FROM ANALYSIS TO ARGUMENT

Adapted from various sources*) for internal use only

Re
ad
th
e
tex SQ3R
t
Take notes

Analyze the details and Analyze the main Idea, supporting ideas,
find the pattern that organization of ideas, concept map, Synthesize
emerge
Develop claim based on the concept map,
Analyze the pattern and establish
what the pattern reveals formulate your logical argument and avoid
fallacies

Formulate an argument based on that pattern

analysis Develop an outline for argumentative essay
& the logic of the argument

E sta b lis h th e a rg u m e n t/th e sis in th e in tro d u cti o n o f a n

e ssa y
Write thesis statement in the introductory paragraph

M ake
su re
e a ch
O rga n ise th e b o d y b y
body
su p p o rti n g p o in ts
o f th e
p a ra g r
aph
has Write the facts to support thesis and the sources of those facts
m a in
p o in ts
and
d e ta ils
and
e xp la n
a ti o n Develop your conclusion, check the logic of your argument,
of
a n a lysi organization, structure, grammar & spelling
s to
su p p o r
t th a t
p o in t

1
 I. DEVELOPING CLAIM BASED ON THE CONCEPT MAP
Where persuasive writing is involved, an argument is compulsory. It means be prepared for the
author to put forward an opinion along with convincing support or evidence. By definition the
argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect,
generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner. A
concept map is an efficient tool to help your investigation.
A concept map which is a diagram that illustrates the relationship between concepts, typically
depicts ideas and information as circles or boxes, which are connected with labelled arrows in a
hierarchical structure that is downward-branching. The relationship between concepts can be
articulated using linking phrases such as “causes,” “requires,” or “contributes to.” The concept
map helps to organize the ideas that students collect from various sources and determine their
point of view with regard to a topic. Unlike mind mapping, concept mapping is more structured,
and less pictorial in nature. The aim of concept mapping is not to generate spontaneous
associative elements but to outline relationships between ideas. Thus, concept mapping is a
relational device.
Concept mapping is advocated as a strategy for knowledge elicitation and re-conceptualization
As such, it can also be utilized for studying textual and other media sources, by adding map
structuring capabilities to represent structural knowledge. Once a topic has been determined, a
synthesized inter textual concept map may lead to the development of an argument as shown in
the following example

Students
attitude toward
citation author
author

author
target Franz Goldstein Result
17 females &
18 males Perez impact
result target All are able to
target result cite

None of them 42 females & impact Males are favorably

like APA disposed toward 50 females
50 males All are eager to
using citation write dissertations
software
Females might
graduate sooner

2
The above inter textual synthesized concept map was develop based on analysis of similarities
and differences of three texts. The claim was then developed into the following thesis statement:
Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between
advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy.
EXERCISE 1
Develop a synthesized inter textual concept map and identify the possible claim out of the
synthesized inter textual concept map.
1. Adisasmito urged the public to ignore false rumors and misconceptions about the vaccine.
“There is no need to doubt that the vaccine is safe and halal,” he said. “The vaccine has not
caused any serious side effects so far.” Indonesian authorities aim to inoculate about 181.5
million people of the 270 million population. The CoronaVaccine was developed by Chinese
company Sinovac. (https://www.arabnews.com/node/1816891/world)
2. “I’m not rejecting vaccines, I’m rejecting Sinovac’s,” said Yusdeny Lanasakti, an East Java
doctor who is worried about the vaccine’s efficacy. The vaccine was 50.4% effective in a
Brazilian trial, researchers said on Tuesday. Indonesia approved it for emergency use based
on interim data showing 65.3% efficacy. Turkish researchers provided an interim figure of
91.25%. Sinovac did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-indonesia-healthca-
idUSKBN29I0T1)
3. Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper China Press on Wednesday (Feb. 24) reported that a
33-year-old nurse at Ngudi Waluyo Regional General Hospital in Blitar, East Java, had died
nine days after receiving a shot from Sinovac's Corona Vaccine. The nurse, identified as Erny
Kusuma Sukma Dewi, had received the first dose of the two-shot vaccine on Jan. 28. After
her death, Indonesia's Ministry of Health expressed deep condolences but declined to
comment on any possible connection between the vaccine and her death. It emphasized that
after the first dose is administered, it can only trigger a partial immune response, and it is not
until about 14 to 28 days after the second dose has been injected that it is believed the body
begins to develop immunity to COVID-19.
(https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4136005)

Claim: Attitude toward vaccine in Indonesia ranges from trust to distrust based of observation of
some international media

II. ARGUMENTATION
There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support
claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of
all three appeals to make its case.
1. Credibility of an author such as using only credible, reliable sources to build your
argument and cite those sources properly, organize your argument in a logical, easy to
follow manner, avoiding careless grammar mistakes (Ethos). You can use the Toulmin

3
 method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most
detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
2. A sound and viable reasoning or logos which covers: Inductive reasoning, Deductive
Reasoning, avoidance of Fallacies (Logos).
3. Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as
well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint
a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. Only use an
emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making (Pathos)

Argumentative essay assignments generally call for extensive research of literature or previously
published material. Argumentative assignments may also require empirical research where the
student collects data through interviews, surveys, observations, or experiments. Detailed research
allows the student to learn about the topic and to understand different points of view regarding
the topic so that she/he may choose a position and support it with the evidence collected during
research. Regardless of the amount or type of research involved, argumentative essays must
establish a clear thesis and follow sound reasoning.

