How to write an argumentative essay(如何写英语议论文)

不同观点列举型( 选择型 )

There is a widespread concern over the issue that __作文题目_____. But it is well known that the opinion concerning this hot topic varies from person to person. A majority of people think that _ 观点一________. In their views there are 2 factors contributing to this attitude as follows: in the first place, ___原因一_______.Furthermore, in the second place, ___原因二_____. So it goes without saying that ___观点一_____.

People, however, differ in their opinions on this matter. Some people hold the idea that ___观点二_______. In their point of view, on the one hand， ___原因一_______. On the other hand, ____原因二_____. Therefore, there is no doubt that ___观点二______.

As far as I am concerned, I firmly support the view that __观点一或二______. It is not only because ________, but also because _________. The more _______, the more ________.

如何写好“观点对立型”的议论文

观点对立型的议论文通常先阐明主题，然后阐述对立的两种观点，再表明自己的态度、立场及理由。即主题--->一方的观点及理由--->另一方的观点及理由--->自己的看法。 常用表达

（1） 开头部分

We had a heated discussion（激烈的讨论） about /on…

Opinions about…are divided.

Different people hold different ideas／opinions．

People have taken different attitudes towards，

(2)表达观点

Some are for（赞成）the idea．．．

．．．of them hold the opinion／think that．．．

．．．of the class are in favor of（赞成） the idea that．．．

People who are for／against（赞成／反对）the idea think that．．．

Some people believe that．．．，but others argue（争辩；辩解） that….

(3)不同观点

However，．．．of them hold a different view that …/hold the opposite（相反的） opinion． People who are against it don't think so.

However，each coin has two sides．On the other hand, people object（反对） that...

(4)常用衔接词

and，as well as，also，besides, in addition, moreover, like ,unlike ,On the contrary（正相反；恰恰相反），on the other hand…

(5)表达自己观点

 

第二篇：How to write an Argument Essay

How to Write an Argument Essay

By Grace Fleming

Planning Stage

For an argument essay to be effective, it must contain certain elements. For this reason, you must take a few minutes to plan and prepare before you jump into writing an argument essay.

Find a Good Topic

To find good topic for an argument essay you should consider several issues that will have two conflicting points of view or very different conclusions. As you look over a you should find one that really sparks your interest.

While a strong interest in a topic is important, it's not enough to be interested. You have to consider what position you can back up with reasoning and evidence. It's one thing to have a strong belief, but when shaping an argument you'll have to explain why your belief is reasonable and logical.

As you explore the topics, make a mental list of points you could use as evidence for or against an issue.

Consider Both Sides of Your Topic and Take a Position

Once you have selected a topic you feel strongly about, you should make a list of points for both sides of the argument and . One of your first objectives in your essay will be to present both sides of your issue with an assessment of each. Of course, you will conclude that one side (your side) is the best conclusion.

In the planning stage you will need to consider strong arguments for the "other" side. Then you'll shoot them down!

Gather Evidence

When we think of arguments we might picture two red-faced people speaking quite loudly and making dramatic gestures. But that's because face-to-face arguments often become emotional. In fact, the act of arguing involves providing proof to support your claim, with or without emotions.

In an argument essay you will have to provide evidence without providing too much drama. You'll explore two sides of a topic (briefly) and provide proof as to why one side or position is the best one.

Writing Stage

Once you've given yourself a solid foundation to work with, you can begin to craft your essay. An argument essay should contain three parts: the , the body, and the conclusion. The length of these parts (number of paragraphs) will vary, depending on the length of your essay assignment.

1. Introduce your topic and assert your side

As in any essay, the of your argument essay should contain a brief

explanation of your topic, some background information, and a . In this case, your thesis will be a statement of on a particular controversial topic.

Example introductory paragraph with thesis statement:

Since the turn of the new century, a theory has emerged concerning the end of the world, or at least the end of life as we know it. This new theory centers around the year 2012, a date that many claim has mysterious origins in ancient manuscripts from many different cultures. The most noted characteristic of this date is that it appears to mark the end of the Mayan calendar. But there is no evidence to suggest that the Maya saw any great relevance to this date. In fact, none of the claims surrounding a 2012 doomsday event hold up to scientific inquiry. The year 2012 will pass without a major, life-altering catastrophe.

