Everything's an Argument

Western culture tends to organize arguments either through inductive or deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning draws a conclusion based on multiple examples, while deductive reasoning draws a conclusion by situating a specific case within a larger principle. The arguments required of college courses require greater complexity, so Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present three organizational structures: classical oration, Rogerian and invitational arguments, and the Toulmin argument.

Classical oration follows the same structure used by Greeks and Romans thousands of years ago. It begins with an introduction, or exordium, that gains the audience’s trust and states the topic. Then, it provides a narrative of the case facts, or narratio, before stating the claim and key issues, the partitio. In the confirmation, the argument provides support for the claim, and in the refutation, it considers counterarguments and/or evidence. Finally, in the peroratio, it summarizes the argument and provides a call to action. This approach develops a thorough argument, especially when appealing to ethos in the introduction and concluding with an appeal to pathos. An updated version of this structure labels the sections as introduction, in which the claim is stated, followed by background, lines of argument, alternative arguments, and conclusion.

As an example, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include an excerpt from the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which severed the connection between the United States and Great Britain. The authors point out the exordium explaining the necessity of separation and establishing “mankind” as the audience (124). The document then discusses the rights of the people on which the speakers base their argument. Then, a narration provides background regarding their impulse to leave before a partitio presents the claim that King George III of Great Britain tyrannized their people and explicitly states facts to support this claim. The authors point out that the Founding Fathers could have restructured the argument with the claim at the beginning, but the chosen arrangement connects them more strongly to readers before they state the claim. By incorporating such a nationally significant document as an exemplar argument, the authors appeal to their audience’s sense of patriotism and pride. Like classical oration, this document is also traditional.

A less traditional argumentative structure is the Rogerian argument. Based on the psychologist Carl Rogers’s empathetic approach to therapy, the Rogerian argument follows a four-part structure. The introduction considers the full complexity of the issue. The contexts consider when other positions may be valid. The speaker’s position states the claim and its relevant contexts, and finally, the benefits to opponent section explains what positive effects the opponent would gain from adopting the speaker’s position.

Similar to the Rogerian argument, an invitational argument, developed by feminist scholars Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin, begins with alternative perspectives, or “rhetorical listening” (126), as coined by rhetorician Krista Ratcliffe. Rogerian and invitational arguments focus not on persuading the other group but on fostering connection and mutually formed solutions. The authors explain how readers can apply the principles behind these arguments to collaborative and problem-solving situations.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present Frederick Douglass’s 1852 Fourth of July speech as an example of an invitational argument. Douglass invites his white audience to consider his perspective as an African American on Independence Day, as a man who does not enjoy the same freedoms as his fellow white citizens. In 2014, former First Lady Michelle Obama invited high school graduates to empathize with their African American classmates of the past, who experienced public school prior to desegregation, and to focus on a more progressive future. The authors emphasize the need for more invitational arguments in a society of partisan rhetoric and encourage readers to structure their own arguments with consideration of the opposition. The authors’ extended attention to these arguments in comparison to classical oration belies the significance they place on arguments that seek truth rather than triumph.

The structure Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz spend the most time on, however, is the Toulmin argument. This style of argument considers alternate perspectives but follows a more academically accepted format. British philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed a system that reflects how people make reasonable arguments that consider complexities of life. Toulmin’s structure begins with a claim; moves into qualifiers, or limits placed on the claim; transitions to support for the claim and warrants, or underlying premises that support the claim; and concludes with backing, or support for the warrants.

The claim must be a debatable assertion the speaker aims to prove. The authors advise readers to make assertive claims; even if doing so simplifies the issue, it begins the chain of reasoning. To arrive at a claim, list reasons and evidence before asking, “So what?” For example, a student claiming his campus needs more parking spaces starts by considering his personal experiences, his friends’ experiences, the authorities’ experiences with parking issues, and facts about car and bike parking ratios. Reasoning attached to a claim in the form of enthymemes can later become topic sentences. These enthymemes are only the start of an argument, for one must then address potential challenges from the opposition.

