thesis statement examples for rogerian argument

Tips for Writing a Thesis Statement for a Rogerian Argument

• Shelia Odak
• Categories : Help with writing assignments paragraphs, essays, outlines & more
• Tags : Homework help & study guides

Definition of a Thesis Statement

A thesis statement is the main idea of your essay. It is the paper’s controlling argument. It is important that your thesis is a focused, single idea. A thesis asserts your point of view regarding the subject of the essay. Writing a thesis statement for a Rogerian argument essay uses this same idea while incorporating the specific idiosyncrasies that create this type of paper.

Definition of a Rogerian Argument

The psychologist Carl R. Rogers advocated communication based on compromise, an approach he wrote about in his 1961 book On Becoming a Person . Rogers felt a person should suspend judgment on a topic until he or she had listened to the adversarial point of view. Once this happened, a person would be capable of coming to a well-rounded conclusion that would take into account this alternative perspective. A Rogerian argument takes this idea and applies it to the essay format. A Rogerian essay structure acknowledges that a subject can be looked at from different standpoints.

Positioning the Main Idea

In most traditional essays, the thesis statement is given first, often in the introductory paragraph, and does not take into consideration opposing views. What makes a Rogerian thesis different from a regular thesis is that it presented only after the writer has conceded that opposite viewpoints exist and that they have some merit. This concession of merit may even lead into your thesis statement, as in this example from a Seton Hill professor: “Regardless of whether the fetus is entitled to legal protection, society as a whole will benefit if we treat a high abortion rate as symptomatic of a greater social illness. Identifying and addressing that illness will do more practical good than endlessly pitting the rights of a woman against the rights of her fetus."

The Rogerian structure includes the following parts: An introduction that gives a fair assessment of the opposition; a section detailing the viewpoints of the opposition and stating where you see merit in their views; the thesis statement that shows how you have taken the opposition into account but have still developed your own perspective; a section of support for your thesis that illustrates why it is valid; and a conclusion that illustrates why your position is beneficial to those on both sides of the argument.

Getting the Tone Right

It is important that the Rogerian thesis be delivered in neutral, non-adversarial language. The thesis should not be an attack on the opposition. It should present the writer’s viewpoint without dismissing or demeaning the viewpoints of others. For example, in a thesis that advocated the death penalty, you would not want to refer to those on the other side of the issue as “bleeding-heart liberals.”

In addition, the thesis has to be supportable. It is easier to persuade a reader of your point of view if you are able to offer support through research. Saying that “anyone who takes a life should pay with his life” is an impassioned statement, which is all wrong for a Rogerian argument, and it is not supportable through research. Show the reader why your way of seeing the issue is valid in certain circumstances.

Why It Works

For some subjects, especially controversial and divisive ones, people have strong viewpoints. In order to get an adversary to listen to an opposing idea, it is important to treat him or her with respect. This means being willing to see worth in that conflicting viewpoint. Successfully writing a thesis statement for a Rogerian argument means correct placement of the main idea in the body of the essay and writing the thesis in dispassionate language. Doing this creates the type of communication Carl R. Rogers advocated.

• Rogers, Carl R. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.
• Glenn, Cheryl, et al. The Writer’s Harbrace Handbook . 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle, 2004.
• Building an Argument (Dennis G. Jerz, Seton Hill University) ( http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/argument/building.html )

This post is part of the series: Writing a Rogerian Essay

Need to write a Rogerian essay but have no idea what the term means? This series defines a Rogerian argument, explains its structure, and tells how to create a successful Rogerian thesis.

• Essay Structure for a Rogerian Argument
• Writing a Successful Thesis Statement for a Rogerian Argument

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Rogerian Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. Developed by psychotherapist Carl Rogers and adapted to rhetoric by writing scholars Young, Becker, and Pike, the speaker seeks compromise, acknowledging positive aspects of each party’s argument to arrive at a mutually-beneficial solution to an issue. 

You may already use Rogerian argument in your everyday life to negotiate with your friends, family, and/or romantic partners. For example, if you wanted to watch a comedy and your friend wanted to watch a romance, you might compromise by offering to watch a rom-com, as this offers each of you a bit of what you are looking for in that particular moment. Note, however, that this style of argument is decidedly less common in academic settings, where various empirical or theoretical notions of truth are often prized above the practical advantages of the Rogerian method.

While Aristotelian styles of argument are often seen as eristic (concerned primarily with winning), the Rogerian argument can be viewed as more dialectic in nature (a conversation between two or more parties with the goal of arriving at some mutually-satisfying solution). Thus, practicing the Rogerian argument will enhance your ability to understand the complex relations of opposing viewpoints and provide tools for addressing such discrepancies sympathetically. It’s also great for day-to-day conflict resolution at home or in the workplace.