2. Present both sides of the controversy

The body of your essay will contain the meat of your argument. You should go into more detail about the two sides of your controversy and state the strongest points of the counter-side of your issue.

After describing the "other" side, you will present your own viewpoint and then provide evidence to show why your position is the correct one.

Select your strongest evidence and present your points one by one. Use a mix of evidence types, from statistics, to other studies and anecdotal stories. This part of your paper could be any length, from two paragraphs to two hundred pages.

Re-state your position as the most sensible one in your summary paragraphs.

Tips for Your Essay:

? ?

?

?

?

? Avoid emotional language Know the difference between a logical conclusion and an emotional point of view Don't make up evidence Cite your sources Make an outline

Be prepared to defend your side by knowing the strongest arguments for the other

side. You might be challenged by the teacher or by another student.

Suggested Reading

Essay Construction

Organizing Your Thoughts

How to Write a Good Essay

Stephen T. Asma

/GoodEssay.html

The following is a description of some typical problems that students encounter in writing college papers — particularly philosophy papers. Please read this carefully and make every effort to avoid these pitfalls. One of the major errors that students commit is that they offer up a pastiche of their “opinions” on a given topic, but they never

follow-through to justify those opinions. The first thing that one must realize is that your audience (the smart reader) is not in the least bit interested in your “opinion” or anyone's opinion for that matter. This is a shock to some students who believe that what we've been doing in class is just trading opinions on various topics. The confusion lies in the fact that some students are only attending to the first part of a two-part process — they are forgetting or not sufficiently following

the secondpart of the process. The smart reader is not interested in your opinion. The smart reader is interested in the argument that you can give which explains why you hold that opinion. Giving an argument that supports and defends your opinion is the second-part of the two-part process that we encounter in our readings and class discussions. Generally speaking, you should treat all opinion-statements as logical

conclusions , and the art of good reading and writing is to dig back to the premises, the assumptions, and the evidence that led a person to draw that conclusion. Just as in math classes, wherein providing onlyyour conclusions is unacceptable, you must “show your work” in essay-writing too.

A metaphor may be helpful for grasping this common confusion. If we think of the relationship between a flowering plant and its hidden root system, we may see the relevant relation. Our opinions and our beliefs are like the flowering plants, and the reasons for holding those opinions are like the hidden but all-important root-systems. Some students confusedly think that writing a humanities paper is like displaying their particular flower gardens, but they do not expose the root-systems (the “why”) in their writing, and it's precisely this aspect that the smart reader always seeks. Once a student has stated his belief that “God makes our destiny”, or “abortion is immoral”, or “animals should not be tortured”, or “racism is bad”, or “science is too masculine”, or what have you — once he has stated this position, he has only begun to give a proper response. He must now go on to detail the specific reasons and

the specific evidence that led him to hold that belief. This second step

is the only truly important part of a good paper, and some students never even begin to provide it in their essays.

“Opinions” are like “armpits”, everyone has them and nobody really cares. A class in which everyone just stated their opinions (for or against) the death-penalty, for example, would be as fascinating and illuminating as a class in which everyone just stated their favorite ice-cream flavor. The smart reader wants to know why a person holds a particular opinion, but some students mistakenly believe that simplystating the opinion is enough. It is not enough to write “I am against the death-penalty” in your essays and then move on to some additional opinions. One must explain in detail the reasons, experiences, and factual evidence that lead a person to be against the death-penalty. One can argue against the death-penalty on ethical grounds, social grounds, religious grounds, epistemic grounds, economic grounds, and more.

A student must articulate the most compelling grounds for their opinion and present them in the most persuasive and logical terms possible. Notice also that each and every “controversial” claim that is made in the sequence of your argument will likely need additional argumentation and justification. For example, it will not be terribly helpful to claim that you believe capital punishment is wrong because the Bible says so. It will then be immediately incumbent upon you to give some argument for

why your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one, and then you will also have to give some argument for theexistence of God, and quickly follow this with a strong argument for why God is communicating through this scripture and not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, and so on. All this is a very tall order, especially when we remember that the essay topic in this case is only the death penalty and one should stay focused on the topic at hand.

