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.
Central to a language analysis is identifying and
outlining the arguments within an article. In
a language analysis we are analyzing how the author
uses language and persuasive techniques to convince you (the
reader) they are right.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment