The Thesis: A good thesis is a must in argumentation. Your thesis must meet the following three criteria:

1. It concerns a viewpoint with which another person could reasonably disagree.
2. It attempts to change someone’s beliefs or actions.
3. It provides the answer to a specific question or the solution to a specific problem.

Once you have a good thesis, it is time to start thinking about the structure of your essay/speech.

Audience Analysis (before you begin, it’s important to know who you are writing or speaking to)

• What age are my readers/listeners?
• How much education do they have?
• What do they value most?
• What do they fear?
• Will they be seeking my information or will I have to convince them of its importance?
• How do they feel about my topic? How does it affect them?
• How much do they know about it?
• What vocabulary concerning my subject will they already know? Will their definitions agree with mine?  (If not make sure you clearly define terms as you understand them.
• What examples will they find most disturbing or inspiring?

Note: Examine the assumptions (both yours and your audience’s) underlying your thesis and decide how you are going to address those assumptions.

Argumentative Appeals (a good argument usually combines elements of all three appeals)

• Ethos—an appeal to the character of the writer. Readers/listeners believe and are moved by a thesis or an assertion because of the qualities of the person who makes it.
• Logos—an appeal to reason (based on well-structured assertions and evidence).
• Pathos—an appeal to readers’/listeners’ emotions, such as fear, pity or greed.

Types of Evidence (a good argument will use a combination of types)

• Facts and statistics—verifiable statements and data
• Examples—specific cases
• Expert opinions—the judgment of authorities
• Analogies—comparisons that clarify a situation

Fallacies (illogical and ineffective arguments)

• False Cause—asserting B was caused by A when close examination reveals the two may be entirely unrelated. (Example: Arguing that Bill Clinton’s troubles were the result of a right-wing conspiracy.)
• False Analogy—treating A and B in similar ways that they are not. (Example: Arguing that a person cannot be pro-life and still be an advocate of the death penalty. One issue has nothing to do with the other.)
• Begging the Question—assuming that part of what has to be proven is true. (Example: A politician asserts he could not have committed perjury because he is honest. How do we know he’s honest?)
• Either-Or—reducing a complex problem/issue down to two simple alternatives. (Example: Arguing that either media violence causes people to act violently or it doesn’t—end of story. There is more to the issue than just those two possibilities.)
• Red Herring—introducing an element into an argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. (Example: Blaming a guilty verdict on the “media circus” surrounding a case.)
• Oversimplification—oversimplifying the relationship between a cause and effect. (Example: Arguing that media violence has destroyed society. It may have helped but is not solely responsible.)
• Ad Hominem (to the man)—an attack on an opponent’s character to arouse emotions or prejudices in people. (Example: Making George W. Bush’s alleged cocaine use a campaign issue.)
• Hasty Generalization—leaping from too little evidence to too big an assertion. (Example: Saying all college students are binge drinkers after interviewing ten students at a frat party.)