Toulmin calls the connection between a claim and its reasons the warrant. The warrant explains any assumptions made by the speaker. For example, with the claim “Don’t eat that mushroom: it’s poisonous,” the reason is “the mushroom is poisonous,” the claim is “so don’t eat it,” and the warrant is that “eating poisonous things is dangerous” (134). If the audience accepts the warrant, they will likely accept the argument it supports; however, evidence can serve to prove or disprove the argument.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz present the political enthymeme “Flat taxes are fairer than progressive taxes because they treat all tax-payers in the same way,” which operates under the warrant that “All people should be treated in the same way” (135-36). When examining the evidence contrary to this enthymeme—the current federal income tax—an opposing claim can be proven: “Progressive taxes are fairer than flat taxes because people with more income can afford to pay more, benefit more from government, and shelter more of their income from taxes” (136). This realization could serve as a counterargument, or it could cause the speaker to shift the entire argument to the other side.

Once a speaker outlines the claim, they gather backing, or evidence, to support it. Before proving the claim with evidence, speakers must prove the warrant behind the claim with its own evidence. In an argument claiming that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should go to Mars to unify Americans, the speaker would first provide evidence that unification should be a priority before providing evidence supporting the expedition.

The next component of the Toulmin argument, qualifiers, makes arguments more authentic because acknowledging limitations provides credibility. The words few, rarely, many, and possibly are examples of qualifiers. Other qualifications include rebuttals or potential counterarguments. Acknowledging and refuting these helps support weaknesses in an argument and builds ethos. For example, someone arguing that the federal government should support the arts might acknowledge the significance of military spending too. This argument would still need additional reasons and evidence to gain traction, but the speaker will have established credibility behind the evidence. Anticipating counterarguments deepens a speaker’s understanding of a topic and strengthens support.

• Argumentative structures include classical oration, Rogerian and invitational arguments, and the Toulmin model.
• All structures feature background information, claims, support, and acknowledgement of alternate perspectives.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is an argument of fact?
• Why do speakers make arguments of fact?
• How does a speaker make an argument of fact?

Arguments of fact establish whether something is true. While many facts don’t need arguments to prove their validity, some information relies on interpretation for meaning, and those interpretations can differ. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a wide range of possible topics, including renewable energy, Social Security, and healthy diets, to demonstrate the prevalence of these arguments in readers’ lives. Society also needs corrective arguments to counter misinformation, such as correcting the belief that talking on a phone while driving is not more distracting than listening to the radio because research shows it is more distracting. By incorporating this example, the authors double the text’s purpose as a means of spreading information for public safety. Another reason for arguments of fact arises in the historical field. Historical interpretations vary, and information found on the internet has a wide range of accuracy.

People make most factual arguments out of curiosity. A question leads to a hypothesis, or a tentative statement of fact, which a speaker supports with evidence. For example, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt of Freakonomics (2005) questioned the percentage of deaths prevented in automobile crashes for children three years old and younger reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They found that the percentage was in comparison to an unrestrained child, looked further, and concluded that seat belts were as effective as car seats for children up to two years old. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz remind readers that factual arguments should rely on as many concrete facts as possible. Freakonomics serves as an exemplar argument of fact, as this best seller answers various questions that relate to economics, satiating reader curiosity.

The authors discuss fact-checking websites, warning against bias like the anti-liberal slant on sites like Media Matters for America and Accuracy in Media. They also present sites that attempt to be neutral, such as PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org. They do not present any sites with an anti-conservative slant.

When devising a factual argument, people should first identify an issue or something that comes across as irrational before researching the questions that arise. Often, factual arguments lead to additional analysis, whether an argument of definition or determining cause and effect. One New York Times story reports that dogs can motivate people into movement, which leads Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz to question whether people with dogs are naturally inclined toward movement or if there are other possible causal connections.

Once an issue is identified, speakers should research the hypothesis, looking for source material depending on the topic. This research will require evaluating each source’s reputability, tracing each site to its original source to explore context and ensure accuracy of information. The authors advise students to turn to teachers and librarians for help. Knowing how to extract facts even from subjective sources will serve a speaker well. Students can do primary research themselves, such as conducting a survey or studying public records, even though the process can be exacting.

