Academic Writing II — Argument & Argumentation

This module trains postgraduate writers to construct, defend, and refine arguments at the standard required by journals, examiners, and funders. Learners move from reporting evidence to arguing a position, deploying claim-warrant-evidence structures, counterargument, hedging, and discipline-appropriate register. Mastery is demonstrated when a learner can draft a 2000-word argumentative paper with a defensible thesis, integrated counterargument, and precise academic register, and can revise it in response to critique.

Learning Outcomes

Construct arguments using Toulmin's model of claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.

Differentiate deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning in academic prose.

Detect and avoid formal and informal logical fallacies in drafts and published literature.

Integrate counterargument and concession to strengthen rather than weaken a thesis.

Deploy hedging, boosting, and stance markers appropriate to disciplinary register.

Revise paragraph architecture using topic sentence, development, evidence, and link moves.

Evaluate the ethics of argumentation including fair representation of opposing views.

Edit own and peer drafts for coherence, cohesion, and argumentative force.

Topics Covered

Thesis statements: arguable, specific, defensible claims

Toulmin model and its application to research arguments

Rogerian and dialectical argument patterns in humanities and social sciences

Claim types: fact, definition, value, policy, interpretation

Warrants and backing: making assumptions visible

Counterargument, concession, refutation, and the straw-man trap

Formal fallacies: affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent

Informal fallacies: ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dichotomy, slippery slope

Hedging, boosting, and epistemic stance in English for Academic Purposes

Reporting verbs and the rhetoric of citation (Hyland's taxonomy)

Cohesion devices: lexical chains, given-new, thematic progression

Paragraph architecture: TEEL, PEEL, MEAL, and discipline variants

Peer review and revision: Elbow's believing/doubting game

Ethics of argumentation: steel-manning, charitable interpretation, bad-faith moves

Skills Developed

Argumentation Critical reasoning Hedging Register control Revision Peer review Rhetorical analysis Cohesion editing

Suggested Resources

Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2021). They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, 5th ed., Norton

Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The Uses of Argument, Updated ed., Cambridge University Press

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, Continuum

Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students, 3rd ed., University of Michigan Press

Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press

Williams, J.M. & Bizup, J. (2016). Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, 12th ed., Pearson

Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G. & Williams, J.M. (2016). The Craft of Research, 4th ed., University of Chicago Press

Assessment

Assessment emphasises iterative drafting of a substantial argumentative paper, supported by critical reasoning tasks that test diagnostic skill with fallacies and register.

Argumentative paper (2000 words) with revision memo55%

Fallacy and register diagnostic MCQ examination25%

Peer-review commentary portfolio on three drafts20%

Practice bank: 202 MCQs · Timed mock & self-paced modes

Start Practice →