The Five-Paragraph Essay

A common method for writing an argumentative essay is the five-paragraph approach. This is,
however, by no means the only formula for writing such essays. If it sounds straightforward, that
is because it is; in fact, the method consists of (a) an introductory paragraph (b) three evidentiary
body paragraphs that may include discussion of opposing views and (c) a conclusion. Note that
the parts of a paragraph correspond to the parts of an essay.

4
 1. INTRODUCTION

General Statements
Thesis Statement

Topic Sentence III. Topic Sentence

A. Support
B. Support
A. Support
C. Support
B. Support
(concluding sentence)
C. Support
Concluding sentence
IV. Topic Sentence
A. Support
II. Topic Sentence
B. Support
A. Support
C. Support
B. Support
(concluding sentence)
C. Support
V. CONCLUSION(concluding sentence)

Restatement or summary
of the main points; final
comment

In the first paragraph of an argument essay, students should set the context by reviewing the
topic in a general way. Next the author should explain why the topic is important (exigence) or
why readers should care about the issue. Lastly, students should present the thesis statement. It is
essential that this thesis statement be appropriately narrowed to follow the guidelines set forth in
the assignment. If the student does not master this portion of the essay, it will be quite difficult to
compose an effective or persuasive essay.
Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.
Transitions are the mortar that holds the foundation of the essay together. Without logical
progression of thought, the reader is unable to follow the essay’s argument, and the structure will

5
collapse. Transitions should wrap up the idea from the previous section and introduce the idea
that is to follow in the next section.
Body paragraphs that include evidential support.
Each paragraph should be limited to the discussion of one general idea. This will allow for
clarity and direction throughout the essay. In addition, such conciseness creates an ease of
readability for one’s audience. It is important to note that each paragraph in the body of the essay
must have some logical connection to the thesis statement in the opening paragraph. Some
paragraphs will directly support the thesis statement with evidence collected during research. It is
also important to explain how and why the evidence supports the thesis (warrant).
However, argumentative essays should also consider and explain differing points of view
regarding the topic. Depending on the length of the assignment, students should dedicate one or
two paragraphs of an argumentative essay to discussing conflicting opinions on the topic. Rather
than explaining how these differing opinions are wrong outright, students should note how
opinions that do not align with their thesis might not be well informed or how they might be out
of date.
Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).
The argumentative essay requires well-researched, accurate, detailed, and current information to
support the thesis statement and consider other points of view. Some factual, logical, statistical,
or anecdotal evidence should support the thesis. However, students must consider multiple points
of view when collecting evidence. As noted in the paragraph above, a successful and well-
rounded argumentative essay will also discuss opinions not aligning with the thesis. It is
unethical to exclude evidence that may not support the thesis. It is not the student’s job to point
out how other positions are wrong outright, but rather to explain how other positions may not be
well informed or up to date on the topic.
A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the
evidence provided.
It is at this point of the essay that students may begin to struggle. This is the portion of the essay
that will leave the most immediate impression on the mind of the reader. Therefore, it must be
effective and logical. Do not introduce any new information into the conclusion; rather,
synthesize the information presented in the body of the essay. Restate why the topic is important,
review the main points, and review your thesis. You may also want to include a short discussion
of more research that should be completed in light of your work.

Longer Argumentative Essays

Complex issues and detailed research call for complex and detailed essays. Argumentative
essays discussing a number of research sources or empirical research will most certainly be
longer than five paragraphs. Authors may have to discuss the context surrounding the topic,

6
sources of information and their credibility, as well as a number of different opinions on the
issue before concluding the essay. Many of these factors will be determined by the assignment.
Please note that argument is often confused with opinion. Indeed, arguments and opinions sound
alike. Someone with an opinion asserts a claim that he thinks is true. Someone with an argument
asserts a claim that she thinks is true. Although arguments and opinions do sound the same, there
are two important differences: Arguments have rules; opinions do not. In other words, to form an
argument, you must consider whether the argument is reasonable. Opinions, on the other hand,
have no rules, and anyone asserting an opinion need not think it through for it to count as one;
however, it will not count as an argument. Arguments have support; opinions do not. If you
make a claim and then stop, as if the claim itself were enough to demonstrate its truthfulness,
you have asserted an opinion only. Example:
Opinion
A: Social media makes our life less safe
B: Well, I don’t think so. It allows people to communicate quickly in times of crisis

Arguments
The Wall Street Journal reported that, during the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, people in Paris used
Twitter to let terror victims know their addresses in case they needed a place to take shelter
Another point of confusion is the difference between an argument and an essay’s thesis. An
argument is a claim that you must then support. The main claim of an essay is the point of the
essay and provides the purpose for the essay. Thus, the main claim of an essay is also the thesis.
Arguments are also commonly mistaken for statements of fact. As for mistaking a fact for an
argument, keep this important distinction in mind: An argument must be arguable. When a fact is
established, there is no other side, and there should be no disagreement.

