Analyze
Apply
Argue
Compare/Contrast
Define
Describe
Discuss
Evaluate/Critique
Interpret
React
Summarize
Synthesize


Analyze
Read how to analyze a text here.

Apply
by Catherine Copley

Relate information to real-life examples; ask how information "works" in a different context.

Argue
by Susan Oaks

"Yeah? So's your old man...." That's one classic comeback that we might think of when we hear the word "argument." We think of a heated discussion of something, maybe ending in name-calling or even shoving. But academic argument is something different. The name-calling is more polite, and there's not much shoving.... OK, seriously. Instead of heated discussion, academic argument is calm. Instead of personal references, academic argument uses impersonal, logical reasons and evidence to make a point. The purpose of argument, in an academic setting, is to analyze an issue or a situation and to make a case for your point of view, to convince your reader or listener of the truth of something.

To make a convincing case, academic argument has two elements:

1. an assertion e.g., your argument, or what you are trying to prove

X is better than Y. Scents in the office can affect people's work. UFO's are really government regulated.

In written argument, the argument usually is crystalized in an essay's thesis sentence.
2. proof e.g., evidence to show the truth of the argument.

Sounds simple, right? The concept is simple: you state your point and back it up. But the backing-it-up part is trickier, mostly because so many things can go askew in the relationship between point and backup, the relationship between assertion and proof.

• There are different types of assertions, and you need to choose an assertion that can be proven logically.
• There are different types of proof that can be used, and you need to choose the appropriate type/s for your particular case.
• Even if you have a generally acceptable assertion and appropriate proof, there are lots of ways to influence the argument through language, and you need to choose language that is dispassionate and not too biased so that you're focusing your proof on evidence instead of emotion.

So... what do you need to consider in writing an academic argument?

The Argument Itself

An argument can be called an assertion, a claim or a thesis - whatever makes the most sense to you. Whatever you call it, you need to choose an argument that can be proven. Look at these three examples:

• X is better than Y.
• Scents in the office can affect people's work.
• UFO's are really government regulated.

Immediately you can see that the middle example, Scents in the office can affect people's work, is an argument that can probably be proven. There have been some studies done on the use of scents, especially in Japan, and their effect on workplace actions, workers' emotions and productivity. It's likely that you will be able to find information on this in scientific or business journals that are written for professionals in those fields. So this might actually be provable in terms of academic argument.

It's hard to determine whether the first example, X is better than Y, is provable, as it's not a specific enough assertion. You'd need to define X and Y precisely, and you'd need to define the term better precisely in order even to approach having a provable argument. For example: Learning through doing is more akin to the way most adults learn than learning through classroom lectures. You probably can prove this more precise argument by using evidence from psychologists, educators and learning theorists. The point here is that an argument needs to be precise to be provable.

The last example, UFO's are really government regulated, may not be provable. UFO is a general term that needs to be more precise, as does government (whose government?). Even if you define UFO and government, it may be impossible to find evidence to prove this assertion. Hey, if they really are government regulated, the government isn't going to release that information! Again, the point here is that you won't have an argument if you don't have an assertion that can be proved.

Types of Proof

Proof generally falls into two categories, facts and opinions. A "fact" is something that has been demonstrated or verified as true or something that is generally accepted as truth. For example, it's a fact that the world is round. It's a fact that Frick and Frack argued about who got to carry the umbrella on Tuesday. On the other hand, opinion is based upon observation and is not as absolutely verifiable as fact. It's my opinion that Frick and Frack argue too much.

Both fact and opinion can be acceptable, logical proof for an academic argument -- yes, you heard right -- both fact and opinion can be acceptable, logical proof. Many students assume, incorrectly, that the more facts, the better support for an argument; and they try to load the support up with dates or numbers. But the opinions of experts in the field are just as important as facts in constituting proof for an argument. Expert opinion means that a professional, well-versed in a field, has interpreted and drawn conclusions from whatever facts exist.

In writing -- or in analyzing -- an argument, you need to ask whether the assertion has appropriate proof in terms of type and quantity. For example, it's not enough to argue that adults learn better by doing than by listening to lectures, and to use the experience of one adult learner to validate your argument. You'd need more than one person's experience, and you'd need both facts (generally accepted psychological and physiological observations about the way we learn) and expert opinion (studies done that confirm the facts).

Relationship Between Argument and Proof

The assertion and the proof need to relate to one another carefully and logically to have a solid, acceptable argument. Problems can easily occur in the relationship between assertion and proof; in fact, they are so common and have been prevalent for so long that they even have Latin names! Don't worry -- I won't name them here. It's enough to say that errors usually occur when there are incorrect assumptions underlying the assertion, or incorrect conclusions drawn on the basis of inappropriate or insufficient proof.

For example, you can't logically argue that adult students don't like lectures on the basis of interviews with one or two adult students. You can't assume that because this situation is true for one or two adult learners, it's true for all.

You can't logically argue that our weather has changed on earth because of our forays into outer space. Youcan't conclude that one action has been the sole cause of another action.

You can't logically argue that we have to be either for or against a proposition. You can't assume that only those two responses exist.

As you can see, you need to be careful in thinking through the relationship between assertion and proof. In general, the assertion and any assumptions underlying the assertion need to be generally acceptable, while the proof needs to be sufficient, relevant to the assertion and free of incorrect assumptions and conclusions. There are many web sites that define logical errors; one that gives quick, clear definitions is from the University of Iowa (gives you the Latin names).

