Lecture 2: Structure of the Persuasive Essay
If you need this information later in the semester but forgot where it is, you can also find it on the Writing Tips page, along with other information that will help you with your papers.
A persuasive essay is one whose explicit purpose is take a side on a controversial issue and persuade the reader to agree with their position.
Your first paper will not require you to use all of the elements of a persuasive essay, but since some of your paper topics, and especially the Final Project, will require a persuasive essay, now is the time to start thinking about how to structure that essay.
The following outline is the traditional outline for a persuasive essay. It was originated by the Ancient Greeks and has been used successfully ever since. It is not the only way to organize a persuasive essay, but it's a good place to start if you've never done this before.
I. Introduction
II. Background Information (as needed)
III. Argument
IV. Refutation
V. Conclusion
Well, that's not too helpful, is it? Okay, a little explanation.
I. Introduction
In the introduction to a persuasive essay, you need to accomplish a lot.
First, and most obvious, your introduction will include the thesis: the topic and your position on the topic. Let's say, for example, that you wanted to write on the death penalty. That would be your topic. You also need to state a position on the topic (without saying "I"): "The death penalty should be abolished" or "The death penalty should remain legal."
Why not say "I"? If you say, "I think the death penalty should be abolished" or "I think the death penalty should remain legal," then you've altered the topic. Now, the subject of each of those sentences is "I." So the paper now has to be about you. But that's not what you want. You want the focus to be the death penalty. So keep yourself out of it.
Also--and this is important--"I think" or "I feel" or "in my opinion" or other phrases such as those make you sound ineffective. They sound apologetic and uncertain, as if you are saying, "Well, it's only my opinion." That's not what you want. One thing that persuades people is confidence. People are not persuaded by someone who isn't certain of his position. Say the following sentences out loud, and you'll hear it: one sounds certain and confident, the other hesitant and apologetic:
In my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished.
The death penalty should be abolished.
More on the Introduction
In a persuasive essay, you have to assume that your audience does not agree with you. If they agreed, there would be no need to persuade them. So you have to find a way to get them on your side right away. There are several ways to do this. One of the most effective is to tell a story. Here's an example:
First, consider the stories.
An 11-year old retarded boy was brought to a mental hospital with a teddy bear under his arm. His parents were, they said, going on a two-week vacation. They never came back.
A 12-year-old boy's mother died one year, and he was committed the next year by his father--two days before the man's remarriage. The diagnosis: a reaction of childhood.
Consider, too, the story of one child committed because he had "school phobia," another because she was "promiscuous," a third and fourth because they were "difficult" or even "incorrigible."
How do these stories make you feel? Are you on the side of the children or the parents?
If you said you think the parents are terrible parents, or that the children had been treated badly, then you are already in agreement with the author--whether you know it or not. You are already on the way to being persuaded. And you don't even know the argument yet!
In the next paragraph, the author goes on:
Then, when you've heard the stories, listen to Justice Warren Burger insist that "the natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."
Do you agree with him? Can parents be trusted to act in the best interests of their children? Most of the time, maybe, but based on those stories, not all the time.
Now the author gets to the topic:
Recently the U. S. Supreme Court assured all parents--the confused and the pathologically indifferent as well as the caring and concerned--an equal right to put their kids in mental hospitals. They denied all children--the odd and the unwanted, as well as the ill--an equal right to a hearing before being institutionalized.
It should be clear by now that she doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision.
These lines are taken from a 1979 editorial by Ellen Goodman in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. She goes on to support her position with details and quotes from authorities. But a lot of the work of persuasion is done by the time the reader finishes the fifth paragraph--even before she states her thesis!
This is a technique you can use, if you like, but you need to be sure of two things:
- Do not tell the reader how to feel. Simply state the facts: "An 11-year old retarded boy was brought to a mental hospital with a teddy bear under his arm. His parents were, they said, going on a two-week vacation. They never came back." Don't go on to add things like, "Isn't that terrible?" Then the reader feels manipulated and resists. Trust the reader to feel this for himself; that will persuade him more effectively.