As understanding grows, revise the claim into its final statement. Include the claim as well as support and/or qualifiers to strengthen its merit. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz reemphasize the occasional necessity of qualifiers, like some and few, in a reasonable argument. Concessions to opposing perspectives can also help an audience accept a claim. For instance, when a professor found that the author of a prolific autobiographical account may have lied about his birthplace, the professor explained that the work still had a positive impact on society.

Some audiences expect certain types of evidence from an argument, such as scientific audiences expecting a formulaic structure following the scientific process. Others might draw on a variety of sources. The authors present a study showing that average reading time per day rose from 1999 to 2010 before sharing questions that might arise from such a study, such as the quality of the reading material. Even short arguments require evidence; sometimes a few choice examples work more efficiently than an exhaustive list.

The presentation of evidence is almost as important as the evidence itself. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz use an example from Charles Dickens’s Hard Times (1854), in which a pupil lists facts about horses without demonstrating understanding of the definition of a horse. Factual arguments can be simplistic or formal, but to reach a larger audience, a speaker must be more persuasive.

The authors also encourage readers to consider visuals when presenting factual arguments. Arranging information in bulleted lists and using parallel language can clarify an argument. Multimedia presentations can also be appropriate. Images can carry additional connotation and meaning than language, and today’s media depends on images to convey messages. The authors point to the rise in infographics as an example of trending visual information.

A guide to writing an argument of fact is included:

• Finding a Topic: The authors advise readers to first find a topic about a controversial fact, an erroneous fact, a societal myth, or a question of curiosity.
• Researching Your Topic and Formulating a Hypothesis: Next, research the topic using a variety of source materials before formulating a hypothesis that acts as arguable claim.
• Preparing a Proposal: If preparing a proposal, outline the claim, reasons, and warrants to help its development. Explain the significance of the issue, the intended audience, the types of evidence expected, and any anticipated challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: Consider which format, medium, and visuals would further the argument.
• Thinking About Organization: Organize the argument with an introduction that includes context and a conclusion that includes implications. Assumptions should be stated early in the argument. Many academics favor the Introduction, Methods, Research, and Discussion (IMRAD) format or a structure featuring an abstract, a literature review, methodology, analysis, and a works cited list. When appropriate, engage readers in the introduction and save the strongest evidence for the conclusion. Acknowledge and refute counterarguments to add credibility.
• Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response: Peers reviewing another’s work should examine the claim for its arguability, clarity, and qualifiers. Determine if the evidence is sufficient, appropriate, thorough, cited, and smoothly blended into the writing. Evaluate organization and style for effectiveness, audience understanding, transitions, visuals, and language. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, documentation, and formatting.

• An argument of fact proves the validity of an idea.
• Speakers make arguments of fact out of curiosity.
• To develop an argument of fact, identify an issue, develop a hypothesis, research the hypothesis, evaluate sources, finalize a claim, incorporate a concession, support the claim, and consider presentation.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is an argument of definition?
• Why do speakers make arguments of definition?
• How does a speaker make an argument of definition?

Arguments of definition have power because they determine what something can or cannot be. These arguments cannot be settled simply by looking at a dictionary due to the complex implications the definitions carry. The authors remind readers, too, that even dictionaries can reflect prejudice in their wording.

As an example of an argument of definition, Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz turn to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as referring to a heterosexual union. In 2013, the Supreme Court found this law discriminatory, but the authors advise readers to look into laws regarding marriage in their home states. Other examples of definition include whether an animal is endangered, what constitutes sexual harassment, whether a person can be considered a political refugee, and determining the exact definition of “human intelligence.” The authors also include a blogger’s comment about the US military changing its definition of “combatants” to “all military-age males in a strike zone” (187). The authors’ choice to include the blogger’s words rather than those of the more distinguished publication on which the blogger is commenting makes for a more accessible example to this text’s college audience and further emphasizes how every expression is an argument. The authors include a wide range of examples to exemplify the prevalence and significance of arguments of definition, emphasizing that the consequences of such an argument can be far-reaching.

