Problem-Solution & Con-Pro papers

What They Are These two persuasive structures cover about 80% of the persuasive paper writing you have to do in college. Both are designed to address a critical issue – generally a real-world problem – with a definitive, concrete stance on what must be done about it.

The Similarities Standard structure of 7 paragraphs (not a necessity, but learning it this way helps master the concept) Both are resolution-based, not just explaining something that’s bad

The Differences Problem-Solution identifies aspects of something that is categorically bad – think pathos-based things – and then explains how to solve it. Con-Pro addresses something that has multiple perspectives and proves why one is correct.

Wha? Gun Violence in America is a problem. No rational person supports gun violence. Increased gun control is an issue. Rational people have wildly varying views on whether increased gun control is positive. Drug addiction = problem / Drug prohibition = issue Violating privacy = problem / NSA monitoring of online activity = issue Increasing stress issues among teens = problem / Pressure to take multiple high-intensity courses in HS = issue

When would I use one over the other? Generally… Problem-Solution:  Something that is categorically bad (human trafficking, identity theft)  Something so complex it is not generally understood by the anticipated audience (genetic profiling, nanotechnology) Con-Pro:  Something that clearly has multiple rational perspectives (net neutrality, forbidding felons to vote)  Something familiar enough that excessive background isn’t needed (death penalty, standardized testing)

Structure: Problem-Solution Intro Body paragraphs 1-3: examining aspects of the central problem  Possibilities: Source of the problem, varied impacts of the problem; what’s keeping the problem from being solved; future implications of not solving the problem Body paragraph 4-5: Exploring concrete solutions  Possibilities: Things that have worked in similar situations; solutions proposed by experts in the area; solutions on an individual level; solutions on a collective level Conclusion

Structure: Con-Pro Intro Body Paragraphs 1-2: Establishing the two strongest claims against your thesis, and why these assertions are invalid  There is no evidence supporting the “con” assertion, you simply present it, counter it, then use the sub-claims to prove why it’s wrong Body Paragraphs 3-5: The strongest assertions why your thesis is right  Just because the other side is wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. You still have to prove it. Conclusion

Example Structure “Con” assertion: Proponents of the death penalty argue that it is necessary to control crime.  Rebuttal: However, the evidence has shown repeatedly that implementation has no positive impact on crime reduction.  Sub-claim 1: There have been almost no cases in which the enactment of the death penalty resulted in lower rates of severe crime  Sub-claim 2: Studies have shown repeatedly that the threat of execution has no impact on criminal behavior, particularly “impulse crimes.”

Danger Zones! Problem-Solution:  Not establishing the full impacts of the problem  Focusing on minor elements of the problem  Vague solutions (“raise awareness” is never, ever, ever one of your solutions), or solutions you make up yourself, and therefore can’t support with evidence. Con-Pro:  Being unclear that the “con” arguments are against your thesis, and not clearly proving they’re wrong  Using weak “con” arguments to make it easier to rebut, but then failing to establish a strong paper  Not having “pro” arguments that are distinctive from the “con” rebuttals

Let’s Practice… As worded, which should these be and why? The US should discontinue the embargo of North Korea Schools should switch to a year-round schedule Credit Default Swaps should be illegal

And these? Increasing water shortages need to be addressed nationally, and globally The world’s increasing population must be gotten under control

Which are these, and how could you re-word them to fit the other format? Ownership of handguns by citizens should be illegal Medical testing on animals is immoral