3 OUMH1203 TOPIC 4 TYPES OF ESSAYS

3 OUMH1203 TOPIC 4 TYPES OF ESSAYS 

INTRODUCTION
Essay writing is a very basic skill which should be learned by everybody. You
were introduced to the basic essay outline in the previous topic. In this topic, you
will learn that there are indeed many types of essay genres out there, for
instance, narration, description, definition, evaluation and so on. This topic will
highlight the three most frequently used essay genres in academic writing and
some of the fallacies commonly found.

As explained in the previous topic, there are three main types of essays ñ the
explanation essay, the argumentation essay, and the discussion essay.
The main objective of an explanation essay is to clarify or explain issues, usually
in the context of natural and social sciences. To make your essay comprehensive,
try answering all the Wh- questions pertaining to the topic you are writing on.
The argumentation essay, on the other hand, not only provides information but
also contains supporting and opposing ideas. Its main objective is to persuade
readers to side with the essay writer.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Describe the different types of essays;
2. Prepare outlines for different essay types;
3. Discuss the concept of supporting evidence; and
4. Explain the concept of logical fallacies. 

The discussion essay is somewhat similar to the argumentation essay at first
glance, but it is actually the most taxing to write of the three genres mentioned. It
contains information as well as the writer s personal views, supported by facts
and evidence. It should not get too personal as the reader s approval is not really
the objective. The main objective is to discuss the issues objectively and let the
readers think for themselves. As we delve deeper into this topic, we will learn
these three genres in greater detail.

 EXPLANATION ESSAY
According to the Cambridge Learner s Dictionary, an "explanation" means:
- the details or reasons that someone gives to make something clear or easy to
understand.
This is further defined by dictionary.com as:
- the act or process of explaining.
OR
- a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable.
Thus, an explanation essay can be defined as an essay that explains things or
processes in sequential order. The use of the simple present tense would be in
order here. 

So how do you handle an explanation essay? The same planning stages you have
learned earlier can be applied when writing any essay. The only things to watch
out for are the different content and various styles of writing essays.
For instance, it is always good to start an explanation essay by giving the readers
some general information about the subject that you are writing about in your
introductory paragraph. The main idea sentence must be able to stand on its own
and make complete sense by itself.

4.1  Try asking yourself some Wh-questions before writing your thesis statement: 

(a) What?
(b) Who?
(c) Why?
(d) What for?
(e) When?
(f) How?

The body of the essay can be written based on three structural styles: 

(a) Temporal Sequential
- The points of the essay are written in a pretty linear way, as in a  b  c
 d. Time markers are usually used to begin each paragraph to show the
processes involved.

(b) Cyclical
- The main points are presented in a cyclical manner, for example, when we
write about the hydrological cycle (formation of rainfall).

(c) Cause and Effect
- An example of this type of essay would be explaining why traffic jams are
common in a big city.
You can conclude the essay by summarising or giving additional information
related to the process before ending.
(a) What?
(b) Who?
(c) Why?
(d) What for?
(e) When?
(f) How? 

42  ACTIVITY 4.1
An essay which is explanatory in nature can be written in three
structures: (1) linear, (2) cyclical, or (3) cause and effect. Read the titles
below and see which structure suits each essay.

1. Explain the life cycle of a butterfly.

2. One very important issue surrounding families today is the issue
of working mothers. Women should not be allowed to work until
their children are at least 12 years old. Discuss.

3. China in the 21st century is committed to strengthening exchange
and cooperation with countries around the world. What are the
historical and political factors which have led to this policy shift
and what will be the possible economic consequences?

4. Explain the causes of youth unemployment and its effects on young people.

5. Explain the four seasons which occur in many parts of the world.

6. It wasn t until the 1960s that the rights of minorities became a
focused issue for many Western countries. Trace the history of the
policies in Australia which led to the end of the 'White Australia" policy in 1974. 

