What is an essay?
You might know it in school as five paragraphs (maybe even four), introduction, conclusion, and three body paragraphs written in an academic matter analyzing or arguing a point. More broadly, an essay is a reflection or opinion revolving around a subject. The definitions of formality and structure you’ve learned before are not hard rules of writing an essay, and incorporating them effectively becomes a tool for you to use at your own discretion. You’ve probably written informative/expository and perhaps narrative essays before, but that’s not the focus of today’s workshop. For now, we’ll focus on the argumentative essay – expressing an opinion or viewpoint of the author.

What is the purpose of an essay?
Since we’re dealing with argumentative essays, the point is to convince the audience of your viewpoint. It’s not just to let them see and understand how you think, but to persuade them that this way of thinking is the ideal way of doing so.

Why not a story? It could convey the same argument and be slightly more fun for the audience, too.
What I find often happens in a story is the focus becomes not the argument you make, but the way in which you convey them – the characters, the plot, the strange quirks in the worldbuilding. It’s also more difficult to defend a position which you express through a fictional story, as there’s little room to incorporate evidence and analysis which clearly directs the reader. And if the argument isn’t a broad generalization based on a theme, then it’s easy to lose the point entirely. Essays are potentially more dry, but they also get the point across.




So what exactly are we arguing for? It could be pretty much anything, from “National debt is an economic crisis” to “We overvalue smiles” to “Santa is a f*scist” (and yes, I have read essays and op-eds on all three of these topics), but the main gist of it is it has to be defensible, arguable, and ideally something you care about, or at least something you believe in. And then you have to defend/argue for it. Generally we like to call what your main argument the “thesis”, but when writing the essay it’ll usually be dressed up or hinted at not-so-subtly.

When you think about what your argument is, you also have to think about its framework. From what angle are you arguing for your point? Because the issue likely isn’t black and white, you have to contend that the perspective you take is more important (otherwise, we have no reason to share your viewpoint). Usually, you’ll pick your viewpoint based on what you believe has the greatest impact, and that determines the various point(s) that fall under the umbrella of your argument.

Let's take use a light-hearted example. Let's say my thesis is that we should stop growing bananas. (Warning: the content to back this claim up is…hmm). Obviously, bananas are a huge industry in many countries, and people love eating them. So arguing this from an economic standpoint is a bad idea. Instead, we can focus on the volatility of the industry and its negative environmental impact, and that's our framework

This is pretty straight-forward. You have your main thesis? Great. Now, you have to defend it, and it’s done with a mix of good evidence, analysis/impact weighing, and rhetoric. For the moment, we can forget rhetoric to create a general outline for the essay.

Because this is an opinionated essay and not strictly an informative one, having specific evidence that either serves to educate the audience on the background of the issue (usually to introduce a niche issue or set up definitions for a framework) or to supplement the argument. What’s worth noting is that in many dilemmas, especially those surrounding a suggested solution to a problem, there are many pieces of evidence not only for but also against your argument. Your evidence is not your argument, proving the benefits/detriments exposed from your evidence are of utmost importance often is.

There are a couple general approaches that are taken to argue what has a greater impact. They are magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility.

• Magnitude: How severe the impact is, often used to compare two different negative impacts. Think of a papercut vs. an atom bomb.

• Scope: How many people it affects. If my house burns down vs. if an entire city gets burned down.

• Timeframe: This is likely the most complicated one to argue, because it involves arguing whether the short-term or long-term is more important. For instance, with most increases in economic stimuluses comes a short-term net loss in money, as more is being paid to the government, but ideally in the long term, it will benefit the people. You could argue that people can’t afford to lose money now, and therefore the short-term is more important, or that thinking longer-term and its benefits are of greater importance.

• Probability: How likely the impact is to happen. It's true, the entirety of a town winding up dead is a lot more serious than a papercut, but the odds of that actually happening are significantly lower.

• Reversibility: How easily your (negative) impact can be reversed. This shows up a lot in debates over climate vs. economy.

Note: many essays will cleverly mask their evidence, which is done more easily when said evidence is anecdotal or an observation of a trend as opposed to a statistic. There won’t usually be long blocks of quotes within the essay – I like to keep these in my notes, and crop pieces of them so it makes the essay seamless whilst maintaining the general point. But as long as you have your content, it’s time to move onto structure.

Back to bananas. The general gist of the argument is that because large quantities of bananas are grown monoculturally (meaning there's no diversity of species), if a fungus or pest has an easy time infesting one banana, it'll have an easy time ruining every banana. This makes the productivity of the banana market incredibly risky and volatile from year to year. Additionally, bananas have a horrible effect on the environment. Relating back to the monocultural issue, workers use great quantities of fungicides and pesticides, which is dangerous to their health and the environment. The only industry to use more agrochemicals than bananas is cotton. Establishing plantations also means mass deforestation, pollution of water, and ecosystem destruction.

Note that there are arguments of the terrible working conditions that plantation workers endure, however, because this issue is not as unique to bananas as it is others, I feel this makes it harder to argue, unless you want to go the route of “stop growing basically everything”. Which is out of the scope of this essay.

How do these compare to the livelihoods of millions of people? Well, if we were to weigh it, we could do so in terms of timeframe and reversibility. It's much more difficult to reverse climate change than it is a new method of living (be careful that you don't exaggerate, and claim that doing the latter is easy in any right). Going hand in hand with that is the argument that people losing their jobs from being unable to grow bananas is an economic problem with greatest potency in the short-term, whereas the environmental issues have greater impact long-term, and will compound themselves over that period, and are thus more serious.

This is why I almost always recommend coming up with your argument and its supplements before dealing with rhetoric, sentence structure, and the likes. Obviously, it’s different if it’s a school assignment or a debate case, but if it’s being written purely for the purpose of convincing an audience that isn’t scoring you on a point basis, having a structure that piques interest and incorporates as much supporting evidence and argument as possible is helpful. Generally, though, we see essays fall into two structures: the Toulmin model and the Rogerian model, with lots of other embellishments on the side. Let’s go through the skeletal models of each.

Toulmin Model:
The more active way to argue a case. This is akin to the structure you would use in a school essay or a debate. It’s far more common and likely going to be used for most of your essays.

Generally, it breaks down into six parts: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, modality, and rebuttal. Your claim is your thesis and the grounds is the framework. The warrant is the reasoning for the claim – why it’s true, and the backing is the evidence that supports this warrant. Oftentimes, we see that warrant and backing are flip-flopped in the order in which they’re presented. Modality is how certain of the claim the author is, and is usually omitted from essays entirely, but it is something to consider. If the probability of the claim being true is 100%, it’s good to measure its impacts and emphasize it as such.

Finally, the rebuttal. An opponent’s argument is presented and is then argued against. It’s helpful to take one of the main arguments against yours, as there is less of a perception of straw-manning or deliberately picking out weaker fights, but that does usually make things a bit more difficult. At the end of the day, the focus within the Toulmin model is not to shine light on your opponent’s arguments, but on yours.

Here's a good example of a Toulmin model. Obviously, don’t label each part of your argument in your actual essay.

Rogerian Model:
Better for trying to reach middle ground, like proposing an actual solution to an issue that would be implemented, or a treaty.

It usually starts by introducing the opposing view, proving that you, as the author, understand it and don’t seek to strawman it. Unlike in the Toulmin Model, it’s not being brought up for the sole purpose of being taken down. It’s to help the audience understand you’re a competent author and set them up to understand the common ground solutions that you propose later on.

Only after that do you get into your own points, defending them, before trying to find common ground and offering a compromise. If you’re trying to evaluate an issue, the Rogerian model doesn’t really serve you well, as it may come off as passive and unable to fully convince the audience of your argument, simply because you spend so much time validating the opposite side. However, if the goal is to negotiate, it works well.

Here’s an example of a Rogerian argument.

And what about all that interesting stuff? Keeping the content strong but dry misses the point, because an audience that doesn’t want to or struggles to read your essay has a hard time being convinced of anything. The way that most do it is similar to how it’s learned in school – the introduction. Having a convincing “attention-getter” (I hate this phrase), like an anecdote, or a question, and referencing it throughout the speech, or at the very least in the closing line. Doing this throughout all segments of an essay, presenting a story that continues as the point is argued, unraveling its moral at the end in relation to the original thesis, is sometimes informally known as a weave. This manages to sprinkle light-hearted moments in otherwise dark pieces, or serves to break the monotony of pure analysis and impact-weighing.

By the way, go drink some water.


If you have interesting pieces of evidence (usually examples, but galling statistics work too), knowing how to best incorporate and adapt them to the piece allows for greater interest. People remember best what they see/hear last, followed by what they see/hear first. And even though I spent some time going over the Toulmin and Rogerian models, both can be easily altered in order to better fit what makes the content more effective. They’re not rigid and not meant to be followed to a T, and at the end of the day, structure should be for clarity in conveying your argument, not a blueprint that should be copy + pasted onto every essay.



This is likely something you’ve all very familiar with – the art of persuasion, or rhetoric. If you learned it in school, you probably learned of the rhetorical appeals and a plethora of rhetorical devices. The purpose of rhetoric is to make the content you present more palatable, easier to digest and more effective in how you sway your audience. How you present your content is just as important, if not more important, than the content itself.

The rhetorical appeals:

• Logos (Logic): Using statistics and factual arguments to back up your points. This is pretty easily incorporated when you already have evidence and analysis at the heart of your essay
  - For instance, “9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camels!”.

• Ethos (Credibility): Most easily done through citing credible sources and statistics. Hinting at personal experience with the issue firsthand or sympathizing/empathizing with the audience’s identities and experiences adds to this as well.
  - For instance, in the opening line of his speech, Patrick Henry stated, “No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House.” By referencing his ability to understand and relate to the arguments of his opponents, as well as espousing his own feelings of patriotism, Henry implies that he can be trusted and is a credible speaker with valid points. This is, by the way, the speech in which he says “Give me liberty or give me death.”

• Pathos (“Emotion”): Oftentimes, trying to tug on the heartstrings. The most easily evoked emotions are fear and anger, and are often used in the most famous of speeches and essays in order to inspire the audience to do something.
  - For instance, in FDR’s Pearl Harbor Address, he uses pathos in lines like “Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.” in order to evoke anger, and “With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.” to instill hope, both with the purpose of validating his decision to go to war with Japan.

As for rhetorical devices, there are far, far too many to go over in a single workshop tangentially related to rhetoric, so here are a few of the common ones with some examples. I apologize in advance for the abomination that is “Nights doesn't understand lists in forum posts”.

- Imagery: Appealing to the five senses.
- “He whiffed the aroma of the freshly brewed coffee”
-Simile: Comparison using “like” or “as”
- “As sly as a fox”
- Metaphor: A comparison, not using like or as
- “He swam through a sea of paperwork”
-Personification: Attributing human qualities to nonhuman things
- “The sun smiled down on the earth”
- Hyperbole: overstatement/exaggeration
- “It’s a million degrees here!”
- Repetition: Repeating words and phrases for emphasis
- “And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting”
- Anaphora: Repetition at the beginning of a phrase.
- “Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn…”
- Antithesis: Placing two contrasting or opposite concepts in conjunction with one another.
- “Patience is bitter but it bears sweet fruit.”
- Allusion: Reference to a famous work/figure that the audience will recognize
- “He had inadvertently opened a Pandora's Box.”
- Parallelism: Constructing phrases, clauses, or sentences in similar structure
- “To err is human, to forgive is divine”
- Asyndeton: Omission of conjunctions
-“He eats, sleeps, drinks.”


A lot of times, we write essays for the interwebs, and so we write in our own style to seem distinctive – it’s not necessarily catered towards any group specifically because we don’t know who will stumble upon our writing. If there is a specific audience, like a field of experts or children, you would obviously change your language and rhetoric. With the former we see less flowery language in favor of cohesive argumentation, with the latter simple yet intriguing to keep them engaged.

Hopefully you learned something about bananas essays. Essays. Yeah. Uh, anyways, happy writing!

Citations (these are all about bananas, clearly I've spent my time well):

• https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-bananas-are-clones-and-they-are-imminent-danger-publish-monday-5am-1321787

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/10/we-have-no-bananas

• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-bananas

• https://www.bananalink.org.uk/the-problem-with-bananas/

YESSS BESTOE YOU GO OFF

oki 590 words on…shakespeare???? idk a midsummer nights dream is a good play oki?

Three moons of Jupiter- Puck, Titania, and Oberon- are named after characters from William Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer Night’s Dream, written sometime between 1594-1656, showing that he has truly written a very widespread play. Indeed, AMND, (A Midsummers Night’s Dream) is a popular play among many centuries and audiences. This has led many to argue about what theme or feeling Shakespeare was trying to convey in his play. My argument is that William Shakespeare wrote the theme of A Midsummer Night’s Dream to be light and funny, and in the play he was making fun of actors and those who fall in love.
A piece of evidence to prove my point that Shakespeare is mocking those who fall in love and actors in the play is that Pyramus and Thisbe was also supposed to be a tragedy. For the actor portion of it, Shakespeare purposely wrote the actors to be terrible because he was making fun of actors. In Act V, Scene I, Bottom and his fellow actors perform “Thisbe and Pyramus' ' badly, and the audiences laugh at the tragedy. Shakespeare wrote this line for Bottom in the middle of the play: “‘Deceiving me’ is Thisbe’s cue. She is to enter now, and I am to spy her through the wall. You shall see it fall pat as I tell you. Here she comes.” Another quote to prove my point is said by Theseus: “His speech was like a tangled chain- nothing impaired, but all disordered.” And by Lysander: “He hath rid this prologue like a rough colt, he knows not the stop.” There were also many more scornful remarks made by the audience written in the play. Shakespeare was making fun of actors with the whole scene, showing that they act so badly they turn tragedies into comedies, drive people to mock them, and break character to talk to the audience. For the love portion, Shakespeare took a classic love story, and then he made actors act the tragedy out terribly and somehow turn it into a comedy. (In Act V, Scene I, Theseus reads the description of the play they will perform: ““A tedious brief scene of young Pyramus And his love Thisbe. Very tragical mirth.” “Merry” and “tragical”?”). If Shakespeare was not making fun of love, he would have made the sad romantic tragedy actually a tragedy. In making the lovers’ death a funny comedy, he shows disregard for love and therefore is mocking it, and cleverly at the same time also mocking actors. Shakespeare is thus ridiculing people who fall in love and actors in the same play within the play.
To conclude my essay, I think William Shakespeare wrote the theme of A Midsummer Night’s Dream to be light and funny, and he was making fun of actors and those who fall in love. Some of my proof is that a scene was written in which Shakespeare was clearly trying to mock those who fall in love by likening their love to a queen and a donkey’s love. Another scene mocked actors, by showing that they act so badly they turn tragedies into comedies, drive people to mock them, and break character to talk to the audience. Finally, some might argue that A Midsummer Night’s Dream was not about mocking actors and those who fall in love, it is about unpredictable, irrational love, but the love was neither unpredictable nor irrational, it was the opposite. To sum it up, William Shakespeare wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream to mock those who fall in love and actors.

uh so if i wanna write about printmaking, how can I make it an argumentative essay?

Is a arugmentave essay basically just a persuasive text?

TWILIGHT_A wrote:

uh so if i wanna write about printmaking, how can I make it an argumentative essay?

You would have to make a stance (form an opinion) on it to argue from. So maybe “The printmaking process is to inefficient”.

bookworm_4ever12 wrote:

Is a arugmentave essay basically just a persuasive text?

"An argumentative essay is designed to involve research, evidence, and the presentation of the research and evidence, while a persuasive essay is designed to involve arguments toward a single subject and viewpoint, with the goal of persuading the reader to agree." - uniontestprep.com