Types of claims
In rhetoric and argumentation, a claim is an idea that a rhetor (a speaker or writer) asks an
audience to accept. Claims typically fall into one of four categories. Thinking about how you
want to approach your topic, or, in other words, what type of claim you want to make, is one way
to focus your thesis on one particular aspect of your broader topic.
Claims of fact or definition: These claims argue about what the definition of something is or
whether something is a settled fact. Example: While some pundits have framed a four-year
college education as something necessary for adult success, this notion should not be treated as a
given.
Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that one person, thing, or event caused another
thing or event to occur. Example: Federal student loan policies have contributed to widespread
growth in college tuition.

7
Claims about value: These are claims made of what something is worth, whether we value it or
not, how we would rate or categorize something. Example: The student debt crisis is one of the
most serious problems facing the country today.
Claims about solutions or policies: These are claims that argue for or against a certain solution or
policy approach to a problem. Example: Rather than encouraging all students to attend four-year
colleges, we should instead emphasize the validity of two-year colleges, technical schools, and
trade schools as well.
Which type of claim is right for your argument? Which type of thesis or claim you use for your
argument will depend on your position and knowledge of the topic, your audience, and the
context of your paper. You might want to think about where you imagine your audience to be on
this topic and pinpoint where you think the biggest difference in viewpoints might be. Even if
you start with one type of claim you probably will be using several within the paper. Regardless
of the type of claim you choose to utilize it is key to identify the controversy or debate you are
addressing and to define your position early on in the paper.

Thesis Statement
A thesis statement is a short, concise sentence that summarizes the main point of an essay or
research paper. In a thesis statement, the author is making a specific claim or assertion about a
topic that can be debated or challenged. The structure of the argumentative essay is held together
by a clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first paragraph of the essay.
Developing Strong Thesis Statements will lead to a good structure of your argumentative essay.
The thesis statement or main claim must be debatable
An argumentative or persuasive piece of writing must begin with a debatable thesis or claim. In
other words, the thesis must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions
on. If your thesis is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there is no
reason to try to persuade people.
Example of a non-debatable thesis statement: Pollution is bad for the environment.
This thesis statement is not debatable. First, the word pollution implies that something is bad or
negative in some way. Furthermore, all studies agree that pollution is a problem; they simply
disagree on the impact it will have or the scope of the problem. No one could reasonably argue
that pollution is unambiguously good.
Example of a debatable thesis statement: At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be
spent on limiting pollution.
This is an example of a debatable thesis because reasonable people could disagree with it. Some
people might think that this is how we should spend the nation's money. Others might feel that
we should be spending more money on education. Still others could argue that corporations, not
the government, should be paying to limit pollution.

8
Another example of a debatable thesis statement: America's anti-pollution efforts should focus
on privately owned cars.
In this example there is also room for disagreement between rational individuals. Some citizens
might think focusing on recycling programs rather than private automobiles is the most effective
strategy.
The thesis needs to be narrow
Although the scope of your paper might seem overwhelming at the start, generally the narrower
the thesis the more effective your argument will be. Your thesis or claim must be supported by
evidence. The broader your claim is, the more evidence you will need to convince readers that
your position is right. Example of a thesis that is too broad:
Drug use is detrimental to society.
There are several reasons this statement is too broad to argue. First, what is included in the
category "drugs"? Is the author talking about illegal drug use, recreational drug use (which might
include alcohol and cigarettes), or all uses of medication in general? Second, in what ways are
drugs detrimental? Is drug use causing deaths (and is the author equating deaths from overdoses
and deaths from drug related violence)? Is drug use changing the moral climate or causing the
economy to decline? Finally, what does the author mean by "society"? Is the author referring
only to America or to the global population? Does the author make any distinction between the
effects on children and adults? There are just too many questions that the claim leaves open. The
author could not cover all of the topics listed above, yet the generality of the claim leaves all of
these possibilities open to debate.
Example of a narrow or focused thesis: Illegal drug use is detrimental because it encourages
gang violence.
In this example the topic of drugs has been narrowed down to illegal drugs and the detriment has
been narrowed down to gang violence. This is a much more manageable topic. We could narrow
each debatable thesis from the previous examples in the following way:
Narrowed debatable thesis 1: At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be spent on helping
upgrade business to clean technologies, researching renewable energy sources, and planting
more trees in order to control or eliminate pollution.
This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by specifying not just the amount of money used
but also how the money could actually help to control pollution.
Narrowed debatable thesis 2: America's anti-pollution efforts should focus on privately owned
cars because it would allow most citizens to contribute to national efforts and care about the
outcome.
This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by specifying not just what the focus of a national
anti-pollution campaign should be but also why this is the appropriate focus.
Aside from the above specification, a thesis statement need also to meet the following demands

9
Confidence. In addition to using force in your thesis statement, you must also use confidence in
your claim. Phrases such as I feel or I believe actually weaken the readers’ sense of your
confidence because these phrases imply that you are the only person who feels the way you do.
In other words, your stance has insufficient backing. Taking an authoritative stance on the matter
persuades your readers to have faith in your argument and open their minds to what you have to
say. Pinpoint and replace all nonspecific words, such as people, everything, society, or life, with
more precise words in order to reduce any vagueness
Confidence thesis : Lockdown for a period of 15 days is one solution that will curb the spread of
Corona Virus.
The thesis employs specific words such as 15 days, solution to indicate the writer’s confidence
that the claim is feasible.
However the similar ideas when described without confidence will weaken the thesis. In my
personal opinion lockdown for a period of 15 days might be a solution to curb the spread of
Corona Virus.
Note that the thesis uses words such as personal opinion that decreases his confidence and
indicates uncertainty. Remember that an argument is aimed at persuasion.

