Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
13
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Argument
1. Definition of Argument
According to Toulmin, an argument is a chain of reasoning in
one sense. The sequence of interconnected claims and the reason that
connects them establishes the content and force of the speaker's
position.1 According to Scriven, an argument's purpose is to persuade
writer that must also accept the conclusion if the premise is true.2
According to Anthony Blair, an argument is a proposition
accompanied by a rationale, and argumentation is a conversation
between two or more parties that results in the assertion of one or
more ideas, as well as anticipated or actual critical responses.3 A
logically good argument has sufficient grounds for the purposes at
hand ( true, probable, plausible, and acceptable to the audience ), and
the feet support the conclusion adequately. The standards for good
logic in arguments are distinct from the criteria for good
argumentation.
1 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan
Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 2 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56. 3 Anthony Blair, ― Argument and Its Uses‖, Informal Logic,Vol. 24, No.2,( 2004 ),
137-151.
14
In general, good argument is understood to have two sides, a
claim and a counterclaim. A claim will aid in the establishment of an
argument. The thesis statement should situate the argument within a
broader discussion, which will almost certainly include addressing
potential counterclaims or objections. Counterclaims aid in
developing a well-rounded argument by illustrating the breadth of
possible positions on a subject in argumentative writing. According
to Toulmin, an argument is a " claim of reasoning " in one sense. The
series of interconnected claims and arguments together establish the
content and force of the speaker's position.4 According to Scriven, an
argument's purpose is to persuade you that you must also accept the
conclusion if the premise is true.5
In everyday language, the term "argument" refers to a
disagreement or conflict between two or more people. However, the
presence of an argument does not always imply disagreement in
written academic work. An argument can bolster a position, a point
of view, a program, or an object that we believe has merit. An
argument's purpose is to persuade others to think about what you are
asserting or claiming. This means that an argument is unnecessary if
4 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan
Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 5 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56.
15
you describe something, list specific items, explain how something
works, or identify key points or factors. However, you must use an
argument if your topic is not widely known or widely accepted ( it is
not self-evidently true ) or if you are aware of some disagreement or
alternative perspective. As a result, the writer must provide evidence
to support our position.
2. Arguments structure of Toulmin model
The ability to justify and explain statements is a component of
the ability to create arguments. Meanwhile, Toulmin categorizes the
arguments. The first elements (1) Claim, (2) Evidance, and (3)
Warrant, belong to the essential components of the practical argument.
While the second elements Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier.6 serve as
a complement and may be unavailable in certain circumstances.
(1) Claim
Claims stating the writer’s position. Claims are the stances and
assertions that the author want the audience to agree with. These
assertions may be conclusions, recommendations, advice, beliefs, and
so on. Claims should be specific and they should be interest to the
audience, that is to say, on the topic at hand. Claim that are not very
6 Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Update Edition ( Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press,2003 ), 133.
16
specific to the topic are received by readers as vague and confusing.
Claims derive their strength from direct, clear grammar and from their
related evidence.
(2) Evidence or Ground
Ground or evidence to prove the argument. Ground in the
context of arguments refers to the information that supports the calim.
This information can take many forms such as objective facts,
examples, images, results from statistical of graphic analysis,
descriptions of artifacts, comparisons, and even expert opinions.
(3) Reason or Warrent
The third of the key structural parts of argument is warrent.
Warrants or reason that serve as a bridge between claims and ground.
This element connects the claim and the evidence, helping the audience
to understand. The explanation is persuasive, and therefore successful,
when it fits the audience’s understanding of the argument. That is to
say, explanations that are confusing, off target, or poorly developed
will not aid the understanding of the audience and will not be
successful.
(4) Backing
17
Backing in the form of a statement that serves to support
warrants. The backing contains additional information that helps the
reader to understand the explanation. In the example argument, thr
reasoning of the explanation is better understood if we know
specifically what kind of people will gain from the new tools.
(5) Modals or Qualifier.