There are several types of definitions. A dictionary definition is an example of a formal definition. These definitions determine the term’s genus, or class, and species, or distinguishing criteria. A definition may classify a hybrid car under the genus of a passenger vehicle and then specify that its ability to use two sources of power distinguishes it from other passenger vehicles. An argument of definition often argues whether an item meets the formal definition’s criteria or if there is a distinction between objects. Someone deciding between a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight, upon close examination, could determine that the Prius is a full hybrid whereas the Insight is a mild hybrid based on its ability to run on electricity alone.

Operational definitions define an item by its effect or context. Sexual harassment meets its definition only if the interaction meets these three conditions: “unwanted, unsolicited, and repeated” (191). Other operational definition arguments might answer questions about conditions of a definition, while others might discuss the fulfillment of conditions. Someone may argue whether institutional racism meets its conditions without specific racist acts (conditions) or whether an institution supports policies that promote racial inequities (fulfillment of condition).

Other arguments of definition include definitions by example, which help illustrate relationships. Rather than provide an explanation of what a “tablet” is, an argument of example would list product examples. Some arguments focus on whether an item merits inclusion or exclusion on a list, such as whether a movie is classic or why Washington, DC, isn’t considered a state. These arguments benefit from comparing and contrasting.

The need for an argument of definition often arises out of everyday occurrences, such as writing a job description or being called a nerd. When developing a definitional argument, speakers must first formulate a working claim, or a statement of instinctive argument. Then, determine what needs to be defined and compose a broad definition to add to the working claim, fleshing out the definitional argument.

When crafting definitional arguments, speakers must provide support and address counterarguments for each aspect of the definition. For example, someone may argue that “Participants in the federal AmeriCorps program are not really volunteers because they receive ‘education awards’ for their public service. Volunteers are people who work for a cause without receiving compensation” (195). If this argument is based on the warrant “people who are compensated for their services are, ordinarily, employees,” the speaker would need to consider if all volunteer roles fit within these parameters and whether all unpaid work, including internships, is considered volunteerism. The authors advise this hypothetical speaker to also define “cause” or choose a different word due to its political connotations. Deeply researching the issue at hand will prepare the speaker to present a thorough argument regarding its definition.

A speaker’s subject should apply to the developed definition in one of the following ways: a clear example, a clear nonexample, falling between two classes, or requiring a new definition. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz show an example from an article in which the speaker argues that the difference between opera and musical theater is whether music or words are the focus. This definition articulates the distinct nature of each musical form. Later, the article acknowledges exceptions—for example, some impressive works cross genres.

The authors advise readers to continue modifying the claim as new evidence arises. Arguments of definition often become more complex as the reader gains more knowledge. Additionally, some concepts, such as hate speech, internship, or pornography, are still debated.

Visuals can help illustrate an argument of definition. The authors present a Venn diagram that denotes “sustainability” as the cross-section between economy, society, and environment. They also refer to images from an Iraqi prison portraying “torture” and remind readers to heed the basic textual style elements, such as boldface or headings, which can add to an argument’s ethos.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a guide to writing a definition:

• Finding a Topic: First, find a topic by being alert throughout one’s everyday life. Then, formulate a debatable definition, challenge an existing definition, determine whether something meets the criteria of a definition, or broaden a definition.
• Researching Your Topic: Research the topic using a variety of sources and the help of a librarian.
• Formulating a Claim: Formulate a claim that revolves around genus, species, conditions, or fulfilment of conditions. Include reasoning along with the claim in the thesis.
• Preparing a Proposal: If asked to prepare a proposal, outline the claim, reasons, and warrants to help its development. Explain the significance of the definition, the intended audience, types of evidence expected, and any anticipated challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: Consider which format, medium, and visuals would further the argument.
• Thinking About Organization: Organize the argument with a claim, definition, examination of the subject in context of the definition, evidence, acknowledgement of counterarguments, and implications of the definition.

Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response: Peers reviewing another’s work should evaluate whether the claim addresses a definition, its significance, and if specific criteria are established. Determine if the evidence is sufficient, analyzed, thorough, cited, and smoothly blended into the writing. Evaluate organization and style for effectiveness, audience understanding, transitions, visuals, and language. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, documentation, and formatting.