However, Rogerian argument does come with disadvantages. For example, because Rogerian argument relies on compromise between opposing parties, it may not work well when your opponents are unwilling or unable to compromise, or if they are arguing in bad faith (e.g., they care only about winning). It may also lead to sub-optimal solutions if your opponent’s position is demonstrably wrong, since in this case you may nevertheless be forced to sacrifice some of your (ostensibly superior) goals order to accommodate your opponent’s (inferior) ones.

In “Rhetoric: Discovery and Change” (1970), Young, Becker, and Pike describe the primary aims of the Rogerian argument as follows:

• to convey to the reader that he is understood,
• to delineate the area within which he believes the reader's position to be valid, and
• to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution).

The first aim shows the reader that you understand the complexities of the argument and that you have listened sympathetically to what it is they have to say. This is important, because the success of the Rogerian arguments relies on cooperation and collaboration. The second aim puts this understanding into practice by seeking a symbiotic solution. The third aim builds ethos and rapport between the parties. If audiences believe they share a value system with a speaker or writer, they are more likely to agree to the terms of whatever solution is presented.

While each of these aims is important, Young, Becker, and Pike stress that they are just that: aims, not steps. You should not necessarily view these aims as occurring in a linear, step-by-step process. The authors present a synthesized discussion of what a successful Rogerian argument should contain, but they eschew any formalized structure. The structure of the argument should instead be determined by the speaker, and it should be modified and adapted according to the rhetorical situation at hand.

Again, there is no formalized structure for the Rogerian argument, though the following example provides a foundation   for considering how you might structure your own argument.

A successful Rogerian argument will likely include the following:

• Introduction (addressing the topic to be discussed and/or the problem to be solved)
• Opposing position (showing that you understand your opposition’s viewpoints/goals)
• Context for opposing position (showing that you understand the situations in which their viewpoint is valid)
• Your position (introducing/addressing your viewpoint as it differs from the reader’s)
• Context for your position (objectively showing the reader the context(s) under which your position is valid)
• Benefits (appeal to the opposition by showing how they would benefit by adopting elements of your position)

Below, we’ve provided an example Rogerian argument that follows the formula above. In this example, we will take the position that technology (e.g., laptops and tablets) should be allowed in writing classes while also considering the opinion of the opposition, who argue that such technology is more of a distraction than   a helpful tool. In so doing, we should be able to arrive at a solution that considers both arguments and develops a solution that benefits both parties while still achieving our goal of allowing technology in the classroom.

Introduction

Here, we would introduce the topic and briefly discuss why it is a matter of contention. We would lay out the differing perspectives, briefly mention the merits of each argument, and discuss the implications closely considering all perspectives to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.

Opposing position

Here, we would introduce the opposing position that digital technology should not be allowed in the writing classroom. We would also list and discuss their objections to the proposition of technology in the classroom. These might include the notions that it’s distracting for the individual, the class, and the instructor, and is often used to avoid the lesson and instead play games or go on social media.

Context for opposing position

Here we might provide specific details that lend merit to their argument. We want to show that we are fully considering their claims and not just giving lip service, in the hope that that they will give similar value to our opinions. We could include statistics, testimony from instructors and students, or even examples from media that support their theory that digital technology can indeed be a distraction during instruction.

Your Position

Here, we would introduce our claim that digital technology should be allowed in the writing classroom. We would still want to speak as objectively as possible in order to establish our ethos as concerned but unbiased speaker. We might even qualify our position by acknowledging that there are, of course, situations in which technology should be put away, but reiterate that, generally speaking, the presence of digital technology is a positive.

Context for your position

Here, we can provide examples that run contrary to the ones we used for the context of our opposition’s position. For example, we could gather testimony from students who claim that using these technologies in class has been beneficial. We could include research and scholarship that supports our position and even quote instructors who have developed pedagogy around these technologies. We might even subtly demonstrate that our opposition has failed to account for all possibilities by choosing our examples carefully. For instance, we could easily include accounts of students with learning disabilities who might otherwise have a difficult time succeeding in class without the help of assistive technologies.

Here, we would use the points we’ve established throughout the argument to appeal to our opposition and find some productive middle ground that benefits both parties. We would acknowledge that some instructors do not want digital technologies present in the classroom, as they believe they distract from paying attention during lectures. We would maintain, however, that these technologies can indeed be productive tools for learning—in some cases, they can even be a virtual requirement for learning. We could then offer a solution: that these digital technologies should be kept aside during lecture portions of a lesson except in the case of students with documented disabilities. This way, students will likely be paying attention, taking notes by hand which they can transcribe later if they so wish. However, once a class moves from lecture to activity (whether group or individual), students should be allowed to access these technologies to more effectively engage with the activity, organize their thoughts, and access information. Now that the instructor is no longer lecturing, it should be easier to monitor student progress and engagement and the use of technology for these activities will lead to more developed and better organized results from the students.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

61 Rogerian Argument Model

Rogerian argument.