Modals or qualifier are statements that limit the strength of
arguments or propose condition in the correct argument. The qualifier
can appear in the text as a single word, for example very, somewhat,
more, probably, or as a short phrase. The qualifier can also be longer,
one or more sentences, in order to add nuance to or information about
special circumstances to an argument. In this role, qualifiers may be
crafted to identify and reduce bias. Because nuance may be difficult to
communicate, qualifiers tend expand the size of the argument and its
complexity. Thus, care must be taken to write qualifiers that are not
difficult to digest.
(6) Rebutal
Rebuttals is other opinions if modals have not been received. A
reservation provides information about expections to an argument.
This information help the reader to clearly understand how universal
18
the argument is or is not. Reservations can be placed in arguments to
indicate that they are not universal and to eliminate misinterpretations.
The last sentence of the example above is a reservation that shows the
argumet is reservation that shows the argument is broadly, not
narrowly , applicable.
3. Examples Element of Toulmin Models
Example of the text below.
Current negotiation models lack completeness as they may
exclude activities before or after the main negotiation interactions.
Further, they may lack features such as feedback loops which return
negotiators to previous phrases with new information and decision
gates to quit or continue, such features would make models more
accurate and useble to theoreticians, educators, and practitioners or
negotiation who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,
teaching insights, and best practice.7
a. Claim
The claim in the example above that current negotiation
models lack completenes is deliverd in a simple format. The
grammar is an affirmative statement and style is direct with no
7 Baber w, ― A lifecycle Macro Phase Model for Negotiation in M Schoop and D M
Kilgour eds Group Decision and Negotiation‖, Proceeding Springer International
Publishing, (2017),107-114.
19
adverbs, adjectives, or complex phrasing. Writers should not blur
multiple claims into one claim.
b. Ground or evidence
In the example above, the ground is may exclude activities
before or after the main negotiators to previous phases with new
information and decision gates to quit or continue. Evidence in this
argument is simple; it is merely a list of features. The deeper analysis
behind this data is located in a different part of the paper.
c. Warrant or reason
The explanation in the example above is such features
would make models more accurate and usable to theoreticians,
educators, and practitioners of negotiation. The Explanation is the
most complex element of the argument. The explanation typically
relies conditional grammar with would,should,could and similar
structures.
d. Backing
In the above sample argument, some backing is found in the
phrase, who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,
teaching insights, and best practices.
20
4. The Difference between Classical, Rogerian, and Toulmin
Argument Structure.
The three methods of argument structure share some
similarities but also have some distinctions. When composing an
argumentative essay, the author may employ one of these
strategies.
1. Classical – This method is intended to be simple to understand
and will assist you in structuring your argument in such a way
that the reader's needs are met. It is founded on formal logic and
consists of six major components: an introduction, a background
story explanation, the proposition or thesis statement, supporting
evidence, ideas of opposing viewpoints, and a conclusion.
2. Rogerian – In this method, the writer's point of view and
opposing points are expressed and evaluated to establish common
ground. It is less argumentative and aggressive than the Toulmin
method and is an excellent technique for resolving conflicts,
sensitive issues.
3. Toulmin – This technique analyzes arguments based on
asserted facts and supporting evidence. It helps evaluate ideas to
determine their truth and validity. Another advantage of the
Toulmin method is that it enables the writer to examine both his
21
own and opposing viewpoints without the necessity of finding
common ground between them.
The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of
presenting evidence for your argument, and it is written to
convince the reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.
Even if the reader is not convinced entirely that the writer is
correct, the evidence presented should be convincing enough that
the reader will see the logic and consider the argument for
himself. The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of
presenting evidence for your idea, and it is written to convince the
reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.
B. Critical Thinking
1. Definition of Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking abilities are essential for effectively
assessing one's thinking through intellectual tools at the university
level. All writing assignments require you to practice persuasion –
presenting arguments and defending them ( excepting story and
argumentative writing ), developing, evaluating, and offering ideas
are all developed skills during a critical thinking course—combined
with an understanding of how to write an argumentative essay and
how to apply critical frameworks.