• Arguments of definition determine what something is or is not.
• Speakers make formal arguments of definition, operational definitions, and definitions by example in response to a need, usually an everyday occurrence.
• Developing an argument of definition includes formulating a working claim, providing support, and addressing counterarguments for each aspect of the definition, in addition to modifying the claim and adding visuals.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is an evaluation?
• Why do speakers make an evaluation?
• How does a speaker develop an evaluation?

People make daily evaluations about small things like what to wear or what food to eat. People love to “praise and blame” sports, TV shows, literature, politicians, and more.

Those evaluating should consider their criteria of evaluation, or standards against which the thing is judged. Considering what features make a classic song classic or how to measure a successful diplomatic strategy are examples of considering criteria of evaluation. Identifying the criteria starts a process of deeper reflection that can lead to solutions outside the two polarized options, such as why America adheres to a two-party system or why people don’t consider alternative transportation outside of choosing between a hybrid and traditional car. The authors present an excerpt from the Cook’s Illustrated website that lists criteria for a veggie burger, like texture and taste. Criteria of evaluation evolve over time as information and culture shift.

To determine if an argument is evaluative, consider the evidence used. Arguments of logic use hard evidence and constructed arguments, while arguments of evaluation develop quantitative and qualitative arguments. Quantitative arguments rely on measurable criteria, such as measuring who is tallest or evaluating intelligence using SAT scores. Qualitative arguments rely on reasoning and language, engaging all three appeals to persuade. For example, arguing what makes a great movie includes subjective, immeasurable considerations such as societal impact and effective casting.

To develop an evaluative argument, the authors recommend beginning with a claim backed by reasons, warrants, and evidence. The warrant will likely include the criteria of evaluation. In an argument establishing Citizen Kane as “the finest film ever made by an American director… because it revolutionizes the way we see the world,” the warrant would be that “Great films change viewers in fundamental ways.” Then, the speaker would provide evidence from the film along with examples of other great films.

Formulating criteria doesn’t always come naturally, but the basis of evaluation depends upon criteria. The authors advise readers to discuss ideas with an imaginary opponent and to consider how to take the argument a step further. For example, when arguing that Apple’s iPad does amazing things, one could consider just the iPad’s cool features or take the argument a step further and consider the user’s experience. The authors emphasize the need for standardized criteria for fair evaluation.

Claims are usually stated directly in an evaluation and include qualifications. For example, proving that “Jessica Williams is the funniest ‘correspondent’ ever on The Daily Show” takes more support than labeling her as “one of the funniest and most successful” (219). Qualifying claims makes them more reasonable. Reagan Tankersley’s argument about dubstep qualifies that skilled musicians may find the simplistic form worthless before claiming that its “primal” nature resonates with listeners (220). Letting others criticize an opinion broadens and deepens ideas within an argument.

To support the claim, the more relevant evidence, the better. Determining relevance depends on the audience and purpose. Arrange the evidence from weakest to strongest. Strong evidence is “specific, detailed, memorable, and derived from credible sources” (222). In Sean Wilsey’s New York Times review of Alison Bechdel’s graphic novel Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic (2006), he quotes the novel and describes specific aspects to support his argument that “Bechdel’s rich language and precise images combine to create a lush piece of work” (222). Though this example does not concede, the authors encourage readers to concede based on the evidence.

Visuals can illustrate quantitative arguments, aiding the argument’s accessibility. A visual side-by-side comparison of two automobiles from the US Department of Energy shows how helpful visual elements can be. This chart displays information about each automobile by category, allowing for an immediate grasp of the differences and similarities between them.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a guide to writing an evaluation:

• Finding a Topic: They recommend considering topics that make judgments, challenge judgments, compare, or explore criteria.
• Researching Your Topic: Research the topic using a variety of sources, including surveys and polls.
• Formulating a Claim: Formulate a claim that clearly states the opinion, the criteria, and major support. A thesis should include these elements in a single statement, while a more exploratory argument can pose the claim as a question.
• Preparing a Proposal: If preparing a proposal, outline the claim, reasons, and warrants to help in developing the thesis. Explain the significance of the issue, the intended audience, types of evidence expected, and any anticipated challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: Consider which format, medium, and visuals would further the argument.
• Thinking About Organization: Organize the argument by placing these elements in order: evaluative claim, criteria, explanation, evidence, and acknowledgement of counterarguments. In the introduction, explain what’s being evaluated, why it’s being evaluated, and why it’s significant to the audience.
• Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response: Peers reviewing another’s work should determine whether the claim makes an evaluation, states what the speaker is evaluating, or needs qualifiers; they should also consider whether the criteria presented will be clear to the audience and are appropriate. Determine if the evidence is sufficient, appropriate, thorough, cited, and smoothly blended into the writing. Evaluate organization and style for effectiveness, audience understanding, transitions, visuals, and language. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, documentation, and formatting.

• Evaluations consider the positives and negatives about a given thing based upon set criteria or standards.
• People make evaluations to make decisions and determine their stance.
• Speakers develop a claim that includes qualifications, add criteria of evaluation, and provide support for the claim with relevant evidence and qualitative and/or quantitative reasoning.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is a causal argument?
• Why do speakers make causal arguments?
• How does a speaker develop a causal argument?

The chapter opens with an argument about the cause of America’s obesity problem. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz share several effects of weight gain in America, including the size of airline seats and more people suffering from diabetes. Arguments that address the cause and effect of an issue, or causal arguments, drive “many major policy decisions” (242). Causal arguments appear in daily life, such as the student petitioning for a grade change. The authors present causal arguments as falling into one of three formats: a cause leading to effects, an effect brought about by causes, or a chain of causes leading to an effect.

Legislators often make arguments that discuss a cause before its effects, such as considering the effects of immigration reform. Gail Tverberg argues that increasing ethanol creates additional competition for dwindling food crops. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz add that “using corn for fuel did have many unintended consequences […] leading to food shortages and even food riots around the globe” (244).

Arguments that lead with an effect and investigate its causes can also be significant. In 1962, conservationist Rachel Carson made a causal argument about chemical pesticides. Her argument describes the maladies of a community affected by its overuse, setting up an argument that will identify its causes.

Some arguments chain causes toward an effect. For example, someone making the argument that utility plant smokestack emissions need national regulation might start with the cause that emissions lead to acid rain, which leads to the cause that acid rain can destroy vegetation, which is related to the cause that lobbyists prevented some states from regulating emissions, which altogether means that acid rain will devastate the majority of eastern forests.

Causal arguments often act as support for claims in other arguments, especially proposals. Someone proposing that children play less video games may include a causal argument about the negative effects of playing. In these instances, “the causal analysis provides a rational that motivates the proposal” (246).

Many causal arguments are complex. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include the example of a study showing that churchgoing youth were more likely to be obese adults, a startling correlation. Another example tries to determine the source of a food poisoning outbreak. The authors emphasize the importance of establishing causal connections; for example, establishing that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer allowed for legally imposed warnings against smoking.

Many causal arguments rely on definitions. For example, a study of high school dropouts begs the definition of “dropout.” Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz recommend ensuring definitions for all aspects of any causal argument. Part of the complexity means that conclusions are probable rather than definite and open to accusations of false causality. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz note that “scientists in particular are wary when making causal claims” (248), indirectly promoting scientific thought. In the late 1960s, a commissioner was unable to determine the cause of student riots after two years of work, and scholars still argue about the causes of the Great Depression. The authors recommend embracing such complexity to gain readers’ trust.

When developing a causal claim, start by listing interesting effects, such as rising tuition costs, slow development of renewable energy sources, or the tendency of animated movies to kill off mother figures. Alternatively, list causes, such as the rising popularity of e-books, attempts to repeal Obamacare, or more judges of a particular partisanship being added to the Supreme Court. After researching topics of interest, speakers should test their working claims on friends and family to refocus or revise it. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz recommend mapping out the causal relationship by listing the cause followed by reasons, then revising it as evidence shapes understanding. Though causal arguments can be humorous, the authors reiterate the severity of many issues causal arguments tackle.