The example above illustrates the fact that many people will unfortunately attempt to justify their opinion by invoking other highly controversial opinions. Imagine trying to convince an atheist, for example, that the death penalty is wrong because the Bible says so. Apart from the fact that the Bible doesn't actually say anything of the sort, the atheist is going to be remarkably unimpressed with the “premises” (the God-talk) that led to your “conclusion.” A better argument strategy is to search for the most “common-sense” premises that you can find (some fact or idea that most people — atheists and theists alike — would agree to), and try to show how your conclusion (“capital punishment is wrong”) must follow from those premises. Ideally speaking, your objective should be to show how your controversial opinion is in fact the most reasonable conclusion that follows from some relatively uncontroversial facts or ideas.

It is also important to notice that a rational argument for a particular opinion is not just the personal history of your own intellectual

commitments. You need to do more than just tell how you came to hold the opinion (which, after all, may be only the result of some weird personal coincidences). In presenting a rational argument, you are sketching the chains of ideas that any rational person could potentially recognize as convincing. Like an attorney who tries to convince a jury of reasonable people to see the truth of her position, you are expected to make your position logically compelling to the average but thoughtful intellect. In fact, your job is even harder than the lawyer's because, as a logical essay writer, you cannot fall back on rhetorical tricks to distract and manipulate your reader. You must use logic and evidence as your primary tools of persuasion.

When someone feels very strongly about some issue (the death penalty, animal rights, the existence of Fate, etc.), they can become so close to their belief — so familiar and comfortable with it — that this belief will seem utterly natural and uncontroversial to them. It will seem so obvious as to be unworthy of any further explanation and justification. This is one of the most common reasons why students neglect to give arguments for their opinions/beliefs. Students believe that many of their claims are so obvious that they don't need to “spell it out.” But, in good college essays, one always needs to “spell it out.” You should never think of your instructor as the only audience for your papers, because this will lead you to cut important corners (imagining incorrectly that “oh, he'll know what I mean by this”). Always write a college paper with the assumption that your reader is someone who disagrees with you, but is willing to listen to reason and possibly change his/her mind. In writing for that audience, you will avoid taking things for granted, and you will be more careful to articulate your position (or the position of another thinker).

Lastly, it is important to realize that once you've adapted to this method of always giving arguments for your claims, you still have to master the art of constructing good arguments. Not just any rationale for your beliefs will do. Badly constructed arguments are all around us — they populate most advertising that we see on T.V., and they comprise most of what is said in political campaigns. In your papers, you should always be vigilant against bad argumentation. Below are just a few examples of poor arguments that seem, at first, like reasonable positions.

Adamant conviction does not substitute for logical argumentation. (e.g., yelling or weeping does not improve the cogency of someone's position.) Appealing to fear is also a fallacy. For example, a lawyer might say “If you do not convict this criminal, one of you may be his next victim.” This is fallacious because what a defendant might do in the future is irrelevant to determining whether he

is responsible for a crime committed in the past. It may be relevant at the time of sentencing, but not during the deliberation of guilt or innocence.Nothing follows from the fact that you passionately believe x to be true, except that you passionately believe x to be true. In other words, the external world need not mimic your subjective internal states. (e.g., believing with every fiber of your being that Jim Morrison is still alive, has nothing whatever to do with Jim's current status.)Correlation is not necessarily cause. (e.g., a recent prime time T.V. program argued that since a number of wealthy men had consulted with psychics about their investments, psychic insight caused the men's wealth. We could just as easily and erroneously point out that these wealthy men all wore underwear, therefore underwear causes wealth. The latter is logically and experientially equivalent to the former.)“Logical possibility” is not the same as physical possibility, and the truth of a claim or the persuasiveness of a claim cannot be founded only on mere logical possibility. Conceptual coherence is a first step which then must be accompanied by evidence. (e.g., It is logically possible for a cow to jump over the moon because that act does not violate any laws of logic [in the way that a “married bachelor” would so violate the laws]. Despite its logical possibility, the jump is clearly absurd because of the physical impossibilities — gravitational laws and bovine physiology won't allow it. But many people will leap from the fact that x is logically possible (usually a trivial point) to a whole hearted belief in x.)Positive or substantive claims do not follow from the appeal to ignorance. A lack of evidence is no evidence at all. (e.g., “no one has proved that angels don't exist, therefore they exist.” Clearly fallacious. Another example: “No one has proved that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, so I believe it does”)

Constructing a Logical Argument （转载）

2011-03-14 17:02

Constructing a Logical Argument

Introduction

There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it is of very poor quality. This document attempts to provide a gentle introduction to logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.

Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly. However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an argument.

Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable. That issue is very much open to debate. This document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job.

Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic. Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though, they generally mean the type being described here.

Basic concepts

The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example:

"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."

"Dogs cannot see colour."

"Berlin is the capital of Germany."

Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny", not the everyday meaning.

The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular arrangement of words used. So "A God exists" and "There exists a God" both express the same proposition.

What is an argument?

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.

Stage one: Premises

One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.

Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when you've heard the explanation.)

Stage two: Inference

The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.

The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".

Stage three: Conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

Types of argument

There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We can also discuss how probable their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.

Here is an example of a deductive argument:

Every event has a cause (premise)

The universe has a beginning (premise)

All beginnings involve an event (premise)

This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)

Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)

Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation. Recognizing an argument

Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above. For instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some

statements look like arguments, but are not.

For example:

"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar, or the Son of God."

The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its conclusion. (Even if we add the assertions, it still suffers from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on this argument in "Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions".)

Another example:

"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."

The phrase "do your duty to God" is neither true nor false. Therefore it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.

Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there is something wrong with the engine of a car. Consider two statements of the form "A because B". The first statement:

"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine." The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B using a statement of the form "A because B".

However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:

"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not start."

Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A because B" is then an argument.

To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The two statements then become:

"There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not start."

And:

"My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the engine."

If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second statement is a valid argument.

Implication in detail

There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more carefully.

Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.

For example:

All insects have wings (premise)

Woodlice are insects (premise)

Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are

false. If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.

More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises, as in:

All fish live in the sea (premise)

Dolphins are fish (premise)

Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)

However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.

We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Premise Conclusion Inference

A B A=>B

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

F F T

F T T

-- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false.

T F F

-- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.

T T T

-- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost always presented with some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument itself, one can criticize the apparent intent of the argument. Such criticism is outside the scope of this document, however!

Further reading

For a readable introduction to logic, try Flew's "Thinking Straight", listed in the atheist resources document. The document also lists LOGIC-L, a LISTSERV mailing list devoted to discussing the teaching of elementary logic.

Fallacies

To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.

In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or convincing.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being misled by them.

Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer. For example:

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man". The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example:

"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and

not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For example:

"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing the opponent's argument.

This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For example:

"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

Argumentum ad populum

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often

characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

The fallacy of accident

The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the specific. For example:

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."

Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc

These are known as False Cause fallacies.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event. For example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

Circulus in demonstrando

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that

the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in

cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?" or

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?" Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

Ignoratio elenchi

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more

favourable light.

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable." Amphiboly

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

Accent

Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example, consider:

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

and

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

Fallacies of composition

One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."

The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example: "A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example: "You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. For example:

"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree." The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar. Examples:

"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?"

"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?"

"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore

A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication given earlier.

Denial of the antecedent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore

B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about B.

Converting a conditional

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply

because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been." Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else.

Argumentum ad crumenam

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Argumentum ad lazarum

The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex

question.

Non sequitur

A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected with it.

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.

Reification / Hypostatization

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

The extended analogy

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about anti-cryptography legislation:

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King."

"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

Tu quoque

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance: "You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem.

Audiatur et altera pars

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.

Ad hoc

There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're

interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:

"I was healed from cancer."

"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."

"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"

"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

Argumentum ad logicam

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

mathew

<mathew@mantis.co.uk>

如何写 argument essay

argument essay争论文

is a college education essential to success in the united states ?

argue yes or no.

大学教育最成功的是美国？

你同意还是不同意。

举出三个例子。

说明你为什么同意，为什么不同意。

下面我用英语写，抱歉中文不好

Definition: In this kind of essay, we not only give information but also present an argument with the PROS (supporting ideas) and CONS (opposing ideas) of an argumentative issue. We should clearly take our stand and write as if we are trying to persuade an opposing audience to adopt new beliefs or behavior. The primary objective is to persuade people to change beliefs that many of them do not want to change.

