Argumentative Organization Plan

Plan A

IntroductionExplanation of the issueThesis statement of intent and opinion

BodyPro argument 1 ( weakest argument that supports your opinion)

Pro argument 2 (stronger argument that supports your opinion)

Pro argument 3 (strongest argument that supports your opinion)

Con argument(s) and refutation of the counter-argument(s)

ConclusionSummaryRecommendationSolutionPrediction

Plan A: Example: Should we focus on the development of solar energy systems? Introduction: Explain: about sources of energy and the coming importance of solar energy. Thesis statement: Although solar energy systems are initially costly and have been inefficient, we need to continue to develop solar energy because the source is free, in exhaustible, safe, and needs only simple technology.

Body:

Pro 1: the source (the sun) is free, plentiful, and inexhaustible.

Pro 2: the systems are safe, nonpolluting.

Pro 3: the systems need only simple technology.

Counter-argument paragraph about cost and efficiency Short vs. long term costs and efficiency. Initial investment high, but eventually much less expensive research will continue to increase efficiency

Conclusion: Summary + solution to the energy problemsA recommendation to pursue research in solar energy technology

Plan B

Introduction:Explanation of the issueThesis statement of intent and opinion

Body:

Con argument(s) and refutation of the counter-argument(s)

Pro argument 1 (weakest argument that supports your opinion)

Pro argument 2 (stronger argument that supports your opinion)

Pro argument 3 (strongest argument that supports your opinion)

Conclusion:Summary RecommendationSolution Prediction

Plan B: Example: Should the city expand and change its public transportation services?

Introduction:Explanation of the need to change and expand the current public bus servicesThesis statement:Although this city has a bus system and the bus fare for students is free, this city needs to expand and change its public transportation system because that will better serve the students.

Body:

Counter-argument paragraph (cost and use issues): no reason to think that expanded service will charge students a fee even if students pay a small fare, the expanded service will make the

fare worth it more students will rive the buses if they run more often and on time,

especially with additional publicity about the changes

Pro argument 1: limited service makes it difficult to go anywhere (results of student survey)

Pro argument 2: limited and often inaccurate time schedule poses many problems for studens, especially those with night classes (university has a responsibility to extend bus service in the evening)

Conclusion: Recommendation of a solution to the problemPrediction

Plan C

Introduction:Explanation of the issueThesis statement of intent and opinion

Body: Counter-argument 1 + Pro argument 1 to refute it

Counter-argument 2 + Pro argument 2 to refute it

Counter-argument 3 + Pro argument 3 to refute it

Counter-argument 4 + Pro argument 4 to refute it

Conclusion:SummaryRecommendationSolution Prediction

Plan C: Example:

Is selective harvesting beneficial for forests?

Introduction: Explanation of the controversy and to persuade the audience that harvesting trees can be environmentally soundThesis statement: Although preservationists believe that cutting trees harms the environment by destroying valuable natural resources, conservationists and forest managers believe that selective harvesting is actually good for forests and for people because it increases productivity and provides jobs and timber. Body:

Counter-argument 1 + Pro argument 1Forests destroyed Vs(not with good management; reforestation makes forest renewable)

Counter-argument 2 + Pro argument 2Causes erosion and landslides Vs(knowledgeable forest management will harvests carefully; selective cutting prevents problems)

Counter-argument 3 + Pro argument 3Destroys natural resources Vs(timber is an indispensable material for modern life; forest industry provides jobs)

Counter-argument 4 + Pro argument 4Harmful to the environment Vs(good management is actually helpful to the forest; increases productivity)

Conclusion: Compromise with recommendations: There should be limitations and standards for harvesting trees; must have appropriate forest management so that everyone benefits.