13

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

A. Argument

1. Definition of Argument

According to Toulmin, an argument is a chain of reasoning in

one sense. The sequence of interconnected claims and the reason that

connects them establishes the content and force of the speaker's

position.1 According to Scriven, an argument's purpose is to persuade

writer that must also accept the conclusion if the premise is true.2

According to Anthony Blair, an argument is a proposition

accompanied by a rationale, and argumentation is a conversation

between two or more parties that results in the assertion of one or

more ideas, as well as anticipated or actual critical responses.3 A

logically good argument has sufficient grounds for the purposes at

hand ( true, probable, plausible, and acceptable to the audience ), and

the feet support the conclusion adequately. The standards for good

logic in arguments are distinct from the criteria for good

argumentation.

1 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan

Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 2 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56. 3 Anthony Blair, ― Argument and Its Uses‖, Informal Logic,Vol. 24, No.2,( 2004 ),

137-151.

14

In general, good argument is understood to have two sides, a

claim and a counterclaim. A claim will aid in the establishment of an

argument. The thesis statement should situate the argument within a

broader discussion, which will almost certainly include addressing

potential counterclaims or objections. Counterclaims aid in

developing a well-rounded argument by illustrating the breadth of

possible positions on a subject in argumentative writing. According

to Toulmin, an argument is a " claim of reasoning " in one sense. The

series of interconnected claims and arguments together establish the

content and force of the speaker's position.4 According to Scriven, an

argument's purpose is to persuade you that you must also accept the

conclusion if the premise is true.5

In everyday language, the term "argument" refers to a

disagreement or conflict between two or more people. However, the

presence of an argument does not always imply disagreement in

written academic work. An argument can bolster a position, a point

of view, a program, or an object that we believe has merit. An

argument's purpose is to persuade others to think about what you are

asserting or claiming. This means that an argument is unnecessary if

4 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan

Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 5 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56.

15

you describe something, list specific items, explain how something

works, or identify key points or factors. However, you must use an

argument if your topic is not widely known or widely accepted ( it is

not self-evidently true ) or if you are aware of some disagreement or

alternative perspective. As a result, the writer must provide evidence

to support our position.

2. Arguments structure of Toulmin model

The ability to justify and explain statements is a component of

the ability to create arguments. Meanwhile, Toulmin categorizes the

arguments. The first elements (1) Claim, (2) Evidance, and (3)

Warrant, belong to the essential components of the practical argument.

While the second elements Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier.6 serve as

a complement and may be unavailable in certain circumstances.

(1) Claim

Claims stating the writer’s position. Claims are the stances and

assertions that the author want the audience to agree with. These

assertions may be conclusions, recommendations, advice, beliefs, and

so on. Claims should be specific and they should be interest to the

audience, that is to say, on the topic at hand. Claim that are not very

6 Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Update Edition ( Cambridge :

Cambridge University Press,2003 ), 133.

16

specific to the topic are received by readers as vague and confusing.

Claims derive their strength from direct, clear grammar and from their

related evidence.

(2) Evidence or Ground

Ground or evidence to prove the argument. Ground in the

context of arguments refers to the information that supports the calim.

This information can take many forms such as objective facts,

examples, images, results from statistical of graphic analysis,

descriptions of artifacts, comparisons, and even expert opinions.

(3) Reason or Warrent

The third of the key structural parts of argument is warrent.

Warrants or reason that serve as a bridge between claims and ground.

This element connects the claim and the evidence, helping the audience

to understand. The explanation is persuasive, and therefore successful,

when it fits the audience’s understanding of the argument. That is to

say, explanations that are confusing, off target, or poorly developed

will not aid the understanding of the audience and will not be

successful.

(4) Backing

17

Backing in the form of a statement that serves to support

warrants. The backing contains additional information that helps the

reader to understand the explanation. In the example argument, thr

reasoning of the explanation is better understood if we know

specifically what kind of people will gain from the new tools.

(5) Modals or Qualifier.