EXERCISE 2
Revise the following statements into a proper thesis and provide reasoning on your revised thesis
Example:
Young people have to work hard to succeed in life.
Revised thesis: Recent college graduates must have discipline and persistence in order to find
and maintain a stable job in which they can use and be appreciated for their talents.
The revised thesis makes a more specific statement about success and what it means to work
hard. The original includes too broad a range of people and does not define exactly what success
entails. By replacing those general words like people and work hard, the writer can better focus
his or her research and gain more direction in his or her writing.

1. The welfare system is a joke.

2. Kansas City schoolteachers are not paid enough.

Develop a thesis statement out of the following topics. Please refer to the above rules.

3. Texting while driving

4. The legal marriage age in Indonesia
5. Racism

10
EXERCISE 3
Identify the structure of the text and provide reasoning on the thesis statement. Explain the
logical connection of the body to the thesis statement in the opening paragraph and include some
factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal evidence that support the thesis. Explain how the writer
conclude his text.

Vaccination Key to Economic Recovery

The government began its COVID-19 Vaccination Program on January 13, 2021. It is split into
four phases with healthcare workers receiving the first batch of vaccines, followed by public
servants and then other members of the public. The government aims to inoculate a total of
181,554,465 people by early 2022. Mass vaccination would be the only way to bring economic
recovery to Indonesia, which has been pounded by the slowdown induced by the social
distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a senior University of Indonesia (UI)
economist said Sunday.
Muhammad Chatib Basri, who served as finance minister under the administration of president
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, said the primary engine of economic growth was consumption in
the middle-to-upper income brackets, and the prolonged social distancing measures had
adversely impacted those activities. “Private investment will happen if we have an economy of
scale, and we only have economy of scale if mobility happens. This mobility can only happen
with social distancing and vaccination,” Chatib said in a discussion organized by alumni
organization AM64 on Sunday.
The senior economist said that given the difficulty in imposing discipline, the only option for
Indonesia to ensure mobility was through vaccination. “Social distancing can only happen
effectively in places like China, in Wuhan, Singapore or Australia. As for us, we lack that
discipline,” he said. Chatib expected that as the government-sponsored mass vaccination
program gained steam, the country could expect a robust economic growth to return in the
second half of this year. “In the second half after vaccination, people will regain confidence and
mobility will return.
Economic recovery in the second half will be quicker,” he said. Indonesia’s economy is expected
to return to growth in 2021 after facing a recession this year, economists say, but unemployment
and poverty may rise further as economic activity will remain sluggish. Indonesia plunged into a
recession for the first time in two decades as the economy shrank 3.49 percent year-on-year
(yoy) in the third quarter after plunging 5.32 percent yoy in the second quarter. Household
spending and investment, which together account for more than 88 percent of GDP, fell 4.04
percent and 6.48 percent yoy, respectively, in the third quarter.
On the issue of vaccination, the government has targeted to inoculate more than 181 million
people this year. As of Saturday, only 3.2 million Indonesians had received a second jab, and 7.1
million had received a first jab. Of the targeted 21.5 million elderly people, only 1.4 million have

11
received a first jab and around 96,000 a second jab. Deputy minister for state-owned enterprises
Pahala Mansury meanwhile said the ministry would be on the front line in procuring vaccines
from overseas manufacturers. “The 426.8 million vaccine doses under the government program
will be procured through Bio Farma,” Pahala said referring to the state-owned vaccine
manufacturer. By the time the targeted vaccination program is achieved, the Government will
have been able to expedite their efforts to restore the economy.

III. LOGOS
In arguments, premises are offered to provide support for the conclusion. Logic is about whether
or not the support is adequate. If the logic is not adequate, it doesn’t matter what the premises are
about; they won’t provide adequate support for the conclusion.
Logic is a formal system of analysis that helps writers invent, demonstrate, and prove arguments.
It works by testing propositions against one another to determine their accuracy. People often
think they are using logic when they avoid emotion or make arguments based on their common
sense, such as "Everyone should look out for their own self-interests" or "People have the right
to be free." However, unemotional or common sense statements are not always equivalent to
logical statements. To be logical, a proposition must be tested within a logical sequence.
The most famous logical sequence, called the syllogism, was developed by the Greek
philosopher Aristotle. His most famous syllogism is:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this sequence, premise 2 is tested against premise 1 to reach the logical conclusion. Within
this system, if both premises are considered valid, there is no other logical conclusion than
determining that Socrates is a mortal.
Before using logic to reach conclusions, it is helpful to know some important vocabulary related
to logic.
Premise: Proposition used as evidence in an argument.
Conclusion: Logical result of the relationship between the premises. Conclusions serve as the
thesis of the argument.
Argument: The assertion of a conclusion based on logical premises.
Syllogism: The simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle.
Enthymeme: A shortened syllogism which omits the first premise, allowing the audience to fill it
in. For example, "Socrates is mortal because he is a human" is an enthymeme which leaves out
the premise "All humans are mortal."

12
Induction: A process through which the premises provide some basis for the conclusion.
Deduction: A process through which the premises provide conclusive proof for the conclusion.