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue.  If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset.  Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1.  Introduction : Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way.  Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate.  Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a  compromise  about the issue at hand.  If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight.  Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so  do not  include your thesis in your introduction.  You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion.  Once again, state the  intent  to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.

2.  Side A :  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the  opposing side  of the argument first.  The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called  empathetic listening , which guides the overall approach to this type of argument.  By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue.  Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view.  Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project.  If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay.   You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on  YouTube   (https://youtu.be/2dLsgpHw5x0, transcript  here ).

3.  Side B : Carefully go over  your side  of the argument.  When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A.  In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise.  Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4.  The Bridge : A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find  common ground  between the two sides.  There should be at least one point of agreement.  This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values.  This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section  builds a bridge  from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5.  The Compromise :  Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis.  The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society.  That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes.  For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

Rogerian Execise

Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument.  Write up your responses to the following:

• The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
• My opposing audience is…
• My audience’s view on the topic is…
• My view on the topic is…
• Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
• My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…

Write What Matters Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long; Amy Minervini; and Joel Gladd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

IV. Types of Argumentation

4.5 Rogerian Argument

Terri Pantuso

As discussed in the previous section, for Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement or a set of statements and focuses solely upon proving those statements. But what happens when you can concede that your opponent has a valid point? Because we are complex creatures, humans oftentimes find themselves strongly opposed to something that later changes for them once they are presented with different evidence. While many arguments can seemingly be based upon emotions alone, when presented with logical evidence to refute our position we may experience a crisis of conscience. Is it possible to hold firmly to one belief yet concede that the opposing side has merit? There is a way if you utilize the Rogerian method for argumentation.

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was an American psychologist and clinical therapist who utilized a humanistic (client-centered) approach to psychology. When applied to argumentation, the Rogerian method makes use of examining counterarguments as enhancements, or concessions, rather than viewing them as completely oppositional. According to Lunsford et al., “Rogers argued that people involved in disputes should not respond to each other until they [can] fully, fairly, and even sympathetically state the other person’s position.” [1] Rogers’ non confrontational methods, when applied to argumentation in rhetoric, suggests that the most personal feelings are also the most common and, therefore, are the most likely to be understood.

One benefit to utilizing a Rogerian approach in composition studies is that it encourages the writer/arguer to build a bridge towards oppositional positions. This does not mean that you abandon your own position, and it does not mean that your position is weak. Rather, a Rogerian approach provides alternative perspectives for considering a given position as well as methods for responding to counterarguments that might seem to refute your major premise .

Much like the Toulmin method, the Rogerian method relies upon claims that can be supported with evidence (data). How the Rogerian method differs is in the concession where, if there is a strong, valid argument that refutes your claim, you concede that argument might be a valid point in a different context. Or, perhaps you concede that a portion of your opponent’s argument is valid for your position, yet point out how the circumstances differ, therefore making your position the most logical, strongest one for your given topic. While the goal remains to persuade your reader/audience to view your position as valid, when utilizing the Rogerian method you build common ground to other possibilities and demonstrate that counterviews are not entirely wrong.

When used in argumentation, the Rogerian method allows for a dialogue to occur surrounding an issue. By examining counterarguments to your claims, you are able to view your position/ thesis from a different point of view. Understanding all (or most) of the points surrounding your given topic will strengthen your own position as you will create a more fully informed essay.

• Andrea Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters, Everything’s an Argument, 8th ed. (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2018), 139. ↵

A human-centered approach or perspective to an issue.

The basic assumptions or understanding on which an argument is based or from which conclusions are drawn. A major premise is a statement of universal truth or common knowledge. A minor premise is a statement related to a major premise but concerns a specific situation.

A statement, usually one sentence, that summarizes an argument that will later be explained, expanded upon, and developed in a longer essay or research paper. In undergraduate writing, a thesis statement is often found in the introductory paragraph of an essay. The plural of thesis is theses .

4.5 Rogerian Argument Copyright © 2022 by Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Rhetorical Analysis

Rogerian argument.

Carl Rogers

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise on a controversial issue.

If you are using the Rogerian approach your introduction to the argument should accomplish three objectives:

• Introduce the author and work Usually, you will introduce the author and work in the first sentence, as in this example: In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator addresses an inevitable by-product of war – racism. The first time you refer to the author, refer to him or her by his or her full name. After that, refer to the author by last name only. Never refer to an author by his or her first name only.
• Provide the audience a short but concise summary of the work to which you are responding Remember, your audience has already read the