Modals or qualifier are statements that limit the strength of

arguments or propose condition in the correct argument. The qualifier

can appear in the text as a single word, for example very, somewhat,

more, probably, or as a short phrase. The qualifier can also be longer,

one or more sentences, in order to add nuance to or information about

special circumstances to an argument. In this role, qualifiers may be

crafted to identify and reduce bias. Because nuance may be difficult to

communicate, qualifiers tend expand the size of the argument and its

complexity. Thus, care must be taken to write qualifiers that are not

difficult to digest.

(6) Rebutal

Rebuttals is other opinions if modals have not been received. A

reservation provides information about expections to an argument.

This information help the reader to clearly understand how universal

18

the argument is or is not. Reservations can be placed in arguments to

indicate that they are not universal and to eliminate misinterpretations.

The last sentence of the example above is a reservation that shows the

argumet is reservation that shows the argument is broadly, not

narrowly , applicable.

3. Examples Element of Toulmin Models

Example of the text below.

Current negotiation models lack completeness as they may

exclude activities before or after the main negotiation interactions.

Further, they may lack features such as feedback loops which return

negotiators to previous phrases with new information and decision

gates to quit or continue, such features would make models more

accurate and useble to theoreticians, educators, and practitioners or

negotiation who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,

teaching insights, and best practice.7

a. Claim

The claim in the example above that current negotiation

models lack completenes is deliverd in a simple format. The

grammar is an affirmative statement and style is direct with no

7 Baber w, ― A lifecycle Macro Phase Model for Negotiation in M Schoop and D M

Kilgour eds Group Decision and Negotiation‖, Proceeding Springer International

Publishing, (2017),107-114.

19

adverbs, adjectives, or complex phrasing. Writers should not blur

multiple claims into one claim.

b. Ground or evidence

In the example above, the ground is may exclude activities

before or after the main negotiators to previous phases with new

information and decision gates to quit or continue. Evidence in this

argument is simple; it is merely a list of features. The deeper analysis

behind this data is located in a different part of the paper.

c. Warrant or reason

The explanation in the example above is such features

would make models more accurate and usable to theoreticians,

educators, and practitioners of negotiation. The Explanation is the

most complex element of the argument. The explanation typically

relies conditional grammar with would,should,could and similar

structures.

d. Backing

In the above sample argument, some backing is found in the

phrase, who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,

teaching insights, and best practices.

20

4. The Difference between Classical, Rogerian, and Toulmin

Argument Structure.

The three methods of argument structure share some

similarities but also have some distinctions. When composing an

argumentative essay, the author may employ one of these

strategies.

1. Classical – This method is intended to be simple to understand

and will assist you in structuring your argument in such a way

that the reader's needs are met. It is founded on formal logic and

consists of six major components: an introduction, a background

story explanation, the proposition or thesis statement, supporting

evidence, ideas of opposing viewpoints, and a conclusion.

2. Rogerian – In this method, the writer's point of view and

opposing points are expressed and evaluated to establish common

ground. It is less argumentative and aggressive than the Toulmin

method and is an excellent technique for resolving conflicts,

sensitive issues.

3. Toulmin – This technique analyzes arguments based on

asserted facts and supporting evidence. It helps evaluate ideas to

determine their truth and validity. Another advantage of the

Toulmin method is that it enables the writer to examine both his

21

own and opposing viewpoints without the necessity of finding

common ground between them.

The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of

presenting evidence for your argument, and it is written to

convince the reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.

Even if the reader is not convinced entirely that the writer is

correct, the evidence presented should be convincing enough that

the reader will see the logic and consider the argument for

himself. The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of

presenting evidence for your idea, and it is written to convince the

reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.

B. Critical Thinking

1. Definition of Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking abilities are essential for effectively

assessing one's thinking through intellectual tools at the university

level. All writing assignments require you to practice persuasion –

presenting arguments and defending them ( excepting story and

argumentative writing ), developing, evaluating, and offering ideas

are all developed skills during a critical thinking course—combined

with an understanding of how to write an argumentative essay and

how to apply critical frameworks.