Reaching Logical Conclusions

Reaching logical conclusions depends on the proper analysis of premises. The goal of a
syllogism is to arrange premises so that only one true conclusion is possible.

Consider the following premises:

Premise 1: Non-renewable resources do not exist in infinite supply.
Premise 2: Coal is a non-renewable resource.
From these two premises, only one logical conclusion is available: Conclusion: Coal does not
exist in infinite supply.

Often logic requires several premises to reach a conclusion.

Premise 1: All monkeys are primates.
Premise 2: All primates are mammals.
Premise 3: All mammals are vertebrate animals. Conclusions: Monkeys are vertebrate animals.

13
Logic allows specific conclusions to be drawn from general premises. Consider the following
premises:
Premise 1: All squares are rectangles.
Premise 2: Figure 1 is a square.
Conclusion: Figure 1 is also a rectangle.

EXERCISE 4
Identify the logic of the following statements. Identify the premises and the conclusion to
analyse the conclusion
What conclusion can be drawn on the basis of these two statements?
1. All travellers are people.
All tourists are travellers.
a. All tourists are people
b. Some people are not tourists
c. Some tourists are not people
d. All people are tourists

2. No bosses are employees.

All elderly are bosses.
a. No elderly are employees
b. All elderly are employees
c. All employees are elderly
d. Some elderly are employees

3. No waterrats are swimmers.

All bikeriders are swimmers.

a. No bikeriders are waterrats

b. All waterrats are bikeriders
c. All bikeriders are waterrats
d. Some bikeriders are waterrats

4. All crumbs are parts.

All pieces are crumbs.

a. Some pieces are not parts

b. All parts are pieces
c. All pieces are parts

14
 d. Some parts are not pieces

5. No bananas are kiwis.

All apples are bananas.

a. Some apples are kiwis

b. No apples are kiwis
c. All kiwis are apples
d. All apples are kiwis

Syllogistic Fallacies
The syllogism is a helpful tool for organizing persuasive logical arguments. However, if used
carelessly, syllogisms can instil a false sense of confidence in unfounded conclusions. The
examples in this section demonstrate how this can happen.
Example D:
Logic requires decisive statements in order to work. Therefore, this syllogism is false:
Premise 1: Some quadrilaterals are squares.
Premise 2: Figure 1 is a quadrilateral.
Conclusion: Figure 1 is a square.
This syllogism is false because not enough information is provided to allow a verifiable
conclusion. Figure 1 could just as likely be a rectangle, which is also a quadrilateral.
Example E:
Logic can also mislead when it is based on premises that an audience does not accept. For
instance:
Premise 1: People with red hair are not good at checkers.
Premise 2: Bill has red hair.
Conclusion: Bill is not good at checkers.
Within the syllogism, the conclusion is logically valid. However, the syllogism itself is only true
if an audience accepts Premise 1, which is very unlikely. This is an example of how logical
statements can appear accurate while being completely false.
Example F:
Logical conclusions also depend on which factors are recognized and ignored by the premises.
Therefore, premises that are correct but that ignore other pertinent information can lead to
incorrect conclusions.

15
Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.
Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.
Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.
It is true that all birds lay eggs. However, it is also true that some animals that are not birds lay
eggs. These include fish, amphibians, reptiles, and a small number of mammals (like the platypus
and echidna). To put this another way: laying eggs is not a defining characteristic of birds. Thus,
the syllogism, which assumes that because all birds lay eggs, only birds lay eggs, produces an
incorrect conclusion.
A better syllogism might look like this:
Premise 1: All mammals have fur.
Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.
Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.
Fur is indeed one of the defining characteristics of mammals—in other words, there are not non-
mammal animals who also have fur. Thus, the conclusion here is more firmly-supported.
In sum, though logic is a very powerful argumentative tool and is far preferable to a disorganized
argument, logic does have limitations. It must also be effectively developed from a syllogism
into a written piece.
Logical Fallacies
Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Its use
undercuts the validity and soundness of any argument. At the same time, fallacious reasoning can
damage the credibility of the speaker or writer and improperly manipulate the emotions of the
audience or reader. This is a consideration you must keep in mind as a writer who is trying to
maintain credibility (ethos) with the reader. Moreover, being able to recognize logical fallacies in
the speech and writing of others can greatly benefit you as both a college student and a
participant in civic life. Not only does this awareness increase your ability to think and read
critically—and thus not be manipulated or fooled—but it also provides you with a strongbasis for
counter arguments.
Even more important, using faulty reasoning is unethical and irresponsible. Using logical
fallacies can be incredibly tempting. The unfortunate fact is they work. Every day—particularly
in politics and advertising—we can see how using faults and tricks of logic effectively persuade
people to support certain individuals, groups, and ideas and, conversely, turn them away from
others. Furthermore, logical fallacies are easy to use. Instead of doing the often difficult work of
carefully supporting an argument with facts, logic, and researched evidence, the lazy debater
turns routinely to the easy path of tricky reasoning. Human beings too often favor what is easy
and effective, even if morally questionable, over what is ethical, particularly if difficult.
However, your college professors’ task is not to teach you how to join the Dark Side. Their job is
to teach you how to write, speak, and argue effectively and ethically. To do so, you must
recognize and avoid the logical fallacies.

