The structure of argument

What we do when we discuss 1. Propose 2. Support 3. Build 4. Question 5. Refute

The cycle in writing and speaking You can use the argument cycle as a guide to structuring persuasive or discursive writing. Often, learners adopt a 'one point for, one point against' approach, with no linkage between the different sections of the argument. This can make the essay or speech seem disjointed and random. The cycle demands that you develop your argument in a sophisticated way.

Looting with the lights on Read 'Looting with the Lights on' by Naomi Klein (The Guardian, 1/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off ). 1/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off Look at how the writer structures her arguments. Can you see a cycle in the article?

Looting with the lights on by Naomi Klein Proposition: The English riots weren't political like other riots Re-proposition: The English riots were political, just like other riots. In Iraq, people looted because they had no respect for the dictatorship: England isn't a dictatorship. In Argentina, people looted because the rich had stolen the country's assets and the poor people paid the price. Britain is not like that. But in Britain, bankers were given lots of money after ruining the economy, and the public suffer because of cutbacks and recession. So as in other countries, the poor riot and loot because they see the rich taking more than they deserve, and the government then has to clamp down on the poor because of their civil disobedience.

Conclusion - Re-proposing When you have been through the cycle, you may come to a conclusion that re-proposes the original idea in a different form or in a way that takes into account the problems you noted/discovered. Alternatively, the cycle may bring you to the conclusion that the original idea was mistaken or even that the opposite of the original idea is true. It is perfectly acceptable to have changed your own mind as you’ve researched and written about your topic.

Author's intention Naomi Klein does not work out her ideas as she is writing: she knows before she starts writing that she wants to come to the conclusion that the riots in England were politically motivated. Why does she then start off apparently agreeing with the alternative point of view?