How do you write a convincing argumentative paragraph?
Good question. Let’s look at some sample paragraphs and see if we can tell which are convincing and which need more work.
|
Example 1 Statistics have shown "that prisoners of all races are more likely to be executed if the victim was with than some other race." (Cooper 3). A crime should not be measured on the race of the victim or the accused, but studies prove that "even though almost half of the homicide victims are people of color, more than 89% of the prisoners executed were convicted of killing whites. A study "also suggests that blacks are the most likely to receive the death penalty regardless of the victim's race." (Cooper 3) Bias is also used against people who are considered retarded or mentally ill, with only 12 states that prohibit the death penalty for the mentally disabled. Susan Smith, who was sentenced to life in prison for drowning her children, was spared a death sentence in South Carolina because she was considered mentally incompetent. |
note: in-text citations need some work here as well
|
Example 2 Seventy-five people who had been sentenced to death have been found innocent and released after charges were dropped when new evidence was found. James Richardson spent 21 years on death row when he was accused of poisoning his children in 1968. Lawyers that later reviewed the case found that the baby sitter who was with the children on the day of their death was also found guilty of poisoning her husband. She then confessed to killing the children. At the time of the murders, prosecutors claimed that Richardson had bought life insurance the day before the murders, and used that information to convict him. (Cooper 8) |
Each of these paragraphs contain good specifics/evidence right? Does this make them effective argumentative paragraphs?
No.
What’s missing from these paragraphs are explanations of why and how this evidence proves America shouldn’t use the death penalty. For example, the writer here needs to explain what’s wrong with a racial imbalance and that seventy-five is a pretty high number of overturned convictions and should lead to worries of innocent people being executed. But without these kinds of explanations, readers cannot tell why the death penalty is good or bad. Again, it’s the explanations that make your argument, not the evidence.
This next student sample does a much better job of making an argument. Why?
|
Another disadvantage many death penalty defendants have is the lack of qualified defense lawyers and money – lots of it – to mount a serious defense effort. State and County prosecutors have an almost unlimited supply of money, in the form of tax dollars, to conduct far reaching investigations and prosecuted capital cases. Eric M. Freedman, writing in Opposing Viewpoints, describes the problem with this statement: “the field is a highly specialized one, and since states have failed to pay the amounts necessary to attract competent counsel, there is an overwhelming record of poor people being subjected to convictions and death sentences that equally or more culpable – but more affluent – defendants would not have suffered” (144). Without highly experienced counsel and a sufficient budget, a capital defendant loses the advantage of hiring expert witnesses, private investigators, and public relations specialist who use the media in an effort to mold public opinion. If there is to be a true “fair trial” that we are all entitled to, the state needs to provide adequate funds to defense attorneys as an incentive for their services, otherwise we have only a small group of magnanimous lawyers overwhelmed by deep pocketed prosecutors. We are all entitled to qualified defense counsel, more so when it means life or death. |
Here we have a writer who did a much better job of explaining his point. Note, in particular, that he explains the problem of not having enough money to pay for adequate counsel.
Let’s take a look at another paragraph, this one from a pro-death penalty essay.
| First of all the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. “In 1967 the death penalty was suspended and the U.S. Department of Justice records show that homicides that same year climbed dramatically, but then in 1976 the supreme court reinstated the death penalty and homicide rates plummeted.” (Johansen 135) In other words the U.S. Dept. of Justice records prove that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. |
What missing here? What’s a problem with the evidence as well? Is it okay to state this as fact if it was discredited by a review of statistics from the earlier part of the century?
How about one final paragraph?
| In the first part of my case I would like to present you with information that shows the death penalty does not deter crime. According to Eric Freedman, “states that use the death penalty have crime rates that are nearly indistinguishable from those states that do not have the death penalty” (139). If the death penalty were a reasonable deterrent, especially a good enough one to warrant its use, there would be significant differences in crime rates between states that have it and states that do not have it. It looks like a scare tactic approach doesn’t work in this case, after all, as Eric Freedman stated, “people who commit capital murders generally do not engage in probability analysis concerning the likelihood of getting the death penalty if they are caught” (140) |
What works here? What needs more work?
For more detail on constructing arguments see Parts of an Argumentative Essay and The Logic Behind Arguments.
Central to making clear arguments is the smooth integration of source material. Readers need to understand why you’re using a particular source and that the source is credible. Following the steps below will provide this information.
1) Introduce quote – supply context so readers can understand why you’re about to cite someone else.
| Legal professor Eric M. Freedman describes this problem of unqualified defense attorneys: |
2) Insert Quote – with citation
| “the field [death penalty] is a highly specialized one, and since states have failed to pay the amounts necessary to attract competent counsel, there is an overwhelming record of poor people being subjected to convictions and death sentences that equally or more culpable – but more affluent – defendants would not have suffered.” |
Note: the writer had to add material – [death penalty] – to the sentence for clarity. The square brackets tell the reader that material added is by the writer. Note as well that no page number is needed because source is from a database.
3) Explain how and why quote proves your point
| Without highly experienced counsel and a sufficient budget, a capital defendant loses the advantage of hiring expert witnesses, private investigators, and public relations specialist who use the media in an effort to mold public opinion. If there is to be a true “fair trial” that we are all entitled to, the state needs to provide adequate funds to defense attorneys as an incentive for their services, otherwise we have only a small group of magnanimous lawyers overwhelmed by deep pocketed prosecutors. We are all entitled to qualified defense counsel, more so when it means life or death. |
Note here how the writer pulled out words from the quote, repeating them in the explanation to make sure readers could understand the point.
You should work on paying attention to punctuation to get your argument across clearly – and establish your own credibility. Nothing weakens an argument like a sentence or word that makes a reader think “Huh?”
Colons and clarity
Consider these two versions of the same sentence:
|
The fact of the matter is that there are flaws in most every process; including the justice system. |
The first phrase “The fact of the matter” gets in the way of the powerful statement “there are flaws in any system;” and the semi-colon isn’t used correctly (they are used between two closely related complete sentences or to divide items in a complicated list)
|
There are flaws in any system: including the justice system. |
Note how the sentence above drives the main point home by eliminating the rhetorical flourish of “The fact of the matter” and then uses a colon to set up a definitive statement/example.
Commas
And what about the following sentence:
|
The man normal by any visual standards had killed two teenage children. |
Here we find a sentence that reads confusingly – but can easily be corrected with commas. Remember one rule is to use a comma before and after an interruption or insertion. The phrase “by any visual standards” is an insertion, which modifies or describes the “man” in the preceding clause. Another way of explaining this is to remember to separate a dependent clause from an independent clause. Since “normal by any visual standards” does not form a complete thought by itself (it’s a dependent clause), it needs to be set off with commas – see below.
|
The man, normal by visual standards, had killed two teenage children. |
Adding the commas before and after the clause clarifies the sentence (note that I also removed the unnecessary “any” – if the word doesn’t help the sentence, it hurts it), making it clear that phrase refers back to the man.
Semi-colons
And since we were talking (okay, since I was writing) about semi-colons a few minutes ago, let’s see how they can be used effectively in argumentative writing.
|
The criminal’s family has done no harm; why are we forcing the same grief and torment on them as the victim’s family has endured? |
Notice how the semi-colon separates two independent – yet closely related – clauses. This makes for a very effective pair of sentences. Here, the student rebuts the argument on closure for victims’ families by setting up a tough, though pertinent, comparison.