16
What Are Formal Fallacies?
Most formal fallacies are errors of logic: The conclusion does not really “follow from” (is not
supported by) the premises. Either the premises are untrue, or the argument is invalid. Below is
an example of an invalid deductive argument:
Premise: All black bears are omnivores.
Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.
Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.

Bears are a subset of omnivores. Raccoons also are a subset of omnivores. But these two subsets
do not overlap, and that fact makes the conclusion illogical. The argument is invalid—that is, the
relationship between the two premises does not support the conclusion.
“Raccoons are black bears” is instantaneously recognizable as fallacious and may seem too silly
to be worth bothering about. However, that and other forms of poor logic play out on a daily
basis, and they have real world consequences. Below is an example of a common fallacious
argument:
Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.
Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.
Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.

This argument fails on two levels. First, the premises are untrue because, although many Arabs
and Iranians are Muslim, not all are. Second, the two ethnic groups (Iranians and Arabs) are sets
that do not overlap; nevertheless, the two groups are confounded because they (largely) share
one quality in common (being Muslim). One only has to look at comments on the web to realize
that the confusion is widespread and that it influences attitudes and opinions about US foreign
policy. The logical problems make this both an invalid and an unsound argument.

Type of fallacies
TYPE OF DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE REASONING
FALLACI
ES
1 Slippery This is a If we ban The author is equating banning
Slope conclusion based Hummers Hummers with banning all cars,
on the premise that because they are which is not the same thing.
if A happens, then bad for the
eventually through environment Conclusion: we should not ban
a series of small eventually the hummers
steps, through B, government will Premis 1: Do not ban hummers for
C,..., X, Y, Z will ban all cars, so the environment
happen, too, we should not ban Premis 2: the government will ban
basically equating Hummers. all car
A and Z. So, if we

17
 don't want Z to
occur, A must not
be allowed to
occur either.
2 Hasty This is a Even though it's The author is basing his evaluation
Generali conclusion based only the first day, of the entire course on only the first
zation on insufficient or I can tell this is day. To make a fair and reasonable
biased evidence. In going to be a evaluation the author have sufficient
other words, you boring course. evidence to base a conclusion on.
are rushing to a
conclusion before
you have all the
relevant facts
3 Post hoc This is a I drank bottled The author assumes that if one event
ergo conclusion that water and now I chronologically follows another the
propter assumes that if 'A' am sick, so the first event must have caused the
hoc occurred after 'B' water must have second. But the illness could have
then 'B' must have made me sick been caused by other causes
caused 'A.'
4 Genetic This conclusion is The Volkswagen In this example the author is
Fallacy based on an Beetle is an evil equating the character of a car with
argument that the car because it was the character of the people who built
origins of a person, originally the car. However, the two are not
idea, institute, or designed by inherently related.
theory determine Hitler's army.
its character,
nature, or worth.
5 Begging The conclusion Filthy and Arguing that coal pollutes the earth
the that the writer polluting coal and thus should be banned would be
Claim should prove is should be banned logical. But the very conclusion that
validated within should be proved, that coal causes
the claim enough pollution to warrant banning
its use, is already assumed in the
claim by referring to it as "filthy and
polluting."

6 Circular This restates the George Bush is a The conclusion that Bush is a "good
Argumen argument rather good communicator" and the evidence
t than actually communicator used to prove it "he speaks
proving it because he speaks effectively" are basically the same
effectively idea. Specific evidence such as using
everyday language, breaking down
complex problems, or illustrating his
points with humorous stories would
be needed to prove either half of the
sentence

18
7 Either/orThis is a We can either the two choices are presented as the
conclusion that stop using cars or only options, yet the author ignores a
oversimplifies the destroy the earth. range of choices in between such as
argument by developing cleaner technology, car-
reducing it to only sharing systems for necessities and
two sides or emergencies, or better community
choices. planning to discourage daily driving.
8 Ad This is an attack Green Peace's the author doesn't even name
hominem on the character of strategies aren't particular strategies Green Peace has
a person rather effective because suggested, much less evaluate those
than his or her they are all dirty, strategies on their merits. Instead,
opinions or lazy hippies the author attacks the characters of
arguments the individuals in the group.
9 Ad This is an appeal If you were a true the author equates being a "true
populum/ that presents what American you American," a concept that people
Bandwag most people, or a would support the want to be associated with,
on group of people rights of people to particularly in a time of war, with
Appeal think, in order to choose whatever allowing people to buy any vehicle
persuade one to vehicle they want. they want even though there is no
think the same inherent connection between the two
way. Getting on
the bandwagon is
one such instance
of an ad populum
appeal
10 Red This is a The level of The author switches the discussion
Herring diversionary tactic mercury in away from the safety of the food and
that avoids the key seafood may be talks instead about an economic
issues, often by unsafe, but what issue, the livelihood of those
avoiding opposing will fishers do to catching fish. While one issue may
arguments rather support their affect the other it does not mean we
than addressing families? should ignore possible safety issues
them. because of possible economic
consequences to a few individuals.
11 Straw This move People who don't the author attributes the worst
Man oversimplifies an support the possible motive to an opponent's
opponent's proposed state position. In reality, however, the
viewpoint and then minimum wage opposition probably has more
attacks that hollow increase hate the complex and sympathetic arguments
argument poor to support their point. By not
addressing those arguments, the
author is not treating the opposition
with respect or refuting their position
12 Moral This fallacy That parking the author is comparing the
Equivale compares minor attendant who relatively harmless actions of a
nce misdeeds with gave me a ticket person doing their job with the

19
 major atrocities, is as bad as Hitler horrific actions of Hitler. This
suggesting that comparison is unfair and inaccurate
both are equally
immoral

EXERCISE 5
IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF FALLACIES IN THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT

a. ……………………………….

b. ……………………………..

