The Classical (Aristotelian) Argument

The Concession or Refutation

The Confirmation: Appeal & Evidence

Here, you acknowledge other perspectives and demonstrate the limitations of views that oppose your thesis:

• you can use facts, reasons or testimony to show such views are totally wrong
• you can acknowlege merit in these views while revealing flaws (e.g. a limited application)
• you could say opposing views have merits that are outweighed by other concerns (truth is relative, choices are difficult)
• you could also show that other arguments have good evidence but flawed reasoning

The Refutation is a Place where you should demonstrate tolerance & respect (Ethos)

As your textbook states, "unless we have the courage to permit [our] beliefs to be challenged, perhaps modified, maybe even abandoned, learning and personal growth cannot take place.

"Knowledge consists not of disembodied facts but of negotiated ideas. What we know we have assimilated from innumerable points of view. The health of our own ideas depends on a steady influx of fresh viewpoints..." (114)

Of course, you need evidence (both direct & indirect) to substantiate your thesis.

You also need to direct that evidence: connect your evidence to appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) to lead your audience to interpret it the way that you do.

The Classical Model of Argument

Your Conclusion Should have an Impact

1. Introduction:

• Lead-in
• Overview
• Background

2. Position Statement (Thesis)

3. Appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) & evidence

4. Refutation

5. Conclusion (peroration):

• Highlights of key points
• Recommendations
• Illuminating re-statement of thesis

Yes, you should tie things together and create a sense of finality, but this isn't just a summary.

Drive home your claim with a "final blast"--a big emotional or ethical claim that helps sway your audience.

The last note needs to strongly appeal to your audience, like the rallying end of a speech.

An Introduction Should

Useful Background

There's a reason why, 2500 years later, this model is still around

• As your text notes, this model has a long history, going back to Aristotle.
• In ancient Greece, rhetoric was taught as public speaking rather than writing (the formulaic nature of its elements was useful as a trigger to memory).
• The model is a flexible template: some elements shift in importance as rhetoric moves into writing: e.g. writers don't need to work so hard to "grab" the audience's attention & move more directly to the thesis.
• Rhetoric was training for students going into political ("deliberative"), legal ("forensic") or speech-making ("epideictic") professions.

Obviously, the classical model provides a useful structure to organise arguments.

It also forces writers to consider:

• beginning in an interesting way
• providing background/context tailored to the audience
• stating claims & evidence clearly & emphatically
• considering opposing views, anticipating objections
• concluding in a satisfying way

• present the topic of inquiry
• indicate the writer's position (thesis)
• establish the context for the problem
• engage the reader's attention and desire to see the whole picture

The Classical (Aristotelian) Argument