22
According to Caroselli, critical is derived from the Greek
word krisis, which means "to separate." Consider the concept of "
excluded middless " to assist individuals in examining the statements
they make and the attitudes they hold, the very nature of which can
prevent us from solving problems and even create new ones.8 Facione
defines critical thinking as "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that
results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as
clarification of the evidential, conceptual, methodological,
criteriological, or contextual considerations that underpin that
judgment.9 Linda and Richard continue by stating that critical
thinking analyzes and evaluates one's thinking to improve it.10
Many experts shaped the study's definitions of critical
thinking in the critical thinking movement, including Ennis, Chaffee,
and Reichenbach. To begin, Ennis defined critical thinking as a process
aimed at arriving at a reasonable conclusion about what to believe and
what to do.11
Second, Chaffee asserts that critical thinking refers to a
well-organized commitment to critically evaluate and decide whether a
8 Marlene Caroselli, The Critical Thinking Tool Kit, ( New York : HRD Press,2011
),1. 9 Peter Facione, Critical Thinking : A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes
of Educational Assesment and Instruction, Research findings and Recommendations, ( Te
Delphi Report. Milbrae, CA : California Academia Press, 1990 ),3. 10 E. Linda & P. Richard, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and
Tools 3th
Edition ( The Foundation for Critical Thinking,2008 ),2. 11
Ennis, R.H, critical Thinking, ( New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1996 ), xvii.
23
judgment about the truth of a claim or recommendation to act in a
particular way should be accepted, rejected, or suspended.12
Thirdly,
critical thinking is defined as thinking that is explicitly directed toward
well-founded judgment and thus employs appropriate evaluative
standards in an attempt to ascertain something's actual worth, merit, or
value.13
Among all elements, various critical thinking elements such as
claims, argument, reasons, data ( evidence ), and opinion serve as the
central facts of critical thinking that shape the current study. The
concepts utilize these elements. Another aspect of critical thinking is
the application of critical thinking standards, which include (1) the
clarity of arguments, (2) the logical and relevance of the data and
evidence used to support the main point, (3) the accuracy of the
argument's quality, and (4) precision in the sense of being specific
about details.
According to Norris has states in his article on the Synthesis of
research on critical thinking that there are seven definitions for critical
thinking that are based on numerous studies. That is the case.14
12 Chaffee J, Thinking Critically, Sixth Edition ( USA : Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2002 ), 364. 13 Paul, R. & Elder, L, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking : Concepts and
Tools. Retrieved From http://www.d.umn.edu/jetterso/documentd/criticalthinking.pdf,2007. 14 S.P. Norris, 1985. Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Published by
Association for Supervision and Curriculum development,40-45.
24
a. Firstly, critical thinking is a multifaceted process involving
numerous considerations.
b. Secondly, critical thinking is an educational concept;
c. Thirdly, critical thinking is uncommon. Students do not perform
well on tests assessing their ability to recognize assumptions or
evaluate. They frequently make simple judgmental errors when
confronted with straightforward problems.
d. Fourthly, critical thinking is context-sensitive.
e. Fifthly, teachers should investigate the rationale for students'
conclusions.
f. Sixthly, simple errors may indicate more profound cognitive errors.
g. Seventhly, having a critical spirit is just as critical as critical
thinking.
2. The Process of Critical Thinking
According to Dewey, critical thinking has four dimensions:
emotional, social, physical, and cognitive.15
This study examines the
cognitive processes involved in students' critical thinking when they
write argumentative essays. Can then classify these mental
characteristics into five distinct categories: inference, analysis,
15
John Dewey, How We Think, ( Lexington, Mass : D.C. Heath, 1910 ), 45.
25
evaluation, conclusion, and introduction. Critical thinking is a
process that requires students to identify and research the
assumptions that underpin their thoughts and actions. In a nutshell,
critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitoring, and
self-corrective thought. It necessitates the application of rigorous
standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails
effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a
commitment to overcoming our inherent egocentric and sociocentric
tendencies. thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what
to do.16
3. The Characteristics of Critical Thinking
There are many definitions for critical thinking; according to
hunter, critical thinking is reasonable, reflective, and comprehensive.