- Your stories MUST be true and they must be cited, so your audience can see that they're true: fabricated stories have no credibility.
Background Information
"Background information" is whatever information your reader needs to understand your argument.
Remember that you are writing to a general audience. You can assume everyone lives in the world, but you can't assume anyone is a specialist. That means that, once you have done your research, you will know much more about your subject than your audience. You might have to explain some things before they can understand.
For example, if you are writing about artificial intelligence, you might need to explain what artificial intelligence is. Who developed it? What is it used for? Why is it so important? How does it affect ordinary people? And so on.
You don't always need to write a lot of background information. Sometimes, the topic you are discussing is well-known to everyone. In that case, providing paragraph after paragraph of background information will just bore them. If you were writing a paper about abortion, for example, you wouldn't need to explain what an abortion is. Pretty much everyone of adult age knows that. But sometimes you need a lot of background information. One of my students a few years ago wrote her paper on why we needed to spend the money to update the water delivery systems in this state. Most of us know that if we turn on a faucet, water comes out. But not many of us know where that water comes from or how it gets here. So she had to define terms like "aquifer" and "aqueduct," and explain how the water purchasing system works, and how the water physically moves from where it's bought to our faucets.
So how much background information to give is up to you. Think about what your audience would need to know, and then explain that to them. They might need definitions; they might need historical information; they might need legal information-all of this depends on your topic. If the audience needs no background information, leave it out. Give only what is needed: if you give too much, you bore your audience (and it's hard to persuade an audience who isn't listening!); if you give too little, you confuse them (and it's hard to persuade an audience who's confused).
The Argument Section
The Argument section is the longest and most important section of your paper. In the Argument section, you will present all your "reasons" and "evidence" to support your thesis.
What's a "reason"?
A reason is an idea or a general statement that supports your thesis. For example, let's say your thesis is: "The UFO crash-landing near Roswell, New Mexico in July, 1947 was covered up by President Harry S. Truman and Air Force General Roger Ramey due to fears of threats to national security and the risk of public hysteria."
That's a very controversial statement. There are many people who don't believe in UFOs, and others who don't believe that our government would cover something like that up. So now you need to provide reasons why we should believe this.
For example, "The government's stories about what happened at Roswell are inconsistent."
That's a reason. It's a general statement which supports your thesis.
You need a minimum of three reasons to support your thesis. You may have more, but you must have at least 3. The reason isn't grammatical or structural. It's psychological. In Western culture, we have been conditioned to think in terms of threes. I'm not sure why, but it's the case. So for example, if a celebrity dies on Monday, and another celebrity dies on Wednesday, people say, "Things come in threes! I wonder who's next?"
This is a superstition, of course, but it's deeply engrained. So give people what they expect. If you don't, it will be harder to convince them. They will listen to your first argument and say, "Okay, that's good, what next?" Then they'll listen to your second argument and says, "Okay, that's good, what next?" Then they'll listen to your third argument and say, "Okay, that's good." Once they read or hear the third argument, they feel complete. If you have more than three arguments, they will listen to them, of course. But if you don't have three, they will always feel as if something is missing. They may not be able to put their finger on what it is, exactly, but they will feel disturbed, and that will undermine your ability to be persuasive.
Now for the evidence
"Evidence" is factual information which you use to support your reasons. Factual information can be statistics, stories told by witnesses, quotes from authorities, results of studies, results of surveys, anything numerical, and so forth. (We'll discuss quality of evidence later.)
So perhaps your reason is the one we used earlier: "The government's stories about what happened at Roswell are inconsistent." Now you need some evidence to back that up-some facts that will show the reader that the government's statements have, indeed, been inconsistent. Here are a few:
- In the late 40's the army reported that a weather balloon with a reflective skin crashed and was mistaken for a UFO
- In the 50's the official reports ranged from nothing happening at all in Roswell to classified fighter craft crashing
- In 1997 the air force's official report was that parachute test dummies came down at Roswell and were mistaken for aliens.
