1. Constructing Reasonable Arguments
Writing for an Academic Audience.

2. Hosted by English Writing Center www.uta.edu/owl
A Division of the Department of English
Sponsored by the College of Liberal Arts

3. Reasonable Arguments
Reasonable people disagree on many things, including scholarly issues.
When you construct a reasonable argument, your goal is not simply to win or have the last word—it is to explain your understanding of the subject or to propose the best solution to a problem, without being needlessly combative.

4. Chair Theory of Arguing
Imagine that your reader is sitting in a room full of chairs, each chair representing an argumentative position. He/she is sitting in a chair on the opposite side of the room from you.
Your goal as an arguer is to convince him/her to get out of his/her chair and move to the chair next to you.

5. Would this person come closer if you say “You’re an idiot for sitting in that chair….” or “you’re an evil person for sitting in that chair”?
Would he/she come closer if you coldly and impersonally list several strictly logical reasons why he/she shouldn’t be in that chair? Or would he/she fall asleep?

6. Academic Writing in the U.S.
Academic audiences in the United States will expect your writing to be assertive and confident, neither aggressive or passive.
You can create an assertive tone by acknowledging different positions, fairly, and supporting your ideas with specific evidence.

7. Being Appropriately Assertive
Too Aggressive: Of course only registered organ donors should be eligible for organ transplants. It’s selfish and shortsighted to think otherwise.
Too Passive: I might be wrong, but I think that many people should have to register as organ donors if they want to be considered for a transplant.
Assertive: If only registered organ donors are eligible for transplants, more people will register as donors.

8. Examining Contexts
Arguments appear in both social and intellectual contexts.
Public policy debates arise in social contexts and also have intellectual dimensions that address scientific and theoretical questions.
For example, off-shore drilling is considered in social contexts due to rising oil costs and the threat of terrorism and in intellectual contexts is debated by geologists, oceanographers, and economists.

9. Audience Expectations
Since most of your readers will be aware of the social and intellectual contexts in which your issue is grounded, you will be at a disadvantage if you are not informed.
This is why you should do research before preparing your argument.

10. Audience as Jurors
Do not assume your audience already agrees with you; instead envision skeptical readers who, like a panel of jurors, will make up their minds after listening to all sides of the argument.
You’ll also want to imagine the opposing counsel—who will object if you go over the line.

11. Build Common Ground
As you encounter opposing views, try to seek out one or two principles that you might share with readers who do not initially agree with you.
If you can show that you share this in common with them, your readers will be more likely to listen to your argument.

12. Summarizing the Counterargument
Remember to summarize the main points of your opposition’s argument, fairly.
Be charitable.
Ask yourself this: If someone were to read your summary, would they agree that your summary is a fair account of their viewpoint?

13. Remember
People believe that intelligence and decency support their side of the argument.
To be persuaded they need to see these qualities in your argument, thus establishing common ground is vital to effective arguments.

14. Choosing a Good Counterargument
Some counter-arguments are better than others.
You want to use ones that are actually somewhat persuasive.
There’s nothing to be gained by rebutting a counter-argument that nobody believes.
Two things to look for are reasonableness and popularity.
Pick the arguments that you, or a lot of other people, feel are reasonable. The more you can answer those objections, the stronger you’ll make your case.

15. Introducing the Naysayer
It’s important to use clear signals to alert the reader that the paper is about to express a view different from (typically, the opposite of) the thesis.
Since the purpose of the whole paper, including the counter-argument, is to support the thesis, these signals are crucial. Without them, the paper appears incoherent and contradictory.
Example: In his magisterial work on representation in western literature, a foundational text in the discipline, Auerbach argues that the mixture of styles is an essential ingredient of all modern realism, a view that has found wide acceptance in the half-century since its publication.

16. The Rebuttal
If the counter-argument requires careful signaling, so does the rebuttal. The essay has just done a 180° turn away from its thesis, and now it is about to do another 180° turn to complete the circle. The reader needs warnings and guidance or they will fall off or get whiplash—you’ll lose them, in other words, because the essay will seem incoherent or contradictory.

17. Signaling the Rebuttal
The common strategies for introducing the rebuttal are the mirror image of those for introducing the counter-argument, and they all boil down to the same basic concept: “Yes, but....”
Other examples:
“What this argument [overlooks/fails to consider/does
not take into account] is ...”
“This view [seems/looks/sounds/etc.]
[convincing/plausible/persuasive/etc.] at first, but ...”
“While this position is popular, it is [not supported by
the facts/not logical/impractical/etc.]
“Although the core of this claim is valid, it suffers from
a flaw in its [reasoning/application/etc.]

18. Resources
This presentation was adapted and updated from multiple previously existing presentations and handouts.
All images taken from yahoo.com image search at