This definition contains several components; therefore, let us
examine each component one at a time, beginning with the last.
Critical thinking is the process of deciding what to believe or do.
Choosing what to believe requires determining the facts, determining
how the world works, or at least how some small portion of it works.
16 David, Hunter, A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking: Deciding What to Do and
Believe. (2nd Ed.),4.
26
Critical thinking is reasoned, reflective reasoning with the goal
of determining what to believe or do. Making a decision about what
to believe requires reasoning about the facts. This is an example of
theoretical reasoning. Additionally, critical thinking is used to make
decisions about what to do. Choosing what to do is actually a two-
part process. To begin, one must determine what to value or strive
for. This is a matter of determining one's objective or end. Then, one
must determine the most effective means of accomplishing that goal.
The writer can use critical thinking these types of choices.
However, once we make them, once we decide how we want our
lives to be, we must still choose how to make them happen. Once the
ends have been determined, must determine the mean. Critical
thinking can also be advantageous in this situation.
Making decisions entails deliberating over what to do and
how to do it. This is a case of application. Rational thought is critical
thinking. In several ways, this is true. Critical thinking is logical
thinking, as it is a method and standard-sensitive. If we attempt to
conclude these issues without relying on those methods or adhering
to these standards, we will fall short of critical thinking. A critical
aspect of critical thinking is that rules and procedures govern it. This
27
is not to say that reasonable judgment and flexibility are not
permitted in critical thinking.
Critical thinking is rational thinking because it is guided by
general methods and standards and requires us to have sound
justifications for our actions. In another, more subtle sense, critical
thinking is rational. Critical thinking about what to believe or do is
reasonable in that it requires us to have reasons for our actions and be
good ones. The purpose of critical thinking is not simply to conclude
what the facts are or what goals to pursue. To some extent, such
decisions are straightforward. What's challenging is developing
sound justifications for our choices. It is not sufficient to decide that
it is sunny outside; one must have a compelling reason for doing so.
Similarly, simply valuing honesty or justice is insufficient;
one must have a compelling reason for doing so. Thus, critical
thinking is reasonable in that it requires us to have justifications for
our actions. We'll spend a good deal of time in the sections that
follow, delving into what constitutes a compelling reason to believe
or act.
28
Hunter states that critical thinking must be reflective because
it consists of thinking about a problem at different points and angles
at once, and it demands the right method to solve the problem.
Finally, reflective thinking is a component of critical thinking. To
solve it, we may need to break the problem down into its component
parts, consider the best method for locating a solution, and assess
whether we are employing that method correctly. We may even need
to modify the method or create one entirely new. We will discuss
open-ended problems in greater detail later, and there is no doubt that
the line between straightforward and open-ended problems is not
always clear. Calculating a square root for the first few times, even
with the formula, requires considerable reflection; and determining
whether it is raining or sunny is usually as simple as looking out the
window. Nonetheless, the contrast should be obvious. Critical
thinking is reflective in the sense that it entails considering a problem
on multiple levels or from multiple perspectives simultaneously,
including considering the most appropriate method for answering or
solving the problem.17
17 David, Hunter, A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking: Deciding What to Do and
Believe. (2nd Ed.),6.
29
One of the definition's primary strengths is that it does not
confine critical thinking to examining arguments. An argument is a
collection of statements, which (the premises) are intended to provide
analytical support for another (the conclusion) (the decision).
Because we can and frequently express our reasons for believing or
acting in the form of an argument, critical thinking must be
concerned with arguments. We will discuss some strategies and
standards for analyzing and evaluating arguments in subsequent
chapters. However, the concept of an argument does not always make
sense across the curriculum. It's difficult to see how reasoning about
experimental design or statistical sampling fits into an argument's
paradigm. Additionally, evaluating reasons for belief entails
assessing their acceptability and meaning, neither of which is
typically considered argumentation. Of course, one could extend the
conventional concept of an argument or argument analysis to
encompass all of these different facets of critical thinking. However,
this definition covers them all without artificially extending our
everyday language.