22

According to Caroselli, critical is derived from the Greek

word krisis, which means "to separate." Consider the concept of "

excluded middless " to assist individuals in examining the statements

they make and the attitudes they hold, the very nature of which can

prevent us from solving problems and even create new ones.8 Facione

defines critical thinking as "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that

results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as

clarification of the evidential, conceptual, methodological,

criteriological, or contextual considerations that underpin that

judgment.9 Linda and Richard continue by stating that critical

thinking analyzes and evaluates one's thinking to improve it.10

Many experts shaped the study's definitions of critical

thinking in the critical thinking movement, including Ennis, Chaffee,

and Reichenbach. To begin, Ennis defined critical thinking as a process

aimed at arriving at a reasonable conclusion about what to believe and

what to do.11

Second, Chaffee asserts that critical thinking refers to a

well-organized commitment to critically evaluate and decide whether a

8 Marlene Caroselli, The Critical Thinking Tool Kit, ( New York : HRD Press,2011

),1. 9 Peter Facione, Critical Thinking : A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes

of Educational Assesment and Instruction, Research findings and Recommendations, ( Te

Delphi Report. Milbrae, CA : California Academia Press, 1990 ),3. 10 E. Linda & P. Richard, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and

Tools 3th

Edition ( The Foundation for Critical Thinking,2008 ),2. 11

Ennis, R.H, critical Thinking, ( New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1996 ), xvii.

23

judgment about the truth of a claim or recommendation to act in a

particular way should be accepted, rejected, or suspended.12

Thirdly,

critical thinking is defined as thinking that is explicitly directed toward

well-founded judgment and thus employs appropriate evaluative

standards in an attempt to ascertain something's actual worth, merit, or

value.13

Among all elements, various critical thinking elements such as

claims, argument, reasons, data ( evidence ), and opinion serve as the

central facts of critical thinking that shape the current study. The

concepts utilize these elements. Another aspect of critical thinking is

the application of critical thinking standards, which include (1) the

clarity of arguments, (2) the logical and relevance of the data and

evidence used to support the main point, (3) the accuracy of the

argument's quality, and (4) precision in the sense of being specific

about details.

According to Norris has states in his article on the Synthesis of

research on critical thinking that there are seven definitions for critical

thinking that are based on numerous studies. That is the case.14

12 Chaffee J, Thinking Critically, Sixth Edition ( USA : Houghton Mifflin

Company, 2002 ), 364. 13 Paul, R. & Elder, L, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking : Concepts and

Tools. Retrieved From http://www.d.umn.edu/jetterso/documentd/criticalthinking.pdf,2007. 14 S.P. Norris, 1985. Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Published by

Association for Supervision and Curriculum development,40-45.

24

a. Firstly, critical thinking is a multifaceted process involving

numerous considerations.

b. Secondly, critical thinking is an educational concept;

c. Thirdly, critical thinking is uncommon. Students do not perform

well on tests assessing their ability to recognize assumptions or

evaluate. They frequently make simple judgmental errors when

confronted with straightforward problems.

d. Fourthly, critical thinking is context-sensitive.

e. Fifthly, teachers should investigate the rationale for students'

conclusions.

f. Sixthly, simple errors may indicate more profound cognitive errors.

g. Seventhly, having a critical spirit is just as critical as critical

thinking.

2. The Process of Critical Thinking

According to Dewey, critical thinking has four dimensions:

emotional, social, physical, and cognitive.15

This study examines the

cognitive processes involved in students' critical thinking when they

write argumentative essays. Can then classify these mental

characteristics into five distinct categories: inference, analysis,

15

John Dewey, How We Think, ( Lexington, Mass : D.C. Heath, 1910 ), 45.

25

evaluation, conclusion, and introduction. Critical thinking is a

process that requires students to identify and research the

assumptions that underpin their thoughts and actions. In a nutshell,

critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitoring, and

self-corrective thought. It necessitates the application of rigorous

standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails

effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a

commitment to overcoming our inherent egocentric and sociocentric

tendencies. thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what

to do.16

3. The Characteristics of Critical Thinking

There are many definitions for critical thinking; according to

hunter, critical thinking is reasonable, reflective, and comprehensive.

