Upload
buithu
View
222
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CREDITS: M. Hughes, via Gable Hall School, 2010 Jill Pavich, NBCT [email protected] AICE: General Paper (8004) Boca Raton Community High School, PBCSD
http://www.gablehall.com/ICT_Virtual_Learning/Discursive.html
What’s the difference between discursive writing and writing to argue?
A discursive essay is about discussion, weighing up both sides of an argument before giving a personal opinion in the conclusion.
When writing to argue, i.e. a speech, a stance has already been assumed and counter argument is marginalised. The writing style tends to be more emotive and personal.
Conventions of Discursive Writing Conventions of Writing to Argue • Impersonal – avoid using ‘I’; • Begins with a statement of
issue; • Balanced argument and
counter argument; • Unbiased; • Preferably switches between
argument and counter argument throughout;
• Connectives used to link arguments and develop points;
• Facts and statistics used to support each side;
• Personal conclusion
• Emotive language used to influence the audience;
• Begins with a definite point of view;
• Biased; • Rhetorical techniques used
to influence and engage the audience;
• Counter argument: opposition included only to be dismissed;
• Connectives used to link and develop points;
• Facts and statistics; • ‘Final thought’ conclusion.
CREDITS: M. Hughes, via Gable Hall School, 2010 Jill Pavich, NBCT [email protected] AICE: General Paper (8004) Boca Raton Community High School, PBCSD
PROMPT: ‘Smoking should be banned in public places’. Discuss.
DIRECTIONS: Which is the introduction to a discursive essay and which might start a persuasive speech?
* NOTE: This page altered for the purpose of AICE: General Paper 8004 instruction.
A widely debated topic at present is whether smoking
should be banned in our bars and clubs. There are many
opposing arguments. On one hand, there is rising concern
about the effects of passive smoking and the costs to an
already overstretched NHS. On the other hand, it is often
argued that in restricting the public’s right to smoke, the
‘nanny state’ is again infringing on our human rights.
According to the Surgeon General, smoking kills. It could
kill an individual whether he or she puffs on a cigarette or not.
If the pro-‐smoking lobby gets their way and the ability to
smoke within public places is re-‐established, then non-‐smokers
beware; inhaling tobacco smoke can increase the risk of
developing lung cancer in non-‐smokers by as much as 30%.
Therefore, should the government uphold the ban on smoking
in public places? The answer is yes.