Possible structures:
(a) Steps in linear process ___________________________
(b) Steps in cyclical process ___________________________
(c) Explanation of something that has factors and conditions,
reasons and effects ______________________________

Source: Cox, K., & Hill, D. (2004). EAP now!: Students' book.
Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd. 
Essay Example 1 shows the outline of an essay which describes the process of
making an omelette:

How to Make an Omelette
An omelette is usually made with two or three eggs and is cooked very
quickly in a saut pan. As with so many established recipes and cooking
techniques, the French are the masters of the omelette, which if cooked
correctly, is light, moist, and slightly puffy. A non-stick pan works very well
for preparing an omelette and is often preferred by the home cook, but
professional chefs use an iron pan with a long handle that can be exclusively
used for omelette making. A properly seasoned iron pan can be cleaned after
each use simply by wiping it with a clean cloth or paper towel, rubbing the
pan with salt, and giving the pan a final wipe to remove the salt. The salt
treatment helps prevent eggs from sticking to the pan the next time it is used.
To begin preparing an omelette, crack open 2 or 3 eggs over a bowl, add salt
and pepper (optional), and stir the eggs just until the whites and yolks begin
to blend. The eggs should not be beaten vigorously. 

Then place the saut pan on high heat and thoroughly coat the bottom and
sides of the pan with butter. After the butter is melted, it will begin to
foam. When the foaming stops, the pan is hot enough to begin cooking the
omelette. Make sure the pan is not so hot that the butter begins to brown. If
this happens, the butter will quickly reach its smoke point, which will cause
an unsatisfactory result. 

Next pour the eggs into the pan. The eggs should begin to coagulate almost
immediately. Using a few side to side and turning movements of your arm
while grasping the handle of the pan, distribute the eggs in the pan, creating
an even layer over the entire bottom of the pan.
After heating for a few more seconds, the eggs should begin to form into a
mass resembling the unfolded omelette shape. Jerking the pan toward you
should cause the omelette to roll over upon itself as it hits the side of the pan.
Continue doing this for a few seconds until the omelette is folded into a
pleasing form. 


After tilting the omelette from the pan onto a plate, it is ready to serve. The
actual cooking time is usually no more than 30 to 45 seconds. The omelette
should be tender and moist. A dry omelette indicates that it has been cooked
too long. 

Ingredients that are more substantial in volume (such as cheese or chopped
meat), should not be added to the omelette until after the eggs have
coagulated, but the ingredients must be added prior to flipping the omelette
in half. These ingredients are placed on one side of the omelette; then the
omelette is folded. Folding the omelette in the pan using the flipping
technique might not work as well as it does when folding a plain omelette, so
a spatula is most often used to fold the omelette in the pan. The extra
ingredients can also be placed on top of the plain omelette immediately
before serving. 

 ARGUMENTATION ESSAY
In this type of essay, you try to win your readers over so that they will agree with
what you say, accept your facts, embrace your values, and adopt your arguments
and way of thinking.

I am sure that sounds like a lot of hard work but that is only because it actually
is! For your essay to be effective, there must be a certain convention that needs
to be followed. This is why you must take time to plan before writing an
argumentation essay.

The first thing to do is to read the topic given to you. Once you have read the
topic, underline the key words. Write down a few other words, if possible, that
are similar in meaning with the key words. This will help your understanding
further. 

Once you have understood the topic, you have to decide whether you are for or
against the idea found in the topic. Just merely agreeing or disagreeing would
not help you write a good essay. Besides considering the position you are going
to take, you also need to ensure that you have reasons to back your stand. You
also need to be clear about the two conflicting perspectives that you are going to
present in the essay before taking a stand and backing it up with your reasoning
or evidence. 

4.2  TOPIC 4 TYPES OF ESSAYS 
After all this is done, write the conclusion and re-emphasise your position or
stand about the issues discussed.
Use the basic essay outline discussed earlier. Your essay should have an
introduction, body and conclusion. The introductory paragraph of your essay
should provide a general explanation of your topic, some background
information and a thesis statement or topic sentence.

