of proof, that is, to prove that your own premise is correct.

If objections can be made against your argumentations, it does not mean that you are incorrect: that is determined by the totality of your argumentation versus that of the other.

 

 

Writing the argumentation

You now have the framework of your argumentation. Now you have to actually write the text. In principle, the same requirements apply to an academic argument as to any other academic text. Various topics have been discussed on this website (Year 1 Argumentation, Year 2 Structure of the Argument, Year 2, Academic Writing, Year 2 Literature in Argumentation).

 

In addition, specifically for an academic argumentation, the following tips:

• place your premise or standpoint in the literal sense of your position in the research field in the introduction and repeat it in the conclusion

• give main argumentations their own chapter or paragraph, depending on the length and/or complexity of your argumentation

• treat sub-argumentations in the order in which they appear in the argumentation structure

• use verbal 'signposts' or indicators for premises (for example, "I believe that ...") and argumentation (for example, "that is clear from ..." for sub-argumentations and, for example, "First, second, last ..." for complex argumentation). Other than "and" there are no good coordinating signposts. You can place the corresponding conditionals together in one paragraph and, for example, explicitly state that "these two phenomena together make that ...". See Tips for English. 

• make sure that neutral information and argumentation are clearly separated and marked as being either information or argumentation. Clearly define the function of the informative part.

 

Finally: In English, an argument often means a reasoning or an argumentation. An argumentation that you derive from empirical research is often called evidence.

 

Fallacies

Fallacies are rhetorical techniques or 'tricks' that are used in rhetorical argumentations. These are argumentations aimed at 'winning', not at resolving differences of opinion or advancing a discussion. A lot has been written about these tricks. However, they do not belong in the discussion of a dialectic academic argumentation. That is why fallacies are not further discussed on this website.

​

​

8.2 Revising First Draft

 

After you have received feedback on the first version of your final paper, you will need to process it. While doing so, pay close attention to the aspects mentioned below.

​

Revision vs editing vs correction

Be aware that text revision, editing and correction are three different activities. Every activity takes place at a different phase of the writing process:

​

• revision: content & structure 

• editing: writing style, tone, sentence structure

• correction: spelling errors, grammatical errors, poor punctuation
 

TIP: Start with the revision of content and structure. First make a list of structural recommendations. Only when this is done, you begin editing. Wait with the text correction until the final phase, just before submitting texts. 

​​

To begin:

• Is your text finished? Sleep on it 

• Put yourself in the reader's position 

• Make a printout

 

The processing of the feedback on your first draft is included in your planning. Depending on the extent of the required improvements, it can be useful to create a separate planning for revising the first draft.

​

​

Revision

What will you tackle?

 

1. Research question/research problem

A weak thesis repeats a general opinion or claims something that cannot be investigated.

 

2. Content.

• Have all relevant concepts been explained?

• Are the facts correct?

• Are your argumentations substantiated?

• Is there enough detail? Are there enough examples? 

• Refuting counterarguments

 

If you have too much material or are over the word count you will have to delete or move parts of the text.

You can do that:

On a small scale by moving parts to a note, provided that this does not disturb the argumentation or flow of the text. Note: a text must be comprehensible and complete even without reading the notes.

 

On a larger scale by creating an appendix with the interesting material. The same applies to appendices as to notes: the line of reasoning must be complete even if the reader skips the appendices and notes.

​

On an even larger scale by stating in the introduction what you had to delete due to the scope of the project.

 

To be able to sort your material, you need to know what is most important. So ask yourself: what are the most important characteristics of my research? All examples, case studies, quotes, factual information, etc. that you include in your text, must contribute to the most important characteristics of your research.

 

3. Structure.

Strategies to improve structure are:

• Reverse outline: this is a way to make the structure visible afterwards. See Year 2, Structure of the argument. 

You do this by:

a) summarizing each paragraph in a keyword or a short sentence,

b) writing down these key phrases as a table of contents (outline),

c) checking whether it forms a logical whole and whether it corresponds to the structure plan and/or the argumentation structure.

• Explaining verbally: find a friend or writing tutor, explain your premise with argumentation or research question with answers verbally, write down how you explain them, note the questions asked and compare with your text plan.

TIP: record the conversation.

 

4. Text cohesion

• Make connections between paragraphs clearer with signal and reference words.

TIP: Avoid using the same signal words over and over, use synonyms ("In addition", "Also" ...). 

• Rearrange paragraphs to make relationships clearer 

TIP: Read your text aloud. You will hear what parts do not flow well.
 

​

Editing and correction

See, Year 1, Author Guidelines

See Year 1, Tips for English

See Year 2, Writing Style.