C. Argumentative Essay
30
1. Definition of Argumentative Essay
The ability to write argumentative essays is inextricable to the
ability to write argumentative paragraphs. It concluded argumentative
paragraph is necessary to introduce an argumentative essay. The poor
quality of argument in essays is involved in a lack of understanding
of argument structure in the essay. This is also because spoken
culture is more prevalent than written culture among the majority of
Indonesians.18
Additionally, can assert that Wijayanti stated that an
argumentative paragraph contains evidence or discussion of the
author's position on a subject.19
Further, Keraf argues that
argumentative is a type of rhetoric that aims to influence the attitudes
and opinions of others so that they believe and act by the author's
wishes.20
Argumentative is a style of writing in which evidence is
used to support a statement of attitude or opinion about something. In
the argumentative paragraph, the author convinces the reader by
including evidence, examples, or reasons.
18
D Siepman, ― Academic Writing and Culture : An Overview of Differencess
between English, French and German, ’’ Meta J. Des traducteurs, Vol. 51 No. 1 (2006),131. 19
Wijayanti, Bahasa Indonesia : Penulisan dan Penyajian Karya Ilmiah, ( Depok :
PT. Raja Grafindo, 2013 ), 122. 20 Gorys Keraf, Argumentasi dan Narasi Komposisi Lanjuran III, ( Jakarta : PT.
Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2001 ), 3.
31
Essentially, students should be able to provide "a clear and
logical presentation of facts (premises) in order to arrive at valid
conclusions" when writing an argumentative essay.21
Additionally, an
argumentative essay is defined as "a paper that is based on logical,
structured evidence and attempts to persuade the reader to accept an
opinion, take some action, or do both‖.22
Additionally, an argumentative essay is a type of written text
known as an exposition.23
More precisely, expositions become a text
that expresses a particular viewpoint or one side of a debate.
Additionally, expositions are organized to include such critical
components as a statement of positions, arguments, and rebuttals to
positions. There are two types of exposition texts: analytical and
hortatory. In this case, an analytical exposition text's objective is "to
analyze a given subject and then to persuade readers that the writer's
thesis is correct, which is accomplished through the development of
an argument to support it‖.24
a hortatory exposition, alternatively
21 Pastva, The Teaching of Argumentative Writing, Notre Dame English Journal,
Vol. 2, No.2, 30.
22 Zhu, W, Performing Argumentative Writing in English : Difficulties, Processes,
and
Strategis,TheCanadaJournal,Vol.19,No.1,3550.http://www.teslcanadjournal.ca/index.php/te
sl/article/viewfile/918/737.
23 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School, Queensland :
Peninsula Region Department of Education,1990,87.
24
Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,88.
32
referred to as a persuasive exposition text, is intended to persuade
readers to believe a writer's particular points of view.25
An argumentative essay is defined in this research as a type of
exposition text that consists of these three essential components.
First, it expresses our position, indicating whether we agree or
disagree with a particular point of view. Second, it is composed of
compelling arguments and evidence that are organized structurally
and logically. Third, reasons and evidence support our position.
Thirdly, it should include a restatement of our position to reiterate it.
Finally, these three critical components should be included and
organized logically in an argumentative essay to convince and
possibly persuade readers that our essay's position is correct.
1. Organization of Argumentative Essay
This section organizes argumentative essays into the previously
mentioned types of analytical and hortatory expositions. According to
Hardy and Klarwein, analytical exposition texts are typically divided
into three major sections: ―thesis (point of view/opinion), arguments
(with supporting evidence), and restatement of thesis-comment
25 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,88.
33
(optional).‖26
More precisely, Hardy and Klarwein establish a
framework for us to structure our analytical exposition essay. 27
- Introduction or opening comments to attract the reader’s
attention. (Often required in the subject English-but notan
obligatory element).
- Thesis
Preview (How the writer will develop the essay-a preview of
the arguments that follow :
- Argument Number One
Topic sentence
(PointSupporting evidence/facts (Elaboration)
- Argument Number Two
Topic sentence
(PointSupporting evidence/facts (Elaboration )
- Argument Number Three
26 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School, 88. 27 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,90.