In this type of essay, your thesis statement would be your stand or the position
you are taking concerning the topic. The body of your essay is like the main
course of a meal, so it is very important that the argument is solid. This is where
you present your arguments in greater detail with evidence to support your
stand, and try to convince the audience why your stand is the right one.
You can use a variety of ways to present your evidence such as statistics, other
studies, popular beliefs and stories. While arguing your points, avoid and look
out for "logical fallacieâ or poor arguments. We will discuss more of these
fallacies towards the end of this topic.

When making claims in an argumentation essay, it is not enough to only have
solid evidence to back them up. You also need to anticipate counter-arguments
and be prepared to address them.

There are a number of ways by which you can generate counterarguments:
(a) By taking the opposing side for a moment;
(b) By doing thorough research on the topic; and
(c) By discussing the topic with a friend.

The conclusion is very important since it is the last part that your readers will read

and probably what they will remember most. So make sure you make your stand
clear and not confusing. In this paragraph, you should remind your readers about
the issue at hand, summarise the main points, re-emphasise your opinion (if you
have given it earlier) and give a glimpse of what is to come if the situation remains
or changes. Remember to keep your conclusion precise and concise, not lengthy.
Your essay layout can be as basic as 1-3-1. This means that the essay comprises
five paragraphs:

(a) An introduction (one paragraph);
(b) Three arguments that support the thesis (three paragraphs); and
(c) A conclusion (one paragraph). 

TIPS.
While the conclusion part is almost similar to the introduction part, avoid
using the same words. Rephrase or use different words to convey the same
meaning. This is why you need to widen your pool of vocabulary. For
practice, try using the thesaurus to look up synonyms from time to time.
Essay Example 2 shows an essay using the basic 1-3-1 layout.
Health and Healing at Your Fingertips

Throw out the bottles and boxes of drugs in your house. A new theory
suggests that medicine could be bad for your health, which should at least
come as good news to people who cannot afford to buy expensive medicine.
However, it is a blow to the medicine industry, and an even bigger blow to
our confidence in the progress of science. This new theory argues that healing
is at our fingertips: we can be healthy by doing Reiki on a regular basis.
Supporters of medical treatment argue that medicine should be trusted since
it is effective and scientifically proven. They say that there is no need for
spiritual methods such as Reiki, Yoga, Tai Chi. These waste our time,
something which is quite precious in our material world. There is medicine
that can kill our pain, x-rays that show us our fractured bones or MRI that
scans our brain for tumors. We must admit that these methods are very
effective in the examples that they provide. However, there are some "every
day complaints" such as back pains, headaches, insomnia, which are treated
currently with medicine. When you have a headache, you take an Aspirin, or
Vermidon; when you cannot sleep, you take Xanax without thinking of the
side effects of these. When you use these pills for a long period, you become
addicted to them; you cannot sleep without them. We pay huge amounts of
money and become addicted instead of getting better. How about a safer and
more economical way of healing? When doing Reiki to yourself, you do not
need anything except your energy so it is very economical. As for its history,
it was discovered in Japan in the early 1900s and its popularity has spread
particularly throughout America and Western Europe. In quantum physics,
energy is recognized as the fundamental substance of which the universe is
composed. Reiki depends on the energy within our bodies. It is a simple and
effective way of restoring the energy flow. There are no side effects and it is
scientifically explained. 
 

Opponents of alternative healing methods also claim that serious illnesses
such as HIV/AIDS and cancer cannot be treated without drugs. They think
so because these patients spend the rest of their lives in the hospital taking
medicine. How can Reiki make these people healthy again? It is very
unfortunate that these patients have to live in the hospital losing their hair
because of chemotherapy, and losing weight because of the side effects of the
medicine they take. Actually, it is common knowledge that except for when
the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, drugs also cannot treat AIDS or
cancer. Most of the medicine these patients use are to ease their pain and their
sufferings because of the medical treatment they undergo. Instead of drugs
which are expensive and have many side effects, you can use your energy to
overcome the hardships of life, find an emotional balance, leave the stress of
everyday life and let go of the everyday worries. Most of the chronic
conditions such as eczema or migraine are known to have causes such as
poor diet and stress. Deep-rooted anger or other strong emotions can
contribute to viral infections as well. Since balancing our emotions and
controlling our thoughts are very important for our well-being, we should
definitely start learning Reiki and avoid illnesses before it is too late.

Some people may still maintain that in our material world, everything depends
on time. It is even "lacking time" that causes much of the stress that leads to the
illnesses we mentioned. How would it be possible to find time to do Reiki to
ourselves and the people around us when we cannot even find time to go to
the theater? This is one good thing about Reiki; it does not require more than
15 minutes of our time. There is no need for changing clothes or special
equipment. It is a wonderfully simple healing art, an effective method of
relaxation and stress-relief. Most important of all, it is less time consuming than
medicine if we think of all the time we spend taking medicine for some
complaints and taking some more for the side effects as well.

Having said these, resistance to Reiki would be quite illogical. Reiki is natural
and drug-free. What is more, it is easy to learn by anyone, regardless of age
and experience. It can be used anywhere, anytime. It also enhances physical,
mental, emotional and spiritual well-being and the benefits last a lifetime. It is
definitely high time to get away from the drug boxes we store in our drug
cabinet!

Oya Ozagac. Health and healing at your fingertips. (n.d.). Retrieved
September 2004, from http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/ 


DISCUSSION ESSAY
The last type of essay we are going to look at is the discussion essay. In academic
writing, the term Ñdiscussionâ usually refers to discussing both sides of an issue
or topic, or discussing the results of a certain research and its implications. In an
argumentation essay, we present our views and provide evidence to support our
arguments in order to persuade the readers to agree with us. However, in a
discussion essay, we do not actually do this. In this type of essay, we present
both sides of the issue and let the readers decide for themselves which side of the
fence they want to be on.

Basically, as the writer of a discussion essay, you should cover both sides of the
issue/topic, provide evidence for your discussion, and weigh the evidence to
make your conclusion.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Having a good thesis statement and outline does not guarantee a good essay. It
needs to be supported with solid evidence in order to convince the readers.
4.4
4.3 

ACTIVITY 4.2
There are various stages in an argumentation essay. Using the essay
Health and Healing at Your Fingertips, can you identify these stages?
Discuss with your tutor.

SELF-CHECK 4.1
What is the difference between a discussion essay and an
argumentation essay? 
 

4.4.1 Types of Evidence
There are many types of evidence that you can use in essay writing and they can
be from primary or secondary sources. Primary source, as the name suggests is
first hand information, while secondary source simply means information that is
created out of the primary source.

Evidence can be in the form of facts, quotes, opinions of experts, anecdotes,
examples, or charts and diagrams. The role of evidence or supporting details is to
support your thesis statement:
(a) Fact: Fact is information from something that actually exists in reality, for
example, statistics.
(b) Quotes: Comments from a credible source. Remember not to overuse this.
(c) Opinions of experts: Opinions from experts on the subject of your writing.
(d) Anecdotes: Short accounts of interesting or humorous incidents. These can
liven up a boring academic essay.
(e) Examples: An example is one that is a representative of the whole group.
Examples are great at clarifying your points.
(f) Charts/Diagrams: Drawings or illustrations can be used to clarify complex
concepts in our writing. 

4.4.2 How to Use Evidence
To ensure that your thesis statement is strongly supported, you must follow
certain rules to ensure that the evidence used is credible and valid:

(a) Ensure the accuracy of each fact ñ accuracy of information is crucial
especially with dates, figures, and names.
(b) Facts must be recent (not outdated), reliable and not biased.
(c) Only use facts that are relevant to your writing.
(d) Make sure you have enough facts for each point you want to make.
(e) Arrange facts from general to specific or vice versa. 

4.5 LOGICAL FALLACIES
According to the online Encyclopedia Britannica, a fallacy is:
...an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness.
This error of reasoning is further explained by a website on logical fallacies:
...when someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a
position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
You need to be aware of fallacies when writing essays, especially the
argumentative kind. There are many types of fallacies. Some, as listed by
www.logicalfallacies.com, are as stated on the next page:

Fallacies of Relevance
(a) Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
(b) Bandwagon Fallacy
(c) Fallacist s Fallacy
(d) Fallacy of Composition
(e) Fallacy of Division
(f) Gambler s Fallacy
(g) Genetic Fallacy
(h) Irrelevant Appeals
(i) Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition
(ii) Appeal to Authority
(iii) Appeal to Consequences
(iv) Appeal to Force
(v) Appeal to Novelty
(vi) Appeal to Pity
(vii) Appeal to Popularity
(viii) Appeal to Poverty
(ix) Appeal to Wealth
(i) Moralistic Fallacy
(j) Naturalistic Fallacy
(k) Red Herring
(l) Weak Analogy

Fallacies of Ambiguity
(a) Accent Fallacies
(b) Equivocation Fallacy
(c) Straw Man Fallacy
Fallacies of Presumption
(a) Affirming the Consequent
(b) Arguing from Ignorance
(c) Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
(d) Complex Question Fallacy
(e) Cum Hoc Fallacy
(f) False Dilemma/Bifurcation Fallacy
(g) Hasty Generalisation Fallacy
(h) ÑNo True Scotsmanâ Fallacy
(i) Post Hoc Fallacy
(j) Slippery Slope Fallacy
(k) Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy
(l) Subjectivist Fallacy
(m) Tu Quoque Fallacy 

We will not cover all the fallacies listed above. You can visit the website and read
it in greater detail if you are interested to know more about these fallacies.
However, we will highlight and explain the more popular ones, as listed in the
University of North Carolina website www.unc.edu. 

4.5.1 Hasty Generalisation
Definition:
Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample
that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes
about people (For example, Frat boys are drunkards; Grad students are nerdy.)
are common examples of the principle underlying hasty generalisation. 

Example:
My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too.
All philosophy classes must be hard!
Two people s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a
conclusion.

Tip:
Ask yourself what kind of "sample" you are using: Are you relying on the
opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a
few situations? If so, consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a
less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the example, the more modest
conclusion "Some philosophy classes are hard for some students" would not
be a hasty generalisation.)

4.5.2 Missing the Point
Definition:
The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion ñ but not the
conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example:
The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk
driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty
should be the punishment for drunk driving. 

The argument actually supports several conclusions ñ The punishment for drunk
driving should be very serious in particular ñ but it does not support the claim
that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted. 

Tip:
Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask
yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them.
Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be
required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you have actually
given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or
extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you
are claiming something big. 

4.5.3 Post hoc (False Cause)
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which
translates as "after this, therefore because of this." 

Definition:
Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event
really does cause another one that comes later ñ for example, if I register for a class,
and my name later appears on the roll, it is true that the first event caused the one
that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really
related as cause and effect. That is, correlation is NOT the same thing as causation. 

Examples:
President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is
responsible for the rise in crime.
The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but
the argument has not shown us that one caused the other. 

Tip:
To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some
explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have
produced higher crime rates. And that is what you should do to avoid
committing this fallacy: If you say that A caused B, you should have
something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and
B came later! 

4.5.4 Slippery Slope
Definition:
The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire
consequence, will take place, but there is really not enough evidence for that
assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery
slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we
cannot stop halfway down the hill. 

Example:
Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don t respect life, we
are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon
our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for
his/her life. It will be the end of civilisation. To prevent this terrible consequence,
we should make animal experimentation illegal right now. 

Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilisation has
not yet ended, it seems clear that this chain of events will not necessarily take
place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life,
and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the
spot on the hillside at which things stop ñ we may not slide all the way down to
the end of civilisation. So there is insufficient reason to accept the arguer s
conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now. 

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be tricky to identify because sometimes a chain
of events can be predicted to follow a certain action. Here is an example: If I fail
English 101, I won t be able to graduate. If I don t graduate, I probably won t be
able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or flipping
burgers for the next year. 

Tip:
Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say "if A, then
B, and if B, then C," and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

4.5.5 Weak Analogy
Definition:
Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas or
situations. If the two things that are being compared are not really alike, the
analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of
weak analogy.

Example:
Guns are like hammers / they re both tools with metal parts that could be used to
kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers
/ so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.
While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal
parts) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we
restrict guns because they can be used to kill large numbers of people at a 
distance. This is a feature hammers do not share / it would be hard to kill a
crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak and so is the argument based
on it. 

Tip:
Identify what properties are important to the claim you are making, and see
whether the two things you are comparing both share those properties. 

4.5.6 Appeal to Authority
Definition:
Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or
authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we are discussing. If,
however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with
a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who is not much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. 

Example:
We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy
Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.
While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters related to acting, there is
no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political stand. 

Tip:
There are two easy ways to avoid committing this fallacy. First, make sure
that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you are discussing.
Second, rather than just saying "Dr Authority believes x, so we should
believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority
used to arrive at his/her opinion. It also helps to choose authorities who are
perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people perceived as
biased. 

4.5.7 Ad Populum
Definition:
The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions
of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that the arguer
takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with
others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his/her argument. 

One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the
arguer tries to convince the audience to do something because everyone else
(supposedly) does. 

Example:
Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!
While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what
laws we should have, it certainly does not determine what is moral or immoral. 

Tip:
Make sure that you are not recommending that your audience believe your
conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it,
people will like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that
popular opinion is not always right. 

4.5.8 Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque
Definitions:
The ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies
focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of
these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn t believe So-and-So s
argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad
person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the
arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent s argument. 

Examples:
Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms
women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her.
Dworkin's appearance and character have nothing to do with the strength of her
argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious. 

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually
done the thing he/she is arguing against, and so the opponent's argument
shouldn't be listened to. Here is an example: Imagine that your parents have
explained to you why you should not smoke ñ the damage to your health. You
reply: I won t accept your argument because you used to smoke when you were
my age. You did it, too! The fact that your parents have done the very thing they
are condemning has no bearing on the premise they put forward in their argument
(smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious. 

Tip:
Be sure to stay focused on your opponents  reasoning, rather than on their
character. 

4.5.9 Appeal to Pity

Definition:
Appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a
conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples:
I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A.
My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I ve had a cold, so it was really
hard for me to study. 

The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the criteria for getting
an A has to do with learning and applying the material from the course. The
principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve
A s) is unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant
but it is not, and so the argument is fallacious. 

Tip:
Make sure that you are not simply trying to get your readers to agree with
you by making them feel sorry for someone. 

4.5.10 Appeal to Ignorance
Definition:
In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says: "Look, there is no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my
conclusion on this issue." 

Example:
People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet
been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.
Here is an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: People have been
trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to
prove it. Therefore, God exists. In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of
evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is 
one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have
used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they
have not found it, and it is the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then
the fact that they have not found it constitutes some evidence that it does not
exist. 

Tip:
Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then
draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence. 

4.5.11 Straw Man
Definition:
One way of making your argument stronger is to anticipate and respond in
advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man
fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent s position and tries
to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a
straw man is not really impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your
opponent's argument is not impressive either. 

Example:
Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But
such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn
and its readers should be left in peace.

The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated ñ in fact, most feminists
do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any punishment for those who
merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or
propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers,
not readers, for damages. So the arguer has not really scored any points; he or
she has just committed a fallacy. 

Tip:
Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly,
accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the
best version of an opponent s argument, then you ve really accomplished
something. 

4.5.12 Red Herring

Definition:
Halfway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side
issue that distracts the audience from what is really at stake. Often, the arguer
never returns to the original issue.

Example:
Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes
go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.
Let us try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what is wrong with this
argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are
getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.
When we lay it out this way, it is pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a
tangent ñ the fact that something helps people get along doesn t necessarily make
it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause
conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students
agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not
given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip:
Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How
many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how
each premise supports the conclusion?

4.5.13 False Dichotomy

Definition:
The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The
arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only
one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there
are really many different options, not just two ñ and if we thought about them
all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends! 


Example:
Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building,
or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's
safety, so we must tear the building down.

The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the
building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question ñ for
example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn t hold classes
in those rooms.

Tip:
Examine your own arguments: If you are saying that we have to choose
between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you
haven t mentioned? 

4.5.14 Begging the Question
Definition: Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to
simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument
either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion ("circular
reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that
the argument rests on.

Examples:
Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help
another human being escape suffering through death.
Let us lay this out in premise-conclusion form:
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape
suffering through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.
If we "translate" the premise, we ll see that the arguer has really just said
the same thing twice: "decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as
"morally acceptable," and "help another human being escape suffering through
death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise basically says, "active
euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does! The arguer hasn't
yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left
us asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?" Her
argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real question. 

Tip:
One way to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and
conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps that are
required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the
conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the
statements are controversial and you ve just glossed over them, you might
be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises
basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in other words). If so,
you're begging the question. The moral of the story: You cannot just assume
or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you are trying to prove. 

4.5.15 Equivocation
Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a
single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Example:
Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our
money.

The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both something
that is correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and something
to which someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life"). Sometimes an
arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like "freedom,"
"justice," "rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or
misunderstanding. Either way, it is important that you use the main terms of
your argument consistently.

Tip:
Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask
yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be
sure you are not slipping and sliding between those meanings. 


- An explanation essay can be defined as an essay that explains things or
processes in sequential order.
- An argumentation essay tries to win the audience over so that they agree
with what we say, accept our facts, embrace our values, and adopt our
arguments and way of thinking.
- In a discussion essay, we present both sides of the issue and let the audience
decide for themselves which side of the fence they want to be on.
- Having a good thesis statement and outline does not guarantee a good essay.
It needs to be supported with solid evidence in order to convince the
audience.
- When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt
a position based on a bad piece of reasoning, they are committing a logical
fallacy. 

Ad hominem
Ad populum
Appeal to authority
Appeal to ignorance
Appeal to pity
Argumentation essay
Begging the question
Discussion essay
Equivocation
Explanation essay
Fallacies of ambiguity
Fallacies of presumption
Fallacies of relevance
False dichotomy
Hasty generalisation
Logical fallacies
Missing the point
Post hoc (false cause)
Red herring
Slippery slope
Straw man
Supporting evidence
Tu quoque
Weak analogy 

Argumentative Essay. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2009, from 
http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/students/types%20of%20essays/ARGUMENTATIVE%20ESSAY.htm#sample_essay 

Cox, K., & Hill, D. (2004). EAP now!: Teacher's book. Alexandria, VA: Prentice
Hall.

Cox, K., & Hill, D. (2004). EAP now!: Students' book. Melbourne: Addison
Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd. (2007). 

Cambridge Learner's Dictionary with CD-ROM (Cambridge Learner s
Dictionary). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Explanation Definition|Definition of Explanation at Dictionary.com. (n.d.). 
Retrieved September 6, 2009, from http://dictionary.reference.com 

Fallacy (logic) ñ Britannica Online Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24,
2009, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked 

Fallacies. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb 

Kitchen-tip. How to make an egg omelette. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2009,
from http://www.recipetips.com 
Logical fallacies. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2009, from
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/