Argumentative Organization Plan

Plan A

Introduction
Explanation of the issue
Thesis statement of intent and opinion

Body
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)

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

Conclusion
Summary
Recommendation
Solution
Prediction
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 problems
A recommendation to pursue research in solar energy technology

Plan B

Introduction:
Explanation of the issue
Thesis 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
Recommendation
Solution
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
services
Thesis 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 problem
Prediction

Plan C

Introduction:
Explanation of the issue
Thesis 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:
Summary
Recommendation
Solution
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 sound
Thesis 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 1

Forests destroyed Vs
(not with good management; reforestation makes forest renewable)

Counter-argument 2 + Pro argument 2

Causes erosion and landslides Vs
(knowledgeable forest management will harvests carefully; selective
cutting prevents problems)

Counter-argument 3 + Pro argument 3

Destroys natural resources Vs
(timber is an indispensable material for modern life; forest industry
provides jobs)

Counter-argument 4 + Pro argument 4

Harmful 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.