Choosing an argumentative topic is not an easy task. The topic should be such that

* it should be narrowed down

X Marijuana should be considered illegal. (Not a good topic because it is too general. In some medical cases, marijuana is prescribed by the doctors and the patients are encouraged to use it in case of suffering from too much pain)

√ Selling and using marijuana in public places should be considered illegal.

* it should contain an argument

X We should decide whether we want a bicycle or a car. (our stand is not clear: do we support having bicycles or cars?)

√ If we are under the age of 30 and want a healthy life, we should definitely get a bicycle instead of a car.

X Are you one of those who thinks cheating is not good for students? (a question cannot be an argument)

√ Cheating helps students learn.

X Considering its geological position, Turkey has an important geopolitical role in the EU. (facts cannot be arguments)

√ Considering its geopolitical role, we can clearly say that the EU cannot be without Turkey.

* it should be a topic that can be adequately supported (with statistics, outside source citations, etc.)

X I feel that writing an argumentative essay is definitely a challenging task. (feelings cannot be supported; we cannot persuade other people)

If you believe that you can find enough evidence to support your idea and refute others effectively, you can choose challenging topics as well. You can enjoy writing about such topics:

Cheating is beneficial for students.

Murat 124 is a very good choice for conscientious drivers.

Stress is good for the human body.

Polygamy is quite natural.

For women, there is no need for men.

Organization: All argumentative topics have PROs and CONs. Before starting writing, it is imperative to make a list of these ideas and choose the most suitable ones among them for supporting and refuting.

There are three possible organization patterns:

Pattern 1:

Thesis statement:

PRO idea 1

PRO idea 2

CON(s) + Refutation(s)

Conclusion

Pattern 2:

Thesis statement:

CON(s) + Refutation(s)

PRO idea 1

PRO idea 2

Conclusion

Pattern 3:

Thesis statement:

CON idea 1 -----> Refutation

CON idea 2 -----> Refutation

CON idea 3 -----> Refutation

Conclusion

The sample essay has been written according to the third pattern.

Thesis: Do Reiki instead of taking medicine.

Counter arguments

Refutation

1.

People should trust medicine since it is effective and scientifically proven.

----->

Reiki is also scientifically proven and does not have side effects. (refutation method: insufficient claim)

2.

Serious illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and cancer cannot be treated without medicine.

----->

Medicine also cannot treat serious illnesses if not diagnosed at an early stage. (refutation method: opponents are partially correct)

3.

Reiki, like alternative healing methods, requires a lot of time.

----->

Reiki requires less time if done regularly. (refutation method: opponents are completely wrong)

Supporting our ideas: This is the most important part when persuading others. We are asking some people to change their beliefs or actions. We should be supporting our ideas with such facts, statistics and/or authorities that there should not be room for any doubts. Here are some faulty supports we should avoid:

Thesis: Leaving the university and starting to work is good for the adolescent because …

* Feelings, emotional arguments (… it makes one feel much better.)

* Irrelevant examples (wandering off the topic) (… he would then be able to take his girlfriend to expensive restaurants.)

* Oversimplification (… only then would he understand what it means to be an adult.)

* Hasty generalizations (... it is a widely known fact that all adolescents look forward to earning money.)

* Unreliable, even false outside sources (… according to

, 80% of working men wish they quit school when they were at university and started working at an earlier age.)

For more mistakes in the logic of arguments, see Fallacies.

Refuting opposing arguments: Before we start saying that the opponents are wrong, we should specify their opposing ideas. Otherwise, it would be like hitting the other person with eyes closed. We should see clearly what we are hitting and be prepared beforehand so that he cannot hit us back. We can do this by knowing what we are refuting.

e.g. X Some people may say that adolescents should not leave university education; however, they are wrong. (what they say is not wrong. Maybe their supporting idea is wrong /irrelevant /insufficient. We should state their supporting idea specifically to be able to refute it.)

√ Some people may say that adolescents should not leave university

education because they are not physically and psychologically mature enough to cope with the problems of the real world. However, they forget one fact: adolescents can vote or start driving at the age of 18 (in some countries even before that age!), which proves that they are considered physically and psychologically mature at that age.