20
c. ………………………………..

d. ……………………………….

e. ………………………………………..

21
 f. ……………………………………………

g. Mr. Lee's views on Japanese culture are wrong. This is because his parents were killed by
the Japanese army during World War II and that made him anti-Japanese all his life.
h. Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.
i. Professor Lewis, the world authority on logic, claims that all wives cook for their
husbands. But the fact is that his own wife does not cook for him. Therefore, his claim is
false.
j. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of vitamin C. On each occasion,
the cold cleared up within a few days. So vitamin C helped me recover from colds

EXERCISE 6
Analyse the premises and the conclusion in the statements below and identify the fallacy.
1. Foreign imports are wrecking our economy and savaging our workers, the backbone of this
country. Buy Indonesian! Before you put your money on that imported fruit, think of the
farmer whose kids may not eat tomorrow.
Conclusion:
Premise:
Fallacy :

2. How can we end starvation in this world? People should eat more.
Conclusion:
Premise:
Fallacy:

When he was elected President, the economy went on to grow at a record pace. He absolutely
deserves credit for it.

22
 Conclusion:
Premise:
Fallacy:

3. I remembered someone saying that “the strong will do what they can and the weak must
suffer”. “The powerful will do what they want, the weak must suffer”. Because of that, I
assess that the defense of Indonesia is too weak, far from what is expected.
Conclusion :
Premise:
Reasoning:
Fallacy:

4. We are not respected by the community of foreign reporters in Jakarta. They always say
“Indonesia is a nation of great potential and will always be a nation of great potential”.
Indonesia is a nation of great potential and will always be a nation of great potential. Thus, if
we want to be nice guys mediators (in addressing discrimination case in Myanmar), go
ahead.
Conclusion :
Premise:
Reasoning:
Fallacy:

5. This is what we do, that is fixing the system, providing the system (online single submission)
so that the chance of committing corruption is totally gone. There is transparency in it, there
is openness in it, there is strict supervising management in it, there is good controlling
management in it.
Conclusion :
Premise:
Reasoning:
Fallacy:

23
IV. HOW TO PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT EFFECTIVELY USING TOULMIN
METHOD
In order for your argument to be persuasive, it must use an organizational structure that the
audience perceives as both logical and easy to parse. Three argumentative methods—the
Toulmin Method, Classical Method, and Rogerian Method—give guidance for how to organize
the points in an argument. In this session we will focus on the Toulmin Method.
Toulmin Method
The Toulmin Method is a formula that allows writers to build a sturdy logical foundation for
their arguments. First proposed by author Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument (1958), the
Toulmin Method emphasizes building a thorough support structure for each of an argument's key
claims.
The Rogerian Method (named for, but not developed by, influential American psychotherapist
Carl R. Rogers) is a popular method for controversial issues. This strategy seeks to find a
common ground between parties by making the audience understand perspectives that stretch
beyond (or even run counter to) the writer’s position. More so than other methods, it places an
emphasis on reiterating an opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction.
The Classical Method of structuring an argument is another common way to organize your
points. Originally devised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and then later developed by
Roman thinkers like Cicero and Quintilian), classical arguments tend to focus on issues of
definition and the careful application of evidence. Thus, the underlying assumption of classical
argumentation is that, when all parties understand the issue perfectly, the correct course of action
will be clear.

The Toulmin Method

The Toulmin Method is a way of doing very detailed analysis, in which we break an argument
into its various parts and decide how effectively those parts participate in the overall whole.
When we use this method, we identify the argument's claim, reasons, and evidence, and evaluate
the effectiveness of each.
However, it can be said that Toulmin works somewhat like a formula to be applied to arguments,
and that as such it exhibits some limitations. It is often not very well applied, for example, to
arguments that are not themselves organized in a linear way and written in the tradition of
Western rhetoric. And, as Timothy Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell point out in The Aims of
Argument, this method is limited to logical analysis, and therefore excludes other types of
evaluation/analysis which are equally important (such as the Critical Reading strategies
mentioned elsewhere in the Writing Center.) But Toulmin proves for many to be a good starting
point.

The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows:

24
Claim: In this section, you explain your overall thesis on the subject. In other words, you make
your main argument.
Data (Grounds): You should use evidence to support the claim. In other words, provide the
reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.
Warrant (Bridge): In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. As a
result, the underlying assumption that you build your argument on is grounded in reason.
Backing (Foundation): Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be
necessary to support the warrant.
Counterclaim: You should anticipate a counterclaim that negates the main points in your
argument. Don't avoid arguments that oppose your own. Instead, become familiar with the
opposing perspective. If you respond to counterclaims, you appear unbiased (and, therefore, you
earn the respect of your readers). You may even want to include several counterclaims to show
that you have thoroughly researched the topic.
Rebuttal: In this section, you incorporate your own evidence that disagrees with the
counterclaim. It is essential to include a thorough warrant or bridge to strengthen your essay’s
argument. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis,
your readers may not make a connection between the two, or they may draw different
conclusions.
In Toulmin’s method, every argument begins with three fundamental parts: the claim, the
grounds, and the warrant. A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their
audience. It is, in other words, the main argument. The grounds of an argument are the evidence
and facts that help support the claim. Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated
explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim.