After developing the claim, examine the causal relationships. Determining the type of cause can help the reader recognize the relationship. A sufficient cause is something that can occur on its own, such as oxygen deprivation causing death or cheating causing failure. Necessary causes are needed for the thing to occur, such as fuel for fire. Precipitating causes initiate change, such as a protest beginning a worker strike. Proximate causes are immediate, such as wind causing a plane crash, whereas remote causes are underlying, such as the failure of the wind warning in the plane cockpit. Reciprocal causes reinforce one another, creating an unending cycle, such as impoverished areas having poor schools which leads to more poverty.

Considering various types of causes to the effect being explored can expand an argument, such as a student remembering the proximate and necessary reasons he chose his college. Once determined, outline the claims, reasons, warrants, and evidence. Support the argument by establishing high probability, criticizing another’s faulty casualty, evaluate causal links, and ensure accuracy and thoroughness.

One way to appropriately support a claim is to develop and test hypotheses, or educated guesses about the cause based on research. Another is to make ethnographic observations, or “the systematic study of ordinary people in their daily routines” (253). This kind of evidence could support an argument about why some people don’t step out of the way when walking. One argument explains the phenomenon revolved around politeness, determined by observing people at a mall. Personal experience can also build ethos, such as a Columbia University graduate bemoaning the transition from physical books to e-books by recounting nostalgic personal experiences with books.

Some causal relationships require visual explanation, such as a chart showing the economic effect of decreasing birth rates. Ad campaigns can effectively sway audiences, such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ad listing ways meat destroys the environment.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a guide to writing a causal argument:

• Finding a Topic: Topics for causal arguments can state a cause and its effects, describe an effect and its causes, follow a chain of causes to an effect, or explore possible effects of a cause.
• Researching Your Topic: The authors recommend considering public issues or browsing news sources. Challenging an existing causal argument can also be rewarding. Research the topic using a variety of sources, including field research.
• Formulating a Claim: Formulate a claim that clearly states a stance involving a cause and effect. Identify the type of causal argument, include relevant personal background, then state a specific, intriguing thesis.
• Preparing a Proposal: If preparing a proposal, outline the claim, reasons, and warrants to help in developing the thesis. Explain the significance of the issue, the intended audience, types of evidence expected, and any anticipated challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: Consider which format, medium, and visuals would further the argument.
• Thinking About Organization: Organize the argument by placing these elements in order: causal claim, significance of the claim, sufficient evidence, and acknowledgement of counterarguments.
• Getting and Giving Response: Peers reviewing another’s work should examine whether the claim makes a causal argument, whether it states the causes and effects, whether it is appealing, whether it needs focus or qualifiers, and whether the relationship between the claim and reasons is strong. Determine if the evidence is sufficient, appropriate, thorough, analyzed logically, inclusive of counter evidence, cited, and smoothly blended into the writing. Evaluate organization and style for effectiveness, audience understanding, transitions, visuals, and language. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, documentation, and formatting.

• Causal arguments address the cause and effect of an issue and often act as support for claims in other arguments.
• Causal arguments are complex and rely on definitions.
• Speakers make causal arguments to drive and evaluate change.
• To develop a causal argument, start with a working claim that includes causes and effects, examine the causal relationship, and outline support.

This chapter explores the following questions:

• What is a proposal?
• Why do speakers develop proposals?
• How does a speaker develop a proposal?

Proposals precipitate action, such as space exploration, health care reform, and other influential projects. These arguments also present themselves in daily life, as suggestions, demands, offers, and invitations. Proposals include who the speaker wants to do what and why they should do it. For example, the “who” may be “our student government”, the “what” may be endorsing “the Academic Bill of Rights,” and the “why” may be “because students should not be punished in their courses for their personal political views.” Proposals fall into two categories: practices and policies. Proposals about practices focus on individual actions, like arguing for colleges to pay athletes, while proposals about policies focus on broader issues, such as the United Nations prioritizing environmental health.

Proposals seek change, are future-focused, and prioritize audience action. Proposals include evidence and reasoning to persuade the audience toward the desired action. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz note that convincing people proves easier than spurring them into action; they recommend leveraging appeals to ethos. They present a letter from three commanders of space missions to President Obama urging him to continue advanced spacecraft operations, noting that even Neil Armstrong, James Lovell, and Eugene Cernan weren’t able to persuade the Obama administration to act. This argument does exemplify a proposal’s focus on the future, as it emphasizes the future consequences of not furthering the space program. Arguments about the future require careful consideration of evidence to convince audiences about a prediction.