34
Topic sentence
(Point Supporting evidence/facts (Elaboration)
- Conclusion
Restate Thesis
Comment (optional)
Background information
Position statement
Kindergarten students and teachers
at Matraville P.S. have been
discussing caged animals. We
believe they should not be caged.
Argument 1
Point
Elaboration (gives
evidence to support
point)
Firstly, not every animal is
dangerous. A pet cat is sociable and
would not harm you.
Argument 2
Point
Elaboration (gives
evidence to support
Secondly, there is insufficient space
for the animals to roam. they would
become bored, which would be
detrimental to their muscles.
35
point)
Argument 3
Point
Elaboration (gives
evidence to support
point)
Lastly, the keeper must feed the
animals. This is because they have
no idea how to feed themselves,
find food, or hunt.
Reinforcement of statement
of position
Therefore, we believe that caged
animals should not be kept. It can
be inhumane.
3. Good Argumentative
McNamara et al. assert that, while writing well is difficult for
many, it is critical for success in a wide variety of institutions and
professions.28
For instance, they claim that writing abilities are
among the best predictors of university success, defining good
writing as "writing that articulates ideas clearly, argues opinions,
synthesizes multiple perspectives, presents information effectively
28 McNamara, D., Crossley, S. and McCarthy, P., ― Linguistic features of writing
quality‖, Written Communication, Vol. 27, No.1 (2010 ), 57 – 86.
36
and consistently with well-chosen details, and avoids grammatical
and mechanical errors." Similarly, Paul and Elder define substantive
writing' as "writing that has a clearly defined purpose, makes a clear
point, and backs it up with specific information that is connected and
coherent.".29
What these definitions demonstrate is that specific
characteristics distinguish good writing from poor writing.
These include the clarity of purpose and ideas, supporting
arguments and opinions backed up by evidence, and consistently
presenting ideas. These elements are frequently desired in a variety of
different types and genres of writing. Cottrell emphasizes that
argumentative writing's primary objective is to persuade readers to
accept particular positions or viewpoints. To be persuasive, the
desired position must be backed up by adequate reasons and
evidence, and these authors assert that effective persuasive writing
includes the following elements: 1. Position: the writer's position,
which he or she wishes to persuade readers to accept, should be
stated plainly. 2. Justifications: the author makes arguments to
support their position and explains why readers should accept them.
29 Elder, L., & Paul, R, ― Critical thinking: Crucial distinctions for questioning‖,
Journal of Developmental Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, ( 1997 ), 34.
37
3. A line of reasoning: the order in which the reasons are
presented. According to Cottrell, the logical flow of reasons acts as a
path leading to the desired conclusions. A weak argument is one in
which the justifications are not presented logically or are
incompatible with the intended conclusion. Thus, the strength of an
argument is determined by the justifications offered to support the
conclusion. 4. Conclusion: refers to the argument's primary objective,
the position or point of view the author wishes to persuade readers to
accept based on the evidence provided.30
Furthermore, while it can include a summary of events in the
conclusion to highlight key points, it should also include judgments
about the likelihood of these events occurring. These distinctions are
made between arguments and other forms of writing, such as
description, narration, and persuasion.31
An argument's purpose is to
persuade readers to accept a particular point of view. Thus, should
conclude the arguments advanced, which should be compelling and
persuasive enough to convince the readers of the propositions'
validity.32
These are concerned with the structure and organization of
30 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument. (
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 ), 8 31 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument,5. 32 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument,
6.
38
persuasive writing. Properly used transitional words such as so, 'thus',
'in consequence', and 'as a result' alert the reader to the intended
conclusion. Additionally, students must develop the ability to identify
and recognize implicit assumptions and conclusions, even when such
terms and phrases are not used explicitly. Acquiring the ability to
determine whether or not reasons and conclusions have been
provided can be accomplished in part by familiarity with the structure
and organization of argumentative/persuasive writing.