Main characteristics of the argumentative text

A summary of the characteristics of the argumentative text, a valuable communicative resource.

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

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

What is an argumentative text

It is a form of writing oriented to defend a position in a certain matter, using a series of arguments that support this thesis. The objective is to generate a change in the reader's ideas or a reinforcement of them.The objective is to generate a change in the reader's ideas or a reinforcement of them, assuming that he/she already agreed with the proposed position.

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

1. Introduction

This is the part with which we start the text, and it is of vital importance, since in these first lines it must be is of vital importance, since in these first lines it has to be clearly reflected what is the subject we are talking about and, above all, the about which we are talking about and, above all, which is the position that the writer is adopting in this respect and, therefore, the one that he/she will try to defend throughout the whole text.

It is also very important for another aspect: with these initial sentences we have to capture the attention of the receiver and make our text interesting enough for him to want to continue reading it until the end. 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 we are going to deal with. We can also use a narration of a concrete case, looking for the reader to identify with it, and then make an inductive reasoning towards the general theory that we wish to expose. Another possible way to begin the introduction is to use a famous quote from an authority figure in the subject we are going to deal with.

2. Argumentation

Logically, it is difficult to convince someone of something if we do not give good reasons for it (provided that what we want is to convince and not simply to coerce or extort, of course). That is why the central development of the argumentative text, as its name already makes us think, must consist of a whole battery of arguments, must consist of a whole battery of solid arguments that support our position without fissures and that are sufficiently strong to convince and not simply coerce or extort. to make the reader embrace our reasoning.

In terms of structure, this is the most extensive part of our writing, and therefore it is likely to contain several paragraphs, usually one to develop each of the arguments we want to use.

3. Conclusions

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

The most important characteristics of the argumentative text

As in any writing 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 closeness to the reader.

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

If the text is addressed to the general public, we will have to write our ideas in a more neutral way, but if we have the advantage of using impersonal verb forms, we will have to use a more subjective method.However, if we have the advantage of having a target audience that we know to a greater or lesser extent, we can adapt our writing so that it is especially interesting for them.

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 take into account that once we have started to write using one of them, we have to keep it until the end of the writing process, so that this distortion does not distort our writing style.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 reasonings with which we intend to cause an effect on the opinion of the person who reads us.

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

1. Causal

One of the most frequent and 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. Logic

Similar to the previous one, but dealing with 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 clever arguers may show us a logical sequence that apparently seems to be correct, but maybe it is not so correct. 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 fallacy.

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

3. Analogy

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

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

4. Generalization

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

Example: everyone I know who has seen this movie has really liked it, so I'm sure I'm going to love it too.

5. Of authority

It is about basing the reason on the fact that a person (apparently an expert in the field of knowledge we are dealing with) is inclined in favor of the thesis we proposeThis may be through articles, experiments or other means, so that we must be right.

Example: the WHO states that sugars are harmful to our health, so we should reduce as much as possible the intake of foods that contain them in excess.

6. Common sense

Sometimes we fall into a type of argumentation that boils down to claiming that it is something known by everyone, that everyone knows it is so, or that it has always been done in a certain way. They would rely on the apparent power of tradition. This can be clearly seen in the use of popular sayings and proverbs, which are supposed to catch the imagination.which supposedly capture the popular knowledge of past generations.

The problem is that this, in reality, is not guaranteeing us anything, and sometimes it is easy to dismantle them through arguments of a more scientific nature.

Example: in a certain town a traditional celebration has been carried out for many years, and since "it has always been like that", nobody really asks if it is beneficial for everyone or if someone is being harmed in some way by such an act.

7. Appeal to the emotional

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

Example: a politician appears indignant about the decision taken by the leader of the opposing party, and shows his audience his great dissatisfaction, but does not bother to rationally explain the negative effects that this decision implies for him.

8. Ad hominem

It is a type of fallacy or fallacious argumentation in which we attribute a negative characteristic to the sender without it being related to the thesis being addressedand we erroneously establish that 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 his work is surely wrong.

9. Prolepsis

But, if there is a really effective way to argue and convince, it is by going one step ahead and studying in depth all the possible arguments against our thesis. by going one step ahead and studying in depth all the possible arguments against our thesis.. This strategy is known as prolepsis, and was 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 enumerate them first, with the corresponding counterargumentation of each one of them in order to refute them systematically. 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 we can use in them.

We hope we have been sufficiently persuasive and have convinced the reader that this type of text is the best option to get a person to change his or her opinion in favor of the one we propose.

Bibliographical references:

• Dolz, J. (1993). La argumentación. Cuadernos de Pedagogía.
• Cuenca, M. J. (1995). Mecanismos lingüísticos y discursivos de la argumentación. La Rioja. Comunicación, Lenguaje y Educación.
• Anthony, W. (1987). The keys to argumentation. Barcelona. Editorial Ariel.