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz also include Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s failed 2014 proposal to reduce the interest rate on student loans as an example of a proposal that did not persuade key populations within its audience. Arguments intended for wide audiences present information in a straightforward manner, such as in editorials, political documents, and proposals that rely on community funding. Arguments targeting more specific audiences make more in-depth arguments that anticipate more knowledgeable objections. Effective proposals portray their audience’s values.

Someone developing a proposal must define a problem, make a claim that provides a solution focused on the future, explain how the solution fixes the problem, and demonstrate its feasibility. Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz advise “dramatiz[ing]” the issue in the introduction in addition to including the claim. Strategies that entice audiences include using vivid imagery, demonstrating personal effects, emphasizing significance, and explaining the failures of previous attempted solutions. An argument to restore the military draft portrays younger generations negatively to convince older voters that mandatory national service will show young adults how to contribute to society. In 2013, Representative Charles Rangel proposed that national service would force all voters to act as stakeholders in war. The authors again emphasize the need to establish speaker credibility and warn readers to avoid issues whose previous attempts at solution led to further consequences, as with financing federal election campaigns.

A proposal claim will include the claim, reasons, and the effects of acting on the claim. Then, it will flesh out each part of the claim with warrants and evidence. Relating facts and emotional appeals to the presented solution can make a proposal more effective. For example, NBA player John Amaechi asks player Kobe Bryant to accept a fine for verbally attacking a referee with a homophobic slur. His argument includes a heartrending portrayal of a boy who idolized Bryant feeling unsafe after witnessing the incident. The same strategy works to oppose a proposal. Doug Bandow writes an editorial for Forbes in which he counters a proposal for national service with supported reasoning and by likening conscription to slavery. Personal experience can also support a proposal if it directly relates to the issue, is appropriate to the audience, and fits with the remainder of the argument. However, the authors warn that personal experience may misrepresent a speaker’s motives.

In addition to strong support, established feasibility can make a proposal more effective. Evidence is integral to supporting feasibility. A careful consideration of resources available to the audience helps ensure the likelihood of their taking action. The authors recommend presenting proposals to friends and family to gather potential counterproposals and strengthen proposals.

Proposals can come in many formats, including webpages, reports, and editorial cartoons. The design of each form can help or hinder the argument. Visuals can help readers understand the issue and the speaker’s solution if presented well. Headings in lengthier arguments can identify stages such as “Introduction, Nature of the Problem, Current Approaches or Previous Solutions, Proposal/Recommendations, Advantages, Counterarguments, Feasibility, Implementation, and so on” (286-87).

Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz include a guide to writing a proposal:

• Finding a Topic: A claim for a proposal will propose a change in practice or policy, resist proposed changes in practice or policy, or explore solutions for issues. The authors recommend brainstorming personal issues to come to a claim.
• Researching Your Topic: Research the topic using a variety of sources, including field research.
• Formulating a Claim: Formulate a thesis that states the proposal and reasons to adopt it.
• Preparing a Proposal: If an instructor requires a proposal prior to building the proposal argument, outline the claim, reasons, and warrants to help with developing the thesis. Explain the significance of the issue, the intended audience, types of evidence expected, and any anticipated challenges.
• Considering Format and Media: Consider which format, medium, and visuals would further the argument.
• Thinking About Organization: Organize the argument in a variety of ways, but be sure to include the problem, the proposal, how the proposal fixes the problem, evidence, acknowledgement of alternative options, and demonstration of feasibility.

Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response: Peers reviewing another’s work should examine whether the claim makes a call to action, is clear and realistic, needs qualifiers, and proposes a solution, in addition to evaluating its likelihood of success. Determine if the evidence is sufficient, appropriate, thorough, analyzed logically, inclusive of counter evidence, cited, and smoothly blended into the writing. Evaluate organization and style for effectiveness, audience understanding, transitions, visuals, and language. Correct any errors in spelling, grammar, documentation, and formatting.