This definition contains several components; therefore, let us

examine each component one at a time, beginning with the last.

Critical thinking is the process of deciding what to believe or do.

Choosing what to believe requires determining the facts, determining

how the world works, or at least how some small portion of it works.

16 David, Hunter, A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking: Deciding What to Do and

Believe. (2nd Ed.),4.

26

Critical thinking is reasoned, reflective reasoning with the goal

of determining what to believe or do. Making a decision about what

to believe requires reasoning about the facts. This is an example of

theoretical reasoning. Additionally, critical thinking is used to make

decisions about what to do. Choosing what to do is actually a two-

part process. To begin, one must determine what to value or strive

for. This is a matter of determining one's objective or end. Then, one

must determine the most effective means of accomplishing that goal.

The writer can use critical thinking these types of choices.

However, once we make them, once we decide how we want our

lives to be, we must still choose how to make them happen. Once the

ends have been determined, must determine the mean. Critical

thinking can also be advantageous in this situation.

Making decisions entails deliberating over what to do and

how to do it. This is a case of application. Rational thought is critical

thinking. In several ways, this is true. Critical thinking is logical

thinking, as it is a method and standard-sensitive. If we attempt to

conclude these issues without relying on those methods or adhering

to these standards, we will fall short of critical thinking. A critical

aspect of critical thinking is that rules and procedures govern it. This

27

is not to say that reasonable judgment and flexibility are not

permitted in critical thinking.

Critical thinking is rational thinking because it is guided by

general methods and standards and requires us to have sound

justifications for our actions. In another, more subtle sense, critical

thinking is rational. Critical thinking about what to believe or do is

reasonable in that it requires us to have reasons for our actions and be

good ones. The purpose of critical thinking is not simply to conclude

what the facts are or what goals to pursue. To some extent, such

decisions are straightforward. What's challenging is developing

sound justifications for our choices. It is not sufficient to decide that

it is sunny outside; one must have a compelling reason for doing so.

Similarly, simply valuing honesty or justice is insufficient;

one must have a compelling reason for doing so. Thus, critical

thinking is reasonable in that it requires us to have justifications for

our actions. We'll spend a good deal of time in the sections that

follow, delving into what constitutes a compelling reason to believe

or act.

28

Hunter states that critical thinking must be reflective because

it consists of thinking about a problem at different points and angles

at once, and it demands the right method to solve the problem.

Finally, reflective thinking is a component of critical thinking. To

solve it, we may need to break the problem down into its component

parts, consider the best method for locating a solution, and assess

whether we are employing that method correctly. We may even need

to modify the method or create one entirely new. We will discuss

open-ended problems in greater detail later, and there is no doubt that

the line between straightforward and open-ended problems is not

always clear. Calculating a square root for the first few times, even

with the formula, requires considerable reflection; and determining

whether it is raining or sunny is usually as simple as looking out the

window. Nonetheless, the contrast should be obvious. Critical

thinking is reflective in the sense that it entails considering a problem

on multiple levels or from multiple perspectives simultaneously,

including considering the most appropriate method for answering or

solving the problem.17

17 David, Hunter, A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking: Deciding What to Do and

Believe. (2nd Ed.),6.

29

One of the definition's primary strengths is that it does not

confine critical thinking to examining arguments. An argument is a

collection of statements, which (the premises) are intended to provide

analytical support for another (the conclusion) (the decision).

Because we can and frequently express our reasons for believing or

acting in the form of an argument, critical thinking must be

concerned with arguments. We will discuss some strategies and

standards for analyzing and evaluating arguments in subsequent

chapters. However, the concept of an argument does not always make

sense across the curriculum. It's difficult to see how reasoning about

experimental design or statistical sampling fits into an argument's

paradigm. Additionally, evaluating reasons for belief entails

assessing their acceptability and meaning, neither of which is

typically considered argumentation. Of course, one could extend the

conventional concept of an argument or argument analysis to

encompass all of these different facets of critical thinking. However,

this definition covers them all without artificially extending our

everyday language.

C. Argumentative Essay

30

1. Definition of Argumentative Essay

The ability to write argumentative essays is inextricable to the

ability to write argumentative paragraphs. It concluded argumentative

paragraph is necessary to introduce an argumentative essay. The poor

quality of argument in essays is involved in a lack of understanding

of argument structure in the essay. This is also because spoken

culture is more prevalent than written culture among the majority of

Indonesians.18

Additionally, can assert that Wijayanti stated that an

argumentative paragraph contains evidence or discussion of the

author's position on a subject.19

Further, Keraf argues that

argumentative is a type of rhetoric that aims to influence the attitudes

and opinions of others so that they believe and act by the author's

wishes.20

Argumentative is a style of writing in which evidence is

used to support a statement of attitude or opinion about something. In

the argumentative paragraph, the author convinces the reader by

including evidence, examples, or reasons.

18

D Siepman, ― Academic Writing and Culture : An Overview of Differencess

between English, French and German, ’’ Meta J. Des traducteurs, Vol. 51 No. 1 (2006),131. 19

Wijayanti, Bahasa Indonesia : Penulisan dan Penyajian Karya Ilmiah, ( Depok :

PT. Raja Grafindo, 2013 ), 122. 20 Gorys Keraf, Argumentasi dan Narasi Komposisi Lanjuran III, ( Jakarta : PT.

Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2001 ), 3.

31

Essentially, students should be able to provide "a clear and

logical presentation of facts (premises) in order to arrive at valid

conclusions" when writing an argumentative essay.21

Additionally, an

argumentative essay is defined as "a paper that is based on logical,

structured evidence and attempts to persuade the reader to accept an

opinion, take some action, or do both‖.22

Additionally, an argumentative essay is a type of written text

known as an exposition.23

More precisely, expositions become a text

that expresses a particular viewpoint or one side of a debate.

Additionally, expositions are organized to include such critical

components as a statement of positions, arguments, and rebuttals to

positions. There are two types of exposition texts: analytical and

hortatory. In this case, an analytical exposition text's objective is "to

analyze a given subject and then to persuade readers that the writer's

thesis is correct, which is accomplished through the development of

an argument to support it‖.24

a hortatory exposition, alternatively

21 Pastva, The Teaching of Argumentative Writing, Notre Dame English Journal,

Vol. 2, No.2, 30.

22 Zhu, W, Performing Argumentative Writing in English : Difficulties, Processes,

and

Strategis,TheCanadaJournal,Vol.19,No.1,3550.http://www.teslcanadjournal.ca/index.php/te

sl/article/viewfile/918/737.

23 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School, Queensland :

Peninsula Region Department of Education,1990,87.

24

Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,88.

32

referred to as a persuasive exposition text, is intended to persuade

readers to believe a writer's particular points of view.25

An argumentative essay is defined in this research as a type of

exposition text that consists of these three essential components.

First, it expresses our position, indicating whether we agree or

disagree with a particular point of view. Second, it is composed of

compelling arguments and evidence that are organized structurally

and logically. Third, reasons and evidence support our position.

Thirdly, it should include a restatement of our position to reiterate it.

Finally, these three critical components should be included and

organized logically in an argumentative essay to convince and

possibly persuade readers that our essay's position is correct.

1. Organization of Argumentative Essay

This section organizes argumentative essays into the previously

mentioned types of analytical and hortatory expositions. According to

Hardy and Klarwein, analytical exposition texts are typically divided

into three major sections: ―thesis (point of view/opinion), arguments

(with supporting evidence), and restatement of thesis-comment

25 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,88.

33

(optional).‖26

More precisely, Hardy and Klarwein establish a

framework for us to structure our analytical exposition essay. 27

- Introduction or opening comments to attract the reader’s

attention. (Often required in the subject English-but notan

obligatory element).

- Thesis

Preview (How the writer will develop the essay-a preview of

the arguments that follow :

- Argument Number One

Topic sentence

(PointSupporting evidence/facts (Elaboration)

- Argument Number Two

Topic sentence

(PointSupporting evidence/facts (Elaboration )

- Argument Number Three

26 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School, 88. 27 Hardy, J & Klarwein, D, Written Genres in the Secondary School,90.