You could go further for each of those, and find exact quotes from officials who gave each of those statements. Those quotes would be evidence, too.
Organizing the Argument Section
It might sound odd, but having enough facts to prove your point isn't enough to persuade people. You must organize those facts in a persuasive way.
Once you have all your reasons figured out, rank them. Figure out which reason is strongest, which is the second strongest, which is the third strongest, which is the weakest. Then, save the strongest reason for last. Once again, this is not about grammar or structural correctness. It's about psychology. What people hear last is what makes the greatest impression and what they remember the longest. You want them to remember your strongest reason the longest. Give your second best reason first. What people hear first is what they remember second longest. Then work your way down the list to your weakest reason. That will always come right before your strongest reason. There are two reasons for this: So your outline for your Argument section will look something like this (this is just an example): III. Argument And you will have a minimum of three Reasons, with the accompanying Evidence. The Refutation section is what turns your paper from an Argumentative paper to a Persuasive essay. Up to now, you've simply been stating your own view of an issue and giving all the reasons and evidence you can find to support your own opinion. But giving good reasons and evidence won't be enough to change a reader's mind if he doesn't already agree. We human beings are weird: we are perfectly capable of holding two contradictory positions at the same time. When you give your argument, your reader might say, "I agree. I agree. You're right. But I'm still not changing my mind." Convincing a reader you are right is not enough to change his mind. You also have to convince him he is wrong...without ever using the word "wrong." This is what you do in the refutation. You state all of the arguments on your reader's side, and explain, one by one, why they are wrong...without ever using the word "wrong." Yes, I did repeat myself, because that's important: if you are trying to persuade someone to change his position and come over to your side of the issue, NEVER tell him he is "wrong." People hate to be called wrong. They even hate it when you imply it. It doesn't persuade them--it just makes them defensive or angry and then it's impossible to persuade them. So you need to make them see why they should abandon their own ideas and agree with yours. There are a number of ways to do this, but first let's talk about what a refutation paragraph looks like. First, choose one of the reasons your opponent would use. Then restate it, concisely and fairly. Don't use obviously negative language to restate the argument, as this will just alienate your audience. Here are two examples: Which of these is insulting to the reader? Right! #1! Who wants to be called "naive"? It's the same as being called "childish" or "ignorant." It's insulting! #2 is much better: it shows that the speaker understands and respects your view of the events. Second, refute the reason. Again, state this in a way that respects your reader. Here are two examples: Which of these is more insulting to the reader? Right again: #1! Who wants to be called "gullible"? Who wants to be spoken to sarcastically? Again, #2 is much better, because it assumes that the reader is smart enough to adjust his opinions in light of new evidence-and it gives him a way to do so without losing face! Third, add evidence that refutes the opposing reason and supports your own position. Once you get your reader to open his mind, then you have to seal the deal: you have to give him some really good reasons to move over to your side. Ideally, your evidence should be so compelling that it makes your side the obvious choice. Here is an example: "The government says that what crashed at Roswell was just a weather balloon, and it's easy to see how that could be the case: both weather balloons and UFOs are big round silver objects. But then, once you hear about all the eyewitness accounts, and even pictures of alien bodies being recovered from the crash site, the UFO theory starts to make more sense. Then there is the eyewitness testimony of Grady Barnet, a civil engineer with the US Soil Conservation Service. He was among the first at the crash site, and saw a number of dead bodies, inside and outside a metallic, disc-shaped "aircraft": Fourth, add a conclusion to the paragraph that reiterates why the reader should change his mind and agree with you. Here's an example: "The government says that what crashed at Roswell was just a weather balloon, and it's easy to see how that could be the case: both weather balloons and UFOs are big round silver objects. But then, once you hear about all the eyewitness accounts, and even pictures of alien bodies being recovered from the crash site, the UFO theory starts to make