SAGE MA Programme, 2010-2011

• Form yourselves into groups of five or six• Tear up the squares into separate pieces of

paper• Using the bluetack, stick the squares on the

white A3 paper – ‘construct a map of the writing process

SAGE MA Programme, 2010-2011

• Planning (The writing process)

• Developing and structuring arguments

Exploring the Topic

Inexperienced writers

• tend not to explore different ways of addressing the task

• decide on an approach rather quickly

Experienced writers

spend considerable time exploring and evaluating alternative ideas, organisations and approaches to developing a text

Planning

Inexperienced writers• often make few plans

before beginning to write

• prefer not to outline

• develop plans while writing

Experienced writers• plan extensively before

drafting

• plan by making notes, sketches, diagramming ideas and organisation

• revise plans while writing

Planning

• Planning: time as well as ideas

• Always leave some “leeway”

MA Marking Criteria

• Work that is mainly accurate, based on good reading, sound in its judgements, comprehensive in coverage, effective (where relevant) in its use of sources, in charge of its own arguments, well-presented, and exhibiting, especially at the top end, a degree of depth and imagination. This mark indicates a student doing work within a merit profile.

• 50 - 59%

MA Marking Criteria

• The work does not show any significant elements of Diploma-level work and is therefore ineligible for resubmission. It does not show even elementary grasp of the issues, the reading will be limited or irrelevant. The work is neither a cogent narrative or descriptive piece of nor a structured argument. The presentation may not be consistent with academic writing conventions. There may be variations in the poor quality of standards displayed at this level.

• 10-19%

Argument

• a reason or set of reasons that somebody uses to show that something is true or correct

Advanced Oxford Learners Dictionary

Simple logical argument

• An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion).

Deductive argument: syllogism

1. All men (B) are mortal (A). (premise)

2. Socrates (C) was a man (B). (premise)

3. Socrates (C) was mortal (A). (conclusion)

Deductive argument: syllogism

1. All men (B) are mortal (A). (premise)

2. Socrates (C) was a man (B). (premise)

3. Socrates (C) was mortal (A). (conclusion)

the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument

Inductive argument

1. Fifty people are in this room

(evidence)

2. More than forty people are enrolled on this course. (conclusion)

Inductive argument

1. Fifty people are in this room

(evidence)

2. More than forty people are enrolled on this course. (conclusion)

An argument is cogent if, and only if, supposing the premises all to be true, then the conclusion is probably (but not necessarily) true

Inductive argument

1. In the survey of 60,000 people in two countries, those who attended church had a higher index of happiness. (evidence)

2. Having a religious commitment seems to help in the pursuit of happiness. (conclusion)

New Scientist, 9 October 2010, p 14

An academic argument

• In academic discourse, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a "claim" or "thesis" backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

• The most common argumentative structure in academic prose is ‘deductive’.

• The writer starts with a generalisation or assertion in the introduction, and then provides support for it.

A simple argument structure

• Introduction and thesis explicitly stated

• Evidence 1

• Evidence 2

• Evidence 3

• Conclusion: summary and restatement of thesis

“The theoretical clue to this conundrum is a topic that shall concern us in this book”.

“Very briefly, I argue that three key doctrines of post modernist thought have conspired to discredit the classical concept of ideology.”

Eagleton, T. (1991) Ideology. London: Verso. (p.xi).

• The most common argumentative structure in academic prose is ‘deductive’.

• The writer starts with a generalisation or assertion in the introduction, and then provides support for it.

• This pattern (assertion →support) can be used to order a paragraph as well as an entire essay.

A simple paragraph structure

• As famously studied by Kuhn,13 tensions can arise when empirical evidence

conflicts with the accepted scientific framework, or ‘paradigm’ as Kuhn

called it, within which most scientists within a given field are working.14. The

notorious refusal of some churchmen to look through Galileo’s telescope is

a classic expression of that kind of tension. For them, the implications of the

physical evidence were too much to face, since there was no way in which

their favoured Aristotelian paradigm could be false. But it is not only

churchmen who can be guilty of such obscurantism. In the early twentieth

century, for example, Mendelian geneticists were persecuted by Marxists

because Mendel’s ideas on heredity were regarded as inconsistent with

Marxist philosophy, and so the Marxists refused to allow the Mendelians to

follow where the evidence led.

• Lennox, J. (2007) God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God. Oxford: Lion Hudson.

assertion →support

• As famously studied by Kuhn,13 tensions can arise when empirical evidence

conflicts with the accepted scientific framework, or ‘paradigm’ as Kuhn

called it, within which most scientists within a given field are working.14. The

notorious refusal of some churchmen to look through Galileo’s telescope is

a classic expression of that kind of tension. For them, the implications of the

physical evidence were too much to face, since there was no way in which

their favoured Aristotelian paradigm could be false. But it is not only

churchmen who can be guilty of such obscurantism. In the early twentieth

century, for example, Mendelian geneticists were persecuted by Marxists

because Mendel’s ideas on heredity were regarded as inconsistent with

Marxist philosophy, and so the Marxists refused to allow the Mendelians to

follow where the evidence led.

• Lennox, J. (2007) God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God. Oxford: Lion Hudson.

Statements are supported by:

• argument• example• quotation• statistics• explanation• reference to authority• detail

• Another possible argument structure is ‘inductive’: facts, instances or observations can be reviewed, and a conclusion is then drawn from them.

• Typical of the empirical sciences: conclusions are derived from experiment and observation

Research writing is typically argument-based

• Why the topic of research is valuable• Why the research is important• Why earlier accounts are problematic • Why a particular method was chosen• Why a particular method was rejected• Why certain evidence is unreliable• Why different conclusions can be drawn

• “It is, of course, important to construct an argument within your dissertation and justify the relevance, and expound the significance of your findings.”

School of Arts, Histories and Cultures. MA Handbook 2010-2011: HISTORY p.21

Let's start with the conclusion...

“Your assignment structure must above all lead to a conclusion. Ideally you will know at the outset what your conclusion is going to be - you can even write out the thrust of your conclusion before you begin. That way you know what you are aiming at and avoid going off at a tangent. If you find at some later stage that you want to modify your conclusion in keeping with the main body of your text, then you are perfectly free to make the final version different.”

Faculty of Humanities Study Skills Website: http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/studyskills/essentials/writing/how_to_write.html

Enhancing your argument• Show the reader where you are going; lead them through the

argument: Use signposts• Find ways to give additional support to weak or questionable

evidence.• Substitute less controversial evidence if it will do the job required.• Search for additional evidence to support the conclusion if

necessary.• Soften, if necessary, any absolute claims made in a way that might

make them more acceptable.• Remove irrelevant information that clutters up the argument.• Maintain the line of argument when presenting the evidence.• Acknowledge where your evidence may be weak; introduce a

caveat.• Clear up any vague or confusing language used.• Avoid getting bogged down in too many specifics; move the

argument on.

• In the above discussion several advantages of the X have been considered. It is important however to also examine Y

• Having examined the role of X in Y, it is now necessary to consider the ……..

• In the second section, we will now move on to look at the politics of two novels which also incorporate the 1842 strikes into their narratives

• Plan and outline the structure of an essay you are working on.

• Decide on the argument or “thesis”

• Explain the structure and argument of your writing to another student