Language: Signposts gain importance in the argumentative essay. They enable the readers to follow our arguments easily.

When pointing out opposing arguments (CONs):

Opponents of this idea claim / maintain that …

Those who disagree / are against these ideas may say / assert that …

Some people may disagree with this idea.

When stating specifically why they think like that:

The put forward this idea because …

They claim that … since …

Reaching the turning point:

However,

but

On the other hand,

When refuting the opposing idea, we may use the following strategies:

* compromise but prove that their argument is not powerful enough:

They have a point in thinking like that.

To a certain extent they are right.

* completely disagree:

After seeing this evidence, there is no way we can agree with what they say.

* say that their argument is irrelevant to the topic:

What we are discussing here is not what they are trying to prove.

Their argument is irrelevant.

Sample argumentative essay:

example:

HEALTH AND HEALING AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

Throw out the bottles and boxes of drugs in your house. A new theory suggests that medicine could be bad for your health, which should at least come as good news to people who cannot afford to buy expensive medicine. However, it is a blow to the medicine industry, and an even bigger blow to our confidence in the progress of science. This new theory argues that healing is at our fingertips: we can be healthy by doing Reiki on a regular basis.

Supporters of medical treatment argue that medicine should be trusted since it is effective and scientifically proven. They say that there is no need for spiritual methods such as Reiki, Yoga, Tai Chi. These waste our time, something which is quite precious in our material world. There is medicine that can kill our pain, x-rays that show us our fractured bones or MRI that scans our brain for tumors. We must admit that these methods are very effective in the examples that they provide. However, there are some “every day complaints” such as back pains, headaches, insomnia, which are treated currently with medicine. When you have a headache, you take an Aspirin, or Vermidon, when you cannot sleep, you take Xanax without thinking of the side effects of these. When you use these pills for a long period, you become addicted to them; you cannot sleep without them. We pay huge amounts of money and become addicted instead of getting better. How about a safer and more economical way of healing? When doing Reiki to yourself, you do not need anything except your energy so it is very economical. As for its history, it was discovered in Japan in the early 1900s and its popularity has spread particularly throughout America and Western Europe. In quantum physics, energy is recognized as the

fundamental substance of which the universe is composed. Reiki depends on the energy within our bodies. It is a simple and effective way of restoring the energy flow. There are no side effects and it is scientifically explained.

Opponents of alternative healing methods also claim that serious illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and cancer cannot be treated without drugs. They think so

because these patients spend the rest of their lives in the hospital taking medicine. How can Reiki make these people healthy again? It is very unfortunate that these patients have to live in the hospital losing their hair because of chemotherapy, losing weight because of the side effects of the medicine they take. Actually, it is common knowledge that except for when the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, drugs also cannot treat AIDS or cancer. Most of the medicine these patients use are to ease their pain and their sufferings because of the medical treatment they undergo. Instead of drugs which are expensive and have many side effects, you can use your energy to overcome the hardships of life, find an emotional balance, leave the stress of everyday life and let go of the everyday worries. Most of the chronic conditions such as eczema or migraine are known to have causes such as poor diet and stress. Deep-rooted anger or other strong emotions can contribute to viral infections as well. Since balancing our emotions and controlling our thoughts are very important for our well-being, we should definitely start learning Reiki and avoid illnesses before it is too late.

Some people may still maintain that in our material world, everything depends on time. It is even “lacking time” that causes much of the stress that leads to the illnesses we mentioned. How would it be possible to find time to do Reiki to ourselves and the people around us when we cannot even find time to go to the theater? This is one good thing about Reiki; it does not require more than 15 minutes of our time. There is no need for changing clothes or special equipment. It is a wonderfully simple healing art, an effective method of

relaxation and stress-relief. Most important of all, it is less time consuming than medicine if we think of all the time we spend taking medicine for some complaints and taking some more for the side effects as well.

Having said these, resistance to Reiki would be quite illogical. Reiki is natural and drug-free. What is more, it is easy to learn by anyone, regardless of age and experience. It can be used anywhere, anytime. It also enhances physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being and the benefits last a lifetime. It is definitely high time to get away from the drug boxes we store in our drug cabinet!