more sense. Then there is the eyewitness testimony of Grady Barnet, a civil engineer with the US Soil Conservation Service. He was among the first at the crash site, and saw a number of dead bodies, inside and outside a metallic, dis-shaped "aircraft": In the Refutation section, there is no minimum or maximum number of reasons you have to cover. The rule in this section is that you have to cover all the reasons your opponent has. If he has 3 reasons on his side, then you refute each one. If he has 7, you refute each one. Each reason you refute gets its own paragraph. So if your opponent has 7 reasons on his side, you'll have 7 paragraphs in your Refutation section. The conclusion of a persuasive essay is one more opportunity to persuade your reader. The classical way to end a persuasive esszay is to: A "punch line" is a great quote or example or statistic that you save for the end. It makes your point in a very strong way, one that readers will remember. What people hear last is what they remember the longest, so you want your last line to be powerful. Here are a couple of examples: Sixty years after French began investigating UFOs for Project Blue Book, he still thinks there's a cover-up. "It's going on today. There's no question about it. I've listened to their denials many times and, at that time, I was in direct opposition to their position. In my mind, there wasn't any question that UFOs were real" (Spiegel). No matter what the government says, the Roswell story is too big to ignore. Are we that conceited that we think we are the only people in the cosmos? There are millions of star systems "out there." It is folly to believe we are alone. More importantly, the Roswell incident tells us more about ourselves than anything else. In 1995, Phil Cousineau wrote in "UFOs: A Manual for the Millennium": 'Something happened at Roswell that has come to symbolize what we don't yet know about the nature of life on other planets, the possibility of inter-galactic travel, the state of national security, and how far the government will go to ensure it'" (Stephens). If you'd like to depart from the traditional classical ending, you can also end with an example, with a thought-provoking incident that relates to the topic, with a call to some specific action (if appropriate). The conclusion is what the reader is left with; like the opening, it should have impact.
Working your way down to the weakest reason works the same way: you give your first reason, and your reader says to himself, "That's good, but I can beat it." Then you give your next reason, which is weaker, and your reader gains confidence. Then as you go through the rest of the reasons, he is getting more and more confident. So when you give him your best argument at the end, his guard is down and he is caught by surprise--and maybe you can convince him a little, or at least weaken his certainty that he is right. (By the way, I'm not advocating that you hustle pool or anything else. It's dangerous. Making an argument works on the same principle, though, and it's a lot safer!)
A. Reason: The government's stories about what happened at Roswell are inconsistent.
1. Evidence: In the late 40's the army reported that a weather balloon with a reflective skin crashed and was mistaken for a UFO.
a. Direct quote from army official.
b. Direct quote from another army official.
2. Evidence: In the 50's the official reports ranged from nothing happening at all in Roswell to classified fighter craft crashing.
a. Direct quote from army official.
b. Direct quote from another army official.
3. Evidence: In 1997 the air force's official report was that parachute test dummies came down at Roswell and were mistaken for aliens.
a. Direct quote from army official.
b. Direct quote from another army official.The Refutation
They were like humans but they were not humans. The heads were round, the eyes were small, and they had no hair. The eyes were oddly spaced. They were quite small by our standards and their heads were larger in proportion to their bodies than ours. Their clothing seemed to be one-piece and grey in colour. You couldn't see any zippers, belts or buttons. They seemed to be all males and there were a number of them. I was close enough to touch them but I didn't - I was escorted away before I could [do so]. (Dean)"
They were like humans but they were not humans. The heads were round, the eyes were small, and they had no hair. The eyes were oddly spaced. They were quite small by our standards and their heads were larger in proportion to their bodies than ours. Their clothing seemed to be one-piece and grey in colour. You couldn't see any zippers, belts or buttons. They seemed to be all males and there were a number of them. I was close enough to touch them but I didn't - I was escorted away before I could [do so]. (Dean)
And Grady Barnet was just one of many witnesses. Looking at all the accumulated evidence, it's harder and harder to accept the government's weather balloon story."The Conclusion