Notes on Constructing an Argument - Issue Position Reasons Evidence Opposition

Notes on Constructing an Argument #2:

Steps in Creating Argumentative Thesis Statements and Supporting Reasons,

Gathering Evidence, and Considering the Opposition

Step #1 -- Start with the argumentative issue phrased as a question:

Example: "Has DNA (genetic) testing really helped the police and prosecutors and/or defense lawyers?"

Step #2 -- Depending on your opinions, feelings, values, and research on the argumentative issue, rephrase the issue question into a "thesis" or "position" statement:

Example: "DNA (genetic) testing has indeed helped police, prosecutors, and defense lawyers."

Step #3 -- Use the " . . . because . . . " phrase to generate possible reasons (main ideas) to support your argumentative position. Generate as many reasons as possible and then choose the strongest ones to include in your argument.

Example: "DNA (genetic) testing has indeed helped police, prosecutors, and defense lawyers . . . because . . .

DNA testing can accurately place criminals at the scene of a crime if blood, semen, or skin was left behind.

DNA testing can actually prove the innocence of wrongly-convicted people, by using the same tests but which were not available at the time of arrest and conviction.

Etc.

Step #4 -- Do research to gather evidence to support your reasons (main ideas):

Factual Data and Information
Expert Opinion and Testimony
Personal Experience and Observations
Examples (brief or extended; real or hypothetical; etc.)
Statistics
Textual Evidence
Case Studies, Scenarios, Etc.

Step #5 -- Consider the opposing points of view and their evidence. Be prepared to offer counter-arguments and counter-evidence to refute your opposition. Be prepared to "concede" to their irrefutable points (which might also help you to establish some "common ground" with your opponents).

Use the " . . . because . . . " phrase again, but using the opposite of your thesis statement:

Example: "DNA (genetic) testing does not help police, prosecutors, and defense lawyers . . . because . . .

The tests are too new, too unproven, too unreliable to be used yet.

Evidence can be contaminated which makes the tests worthless.

Evidence can be tampered with, after the fact, to pin the crime on a favored suspect.

Etc.