There are also many, many texts that deal with the relationship between an assertion and proof -- the nature of argument. A very good, accessible text in the field is Annette Rottenberg's Elements of Argument, which uses Stephen Toulmin's classic The Uses of Argument as its basis. Rottenberg breaks argument down into claim (the argument itself), grounds (the proof) and warrant (the underlying assumptions), and explores the relationship among these pieces of argument within the context of writing good arguments. Another good text is Marlys Mayfield's Thinking for Yourself, which has particularly useful chapters on facts, opinions, assumptions and inferences. Still another good text is Vincent Ruggerio's The Art of Thinking, which looks at both critical and creative thought.

The Role of Language in Argument

Language style and use is crucially important to argument. Has an attempt been made to use straightforward language, or is the language emotionally charged? Has an attempt been made to argue through reliance on evidence, or des the argument rely on swaying your thoughts through word choice and connotation? Is the language precise or vague? Concrete or abstract? Argument exists not only in ideas but also in the way those ideas are presented through language.

Compare/Contrast
by Catherine Copley

Comparison ordinarily answers the question: What are the ways these events, words, people are similar? Contrast ordinarily answers the question: What are the ways they are different? Often your instructor really means to both compare and contrast when he or she tells you to compare. Ask questions to clarify what is expected. Give yourself enough time to find interesting and unexpected similarities and differences. They're easier than you might think to discover, and they're what your instructor is hoping for--ones he or she hasn't thought of yet. See sample comparison-contrast papers. Read about how to write compare -- contrast papers at these sites: Temple University Writing Center, Harvard Writing Center.

Define
by Catherine Copley

You are expected to answer the question: What is the exact meaning of this word, term, expression? (according to a school of thought, culture, text, individual) And so, generally, your definition is expected to conform to other people's understanding, often to how the term is used within a specific discipline or area of study. Your definition must be sufficient to distinguish the term you are defining from all other things. Though it is true to say that an orange is a fruit, it is not a sufficient definition of an orange. Lemons are fruits too. A clear definition of a term enables a reader to tell whether any event or thing they might encounter falls into the category designated. Giving an example, though it may help clarify a definition, is never sufficient to define something. Definitions are never true; they are always controversial, and depend on who's doing the talking. See sample definition papers.

Describe
by Catherine Copley

Answers the question: What does or did this look like, sound like, feel like? Usually you are expected to give a clear, detailed picture of something. This instruction is often a vague instruction. Ask questions so you know what level of specificity is expected in your description. The ideal description would replicate the thing described, exactly. You can not do that, so you must settle for getting as close to it as practical, possible, desirable in language.

Discuss
by Catherine Copley

Usually you are asked to discuss an issue or controversy. Ordinarily you are expected to consider all sides of a question with a fairly open mind rather than taking a firm position and arguing it. Because this term is broad, it's a good idea to clarify with your professor. See sample discussion papers.

Evaluate/Critique
by Catherine Copley

You are expected to answer the question: What is the value or the truth or the quality of this essay, book, movie, argument, or.....? Ordinarily you are expected to consider how well something meets a certain standard. To critique a book, you might measure it against some literary or social value. You might evaluate a business presentation on the basis of the results you predict it will get. Often you will critique parts of the whole, using a variety of criteria; for example, in critiquing another student's paper, you might consider a number of questions such as: Where is it clear? not clear? What was interesting? Do the examples add to the paper? Is the conclusion a good one? And so on. Be sure you know exactly what criteria you are expected to consider in the assigned evaluation. Or, if there are no established criteria, make sure you have carefully developed your own. And, of course, persuade the reader that you are right in your evaluation by clarifying your criteria and explaining carefully how the text or parts of the text in question measure up to them.

Interpret
by Catherine Copley

You are expected to answer the question: What is the meaning or the significance of this text or event, as I understand it? You might be asked to interpret a poem, a slide on the stock market, a political event or evidence from an experiment. You are not being asked for just any possible interpretation. You are being asked for your best interpretation. So even though it is a matter of opinion, ordinarily you are expected to explain why you think as you do. (Hidden argument is something like "My interpretation makes sense because....") See sample interpretation papers.

React
by Catherine Copley

You are expected to go beyond summarizing, interpreting, and evaluating the text. You attach meaning that is not explicitly stated in the text by bringing your own experiences and prior knowledge into the reading of the text. This kind of writing allows you to develop your understanding of what you read in the understandable context of your own life and thinking and feeling. It facilitates a real conversation between you and the text. See examples of Reaction/Response Papers.

Summarize
by Catherine Copley

You are expected to answer the question: What are the important points in this text? You are expected to condense a long text into a short one. Boil away all the examples and non-essential details, leaving just the central idea and the main points. A good summary shows your instructor that you understand what you have read, but more importantly clarifies for yourself what you have read. If you're going to test whether you really understand those main ideas, you'll need to state them in your own words as completely and clearly as possible. Summary is almost always required preparation for deeper thinking, and is an important tool for research writing. Summary and summary-reaction papers are commonly assigned at Empire State College.
Writing Summaries and Paraphrases


Synthesize
by Catherine Copley

Blend information from many sources; determine which information "fits together."
Synthesis Papers