(2/2) A Tale of Three Arguments: Identification

Identifying Arguments 101

When making an argument you provide reasons to support your POV. We do this everyday to ensure what we are discussing is backed up by support. In order for our idea to be persuasive it must have support and within a opinion article we call this a supporting argument

LA ESSAY STRUCTURE: The red text shows were the ideas in this blog fit into the LA SA structure.

 

Introduce understanding of article

Introduction:

 

Issue/Context, Text Details, Audience, Contention, Tone/Effect of tone

 

Analysis arguments within article

Body Paragraph 1:

 Analyse how the author uses persuasive language and techniques to argue their first supporting argument.
1) Identify the first supporting argument.
2) Identify and analyse how PLTs are used to persuade the reader.
3) Identify and analyse how PLTs are used to persuade the reader.

 

Body Paragraph 2:

Analyse how the author uses persuasive language and techniques to argue a second supporting argument.

 

Body Paragraph 3:

Analyse how the author uses persuasive language and techniques to argue a third supporting argument.

 

Conclusion:

How is the reader left feeling?

 

A Start Point:

It is important that we identify the contention. The supporting arguments are constructed to defend the POV the author is trying to make. Without a contention there can be no supporting argument.

Contention: The Australian government and society needs to do more to protect asylum seekers.

Now we have identified the foundation for the supporting arguments to back-up, we have also laid the foundation so we can demonstrate that we understand what the author is arguing.

The question we must ask ourselves is…

}  What supporting arguments does Nguyen employ to argue that Australian society needs to provide a sanctuary to asylum seekers

or

}  What reasons is Giselle Nguyen providing for Australia changing its asylum seeker laws to protect refugees.

or

}  Why does Giselle believe that asylum seekers should be protected by Australia?

In other words…

}  Giselle Nguyen thinks that the Australian government should provide asylum to refugees because…

Now we write our identified arguments in full sentences

Checklist for the identification of arguments

·         Is it a reason the author is providing for their POV?

·         Reference the author

·         Relate to the issue

·         Be a full sentence

Sample Identification of Arguments.

Original student idea is in italics, revised response demonstrating a full sentence is provided.

 

A1: The author argues that asylum seekers (They) are being persecuted and subjugated in their home country. 

Original response didn’t refer directly to the author (Nguyen). The response also began with the ambiguous ‘They’ employing the explicit ‘asylum seekers’ links the response directly to the issue. The response also need to address where ‘they’ where being ‘persecuted and subjugated’ thus the revised ‘asylum seekers are being persecuted and subjugated in their home country’ makes an implicit suggestion about why the Australian Government needs to address the issue. This makes a link back into the contention.

A2: Nguyen accuses the Australian Government of being racist with its asylum seeker policy. 

Original response did refer to the author and effectively identified an argument. However the response needed to make a reference to the asylum seeker policy to draw the focus of the argument statement through the issue and the contention.

A3: Nguyen makes the suggestion that asylum seekers have the potential to make valuable contributions to society and thus should be granted asylum.

The original response was poorly expressed, however an argument was identified. Response was re-written to include a reference to the author and the issue.