For example, if you argue that there are dogs nearby:

25
In this example, in order to assert the claim that a dog is nearby, we provide evidence and
specific facts—or the grounds—by acknowledging that we hear barking and howling. Since we
know that dogs bark and howl (i.e., since we have a warrant) we can assume that a dog is nearby.
The other three elements—backing, qualifier, and rebuttal—are not fundamental to a Toulmin
argument, but may be added as necessary. Using these elements wisely can help writers construct
full, nuanced arguments. Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases,
the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a
specific example that justifies the warrant. The qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all
circumstances. Words like “presumably,” “some,” and “many” help your audience understand
that you know there are instances where your claim may not be correct. The rebuttal is an
acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation. Including a qualifier or a rebuttal in an
argument helps build your ethos, or credibility. When you acknowledge that your view isn’t
always true or when you provide multiple views of a situation, you build an image of a careful,
unbiased thinker, rather than of someone blindly pushing for a single interpretation of the
situation.

26
QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO DEVELOPING AN ARGUMENT IN TOULMIN MODEL
Questions are at the core of arguments. What matters is not just that you believe that what you
have to say is true, but that you give others viable reasons to believe it as well—and also show
them that you have considered the issue from multiple angles. To do that, build your argument
out of the answers to the six questions a rational reader will expect answers to. In academic and
professional writing, we tend to build arguments from the answers to these main questions:

QUESTION ANSWER TOULMIN EXAMPLE

MODEL
1 What do you The answer to What do Claim The Ravens*) will win the

27
 want me to do you want me to do or Super Bowl**) this year.
or think? think? is your *) The Ravens are a professional
American football team based in
conclusion: “I conclude Baltimore.
that you should do or **) The Super Bowl is the annual
championship game of the National
think X.” Football League
Nb.

2 Why should I The answer to Why Data or They have the best
do or think that? should I do or think Ground defence in the league.
that? states your
premise: “You should
do or think X because . .
.”
3 How do I know The answer to How do I Warant The team with the best
that what you know that what you say (bridge) defence usually wins.
say is true? is true? presents your
support: “You can
believe my reasons
because they are
supported by these
facts . . .”
4 Why should I The answer to Why Backing The team with the best
accept the should I accept that your (Foundation) defence has won each of
reasons that reasons support your the last five years.
support your claim? states your
claim? general principle of
reasoning, called a
warrant: “My specific
reason supports my
specific claim because
whenever this general
condition is true, we can
generally draw a
conclusion like mine.”
5 What about this The answer to What Rebuttal Anything could happen.
other idea, fact, about this other idea, The Ravens defence might
or fact, or conclusion have a lot of injuries.
consideration? acknowledges that your
readers might see things
differently and then
responds to their counter
arguments.
6 How should The answer to How Qualifier The probability that the
you present should you present your Jets will win the Super
your argument? argument leads to the Bowl is 80 per cent.
point of view,

28
 organization, and tone
that you should use to
affirm your argument

The following figures illustrate how Toulmin’s model subsumes inductive, deductive and
analogical reasoning. No matter which reasoning we use, we can construct it according to
Toulmin’s model. Inductive reasoning shows how several specific facts, backed by a general
conclusion about those facts, leads to a general premise, or claim. The inductive reasoning
process uses observed data, for example cases, and generalizes this data into rules which 'explain'
the data. Whereas deductive reasoning commences with predetermined premises

29
EXERCISE 7
The following is a short argument adopting the Toulmin Model. Map the text into the Toulmin
diagram model. State whether the text deploys inductive, deductive or analogical reasoning.

Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution. Driving a private car is a typical citizen's
most air-polluting activity. Due to the fact that cars are the largest source of private (as opposed
to industrial) air pollution, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.
Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years. Cars generally
have a long lifespan, meaning that the decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term
impact on pollution levels. Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered
electric motor. The combination of these technologies produces less pollution. Instead of
focusing on cars, which still encourages an inefficient culture of driving even as it cuts down on
pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging the use of mass transit systems.
While mass transit is an idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and
suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work. Thus, hybrid cars are a better solution
for much of the nation's population.

GROUP ASSIGNMENT
Find articles ( not less than 3) related to one of the following topic

30
  SME: Key to Economic Recovery
 Indonesia: making the economic recovery sustainable and inclusive
 Leadership to boost the economic recovery in the post pandemic era

You are requested to do the followings:

a. Develop a concept map synthesizing the articles.

b. Develop claim for your argument
c. Conduct a logical analysis using the Toulmin model
d. Develop your outline
e. Write your argumentative essay
f. Paraphrase and/or summarize the ideas adopted from your source
g. Cite the source

*)Adapted mainly from the following references:

1. Boylan, K. et al, (n.d) Let’s Get Writing, Virginia Western Community College,
Roanoke, Virginia
2. https://owl.purdue.edu/
3. Karbach J (1987). Using Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. The Journal of Teaching
Writing, 6(1)
4. Various E-news

31