34

Topic sentence

(Point Supporting evidence/facts (Elaboration)

- Conclusion

Restate Thesis

Comment (optional)

Background information

Position statement

Kindergarten students and teachers

at Matraville P.S. have been

discussing caged animals. We

believe they should not be caged.

Argument 1

Point

Elaboration (gives

evidence to support

point)

Firstly, not every animal is

dangerous. A pet cat is sociable and

would not harm you.

Argument 2

Point

Elaboration (gives

evidence to support

Secondly, there is insufficient space

for the animals to roam. they would

become bored, which would be

detrimental to their muscles.

35

point)

Argument 3

Point

Elaboration (gives

evidence to support

point)

Lastly, the keeper must feed the

animals. This is because they have

no idea how to feed themselves,

find food, or hunt.

Reinforcement of statement

of position

Therefore, we believe that caged

animals should not be kept. It can

be inhumane.

3. Good Argumentative

McNamara et al. assert that, while writing well is difficult for

many, it is critical for success in a wide variety of institutions and

professions.28

For instance, they claim that writing abilities are

among the best predictors of university success, defining good

writing as "writing that articulates ideas clearly, argues opinions,

synthesizes multiple perspectives, presents information effectively

28 McNamara, D., Crossley, S. and McCarthy, P., ― Linguistic features of writing

quality‖, Written Communication, Vol. 27, No.1 (2010 ), 57 – 86.

36

and consistently with well-chosen details, and avoids grammatical

and mechanical errors." Similarly, Paul and Elder define substantive

writing' as "writing that has a clearly defined purpose, makes a clear

point, and backs it up with specific information that is connected and

coherent.".29

What these definitions demonstrate is that specific

characteristics distinguish good writing from poor writing.

These include the clarity of purpose and ideas, supporting

arguments and opinions backed up by evidence, and consistently

presenting ideas. These elements are frequently desired in a variety of

different types and genres of writing. Cottrell emphasizes that

argumentative writing's primary objective is to persuade readers to

accept particular positions or viewpoints. To be persuasive, the

desired position must be backed up by adequate reasons and

evidence, and these authors assert that effective persuasive writing

includes the following elements: 1. Position: the writer's position,

which he or she wishes to persuade readers to accept, should be

stated plainly. 2. Justifications: the author makes arguments to

support their position and explains why readers should accept them.

29 Elder, L., & Paul, R, ― Critical thinking: Crucial distinctions for questioning‖,

Journal of Developmental Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, ( 1997 ), 34.

37

3. A line of reasoning: the order in which the reasons are

presented. According to Cottrell, the logical flow of reasons acts as a

path leading to the desired conclusions. A weak argument is one in

which the justifications are not presented logically or are

incompatible with the intended conclusion. Thus, the strength of an

argument is determined by the justifications offered to support the

conclusion. 4. Conclusion: refers to the argument's primary objective,

the position or point of view the author wishes to persuade readers to

accept based on the evidence provided.30

Furthermore, while it can include a summary of events in the

conclusion to highlight key points, it should also include judgments

about the likelihood of these events occurring. These distinctions are

made between arguments and other forms of writing, such as

description, narration, and persuasion.31

An argument's purpose is to

persuade readers to accept a particular point of view. Thus, should

conclude the arguments advanced, which should be compelling and

persuasive enough to convince the readers of the propositions'

validity.32

These are concerned with the structure and organization of

30 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument. (

New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 ), 8 31 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument,5. 32 Cottrell, S, Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument,

6.

38

persuasive writing. Properly used transitional words such as so, 'thus',

'in consequence', and 'as a result' alert the reader to the intended

conclusion. Additionally, students must develop the ability to identify

and recognize implicit assumptions and conclusions, even when such

terms and phrases are not used explicitly. Acquiring the ability to

determine whether or not reasons and conclusions have been

provided can be accomplished in part by familiarity with the structure

and organization of argumentative/persuasive writing.