ARGUMENTATION

Elements in an argumentative text

• Origin of the controversy

• Stating the main claim

• Stating an argument (arguments- evidence)

• Attacking a counter-argument (explicit- implied)

• Conclusion, sometimes, making compromises

Elements in an argumentative text

• Origin of the controversy

Many countries like Armenia and Bulgaria restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. Others, like Australia, restrict prisoners’ vote to those serving a sentence of more than three years.

Controversy: the right of prisoners to vote

Elements in an argumentative text

• Stating the main claim

Many countries like Armenia and Bulgaria restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. Others, like Australia, restrict prisoners’ vote to those serving a sentence of more than three years. In Costa Rica, prisoners, as society offenders, should be banned to vote.

Main Claim: prisoners should be banned to vote.

Elements in an argumentative text

• Stating an argument

Prisoners are irresponsible members of society, so they should only be given the rights of members of society when they are deemed capable of acting responsibly.

Explicit argument: Prisoners are irresponsible members of society.

Elements in an argumentative text

• Attacking a counter argument

Though some people claim that denying prisoners to vote implies that they are sub-human and damages their dignity, this is not the case. This measure focuses on making prisoners realize and sincerely regret the effects of their actions.

Explicit counter-argument: Denying prisoners to vote implies that they area sub-humans and damages their dignity.

Elements in an argumentative text

• Conclusion

Considering prisoners’ situation, they can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their voting rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence.

Conclusion: They can vote after they have made amends to society.

Support for Arguments & Counter-arguments

Statistical evidence

Comparing

Empirical investigation

FACTS

Rationalized belief

Belief based on experience

Expert’s opinion

OPINION

Argumentative Method

Undermining• Impersonal

Debunking• Direct confrontation with opponent; it may include offensive language

Conclusion

Restatement of the claim

Compromisingposition (50%-50%)

Opposing View

Claim: ____________________________________________________________

Text PositionClaim: Selling human organs should be legal

1. Implied counter-argument: _________________________________________

1. Explicit argument: Organ access will be guaranteed for both the poor and the richSupport 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be donated or sold

2. Explicit counter-argument: _________________________________________

2. Explicit argument: ______________________________________________

Support 1. ______________________

________________________________

________________________________

Support 2. ______________________

__________________________________

______________________________

3. Implied counter-argument: Legal organ sale would not benefit the poor.

3. Explicit argument: ______________

________________________________Support 1: They do it in the black market anyways, but only the middle man gets great benefit.

Support 2:

________________________________

__________________________________

______________________________

Argumentative method:

Type of conclusion:

Should the sale of human organs be legal?The sale of human organs should be legalized. Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase. Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified. Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ. Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole.

Should the sale of human organs be legal?The sale of human organs should be legalized. Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase. Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified. Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ. Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole.

Opposing View

Claim: ____________________________________________________________

Text PositionClaim: Selling human organs should be legal

1. Implied counter-argument: _________________________________________

1. Explicit argument: Organ access will be guaranteed for both the poor and the richSupport 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be donated or sold

2. Explicit counter-argument: _________________________________________

2. Explicit argument: ______________________________________________

Support 1. ______________________

________________________________

________________________________

Support 2. ______________________

________________________________

________________________________

3. Implied counter-argument: Legal organ sale would not benefit the poor.

3. Explicit argument: ______________

________________________________Support 1: They do it in the black market anyways, but only the middle man gets great benefit.

Support 2:

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

Argumentative method:

Type of conclusion:

Should the sale of human organs be legal?The sale of human organs should be legalized.

Opposing View

Claim:Text Position

Claim: The sale of human organs should be legalized.

The sale of human organs

should be illegal / should remain illegal /

should not be legalized.

Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase.

1. Implied counter-argument: 1. Explicit argument: Organ access would be guaranteed for both the poor and the rich.

Support 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be acquired by donation or by purchase.

Organ access would be guaranteed only for the rich. / The poor willnot have access to organs. / Organ access will not be guaranteed the same for the poor and the rich.

Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified.

2. Explicit counter-argument: 2. Explicit argument:

Support 1.

Support 2.

Legalizing organ sale would increasecrime.

crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones

for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified.

Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ.

3. Implied Counter-argument: 3. Explicit argument:

Support 1:

Support 2:

Legal organ sale would not benefitthe poor.

Legal organ sale would benefit the poor.

They do it in the black market anyways,but only the middle man gets great benefit.

An open market would work according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the seller to get the most profit

Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole.

Argumentative Method:

Kind of argumentative conclusion:

Undermining

Restatement of the claim

1. The sale of human organs should be legalized……………… ( f )

a. Comparing a similar phenomenon to support a claim

2. Firstly, if there are two markets […] have to pay…….… ( g ) b. Concluding an argument

3. In this way, the needed organ can go […] or by purchase…….. ( a )

c. Identifying a counter-argument

4. Secondly, people who do not [ …] would increase crime……...

( c ) d. Supporting a claim with a rationalized belief.

5. However, crime is the norm […] not before or after….…….. ( e )

e. Attacking a counter-argument with an example

6. I see this as a good thing because […] as possible………. ( d ) f. Introducing an argument

7. Looking at human organ sale […] mankind as a whole………... ( b )

g. Introducing a claim supporting the argument

h. Debunking the opposition