Main characteristics of the argumentative text

We have all tried to convince someone of something on countless occasions. To a greater or lesser extent, it is something we do daily.

However, when we try to do it in a more formal way, we usually resort to the use of an argumentative text. We are going to discover what this type of writing consists of and what its peculiarities are.

• Related article: "The 13 types of text and their characteristics"

What is an argumentative text

It is a form of writing aimed at defending a position on a certain matter, using a series of arguments that support said thesis. The objective is to generate in the reader a change in his ideas or a reinforcement of them., assuming that you previously agreed with the proposed position.

All argumentative text must have a structure that has the following parts well defined.

1. Introduction

It is the part with which we begin the text, and it is of vital importance, since In these first lines it must be reflected with crystal clarity what the theme is about which we are talking and above all what is the position in this regard that the writer is adopting and therefore the one that he is going to try to defend throughout the entire writing.

It is also very important for another aspect: with these initial phrases we have to capture the attention of the receiver and make our text interesting enough for him that he wants to continue reading it until finish it. Therefore, the main objective, at the beginning, is to write something that is attractive to our potential reader.

There are different options to start our statement. We can do it in a very academic way, explaining the concepts that we are going to deal with. We can also use a narration of a specific case, looking for the reader to identify with it, to later carry out inductive reasoning towards the general theory that we wish to expose. Another possible way to start the introduction is by using a famous quote from an authority figure on the subject that we are going to proceed to discuss.

2. Argumentation

Logically, it is difficult to convince someone of something if we do not give them good reasons for it (provided that what we want is to convince and not simply coerce or extort, of course). That is why the central development of the argumentative text, as its name already makes us think, it must consist of a whole battery of solid arguments that seamlessly support our position and that are also strong enough enough to make the reader embrace our reasoning.

At the structural level, it is the largest part of our writing, and therefore it is likely that it will go to contain several paragraphs, generally one to develop each of the arguments that we want to use.

3. conclusions

The closing of the text is a delicate part, since we must go back to the main idea, this time relying on the arguments presented, to give our thesis one last push and achieve the maximum possible persuasive effect on the recipient.

The most important characteristics of the argumentative text

As in any writing that we do, we can choose between a diversity of styles, more or less formal, with one or another type of language, or showing a greater or lesser proximity to the reader.

Depending on our objective, we can, for example, opt for a more aseptic style, always using impersonal verbal forms, or use a more subjective method, speaking in the first person and in singular.

If the text is addressed to the general public, we should write our ideas in a more neutral way, but if we have the advantage of having a target audience that we know to a greater or lesser extent extent, we can adapt our writing in a way that is especially interesting for those people.

As we have already seen, this kind of writing allows us to use a variety of different styles when writing, but it is very important to keep in mind that once we have started to write using one of them, we have to keep it until the end, so that this distortion does not cause a negative effect when it comes to persuading the reader.

arguments

They represent the core of an argumentative text, and are all those reasons with which we intend to cause an effect on the opinion of the person who reads us.

Its typology can be varied, as we will see below.

1. Causal

One of the most frequent and most powerful. It is about establishing a cause and effect relationship between two elements, in the most obvious way possible..

Example: the ground is wet because it has rained.

2. Logical

Similar to the previous one, but treating it in the most neutral way possible. It is the classic philosophical syllogism of, if p then q, and if q then r. If p is given, r must necessarily be given.

Example: when it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.

But beware, some smart arguers can show us a logical sequence that apparently seems correct, but it is still not so much. It is possible that they do this unconsciously (because they are wrong without knowing it) or that they do it deliberately. In this case we would be falling into the use of a fallacious argument or a fallacy.

Example: the ground is wet, so it may have rained, or someone has spilled water, or the cleaning service has passed, or they have watered a nearby garden...

• You may be interested in: "Are we rational or emotional beings?"

3. Analogy

With this type of argument what we try is to equate one situation to another, making see the similarities that exist between the two, so that if a reasoning is valid for the first, it should also be for the second one.

Example: someone contracted his telephone line with company X, had an incident and received very poorly service, so if you hire the same company, you will necessarily suffer the same problem.

4. Generalization

Similar to the previous one, but exposing a series of cases and alleging that If a certain event occurs in all these situations, it is reasonable to think that it also occurs in the conditions that we are exposing..

Example: This movie has been liked very much by all the people I know who have seen it, so I'm sure I'll love it too.

• You may be interested in: "The 10 types of logical and argumentative fallacies"

5. Of authority

Is about base the reason on which a person (apparently an expert in the field of knowledge that we are dealing with) is inclined in favor of the thesis that we propose, whether through articles, experiments or other means, so we must be correct.

Example: the WHO states that sugars are harmful to our health, so we must minimize the intake of foods that contain them in excess.

6. Common sense

Sometimes we fall into a type of argument that is reduced to alleging that it is something known by everyone, that everyone knows that it is so, or that it has always been done in a certain way. They would be based on the apparent power of tradition. It can be seen clearly with the use of proverbs and popular sayings, which supposedly capture the lore of past generations.

The problem is that this is not really guaranteeing us anything, and sometimes it is easy to dismantle them through more scientific arguments.

Example: in a certain town a traditional celebration has been held for many years, and since "it has always been like this", nobody really considers if it is beneficial for everyone or someone is being harmed in some way with said act.

7. Appeal to the emotional

It may be that at a certain moment we are more interested in using the emotional state of the receiver than the objective reasons for our argument. It's something that politicians do all the time, especially at election rallies.

Example: a politician appears outraged by the decision made by the leader of the opposing party, and shows his audience his great discontent, but he does not bother to explain rationally what are the negative effects that said said implies for him decision.

8. ad hominem

Is a type of fallacy or fallacious argument in which we attribute a negative characteristic to the issuer without it being related to the thesis addressed, and we wrongly establish that he therefore he cannot be right in his reasoning. We would be attacking the person instead of the argument.

Example: I don't like this person, so I make sure of him that it's wrong.

9. Prolepsis

But, if there is a really effective way of arguing and convincing, it is going one step ahead and studying in depth what are all the possible arguments against our thesis. This strategy is known as prolepsis, and already well studied and used by ancient Greek thinkers, especially by those who followed the currents of Stoicism or Epicureanism.

In this way, we will be able to anticipate and list them first, with the corresponding counter-argument of each one of them in order to systematically refute them. In this way we will be able to close the alternatives to the receiver and give him a greater sensation that, indeed, our postulate has to be true.

In conclusion

After these lines we already know better everything related to argumentative texts, their variants, their parts and the possible arguments that we can use in it.

We hope we have been persuasive enough and have convinced the reader that this type of text They are the best option to get a person to change their opinion in favor of the one we give them. we propose.

Bibliographic references:

• Dolz, J. (1993). The argument. Pedagogy Notebooks.
• Cuenca, m. J. (1995). Linguistic and discursive mechanisms of argumentation. The Rioja. Communication, Language and Education.
• Anthony, W. (1987). The argumentation keys. Barcelona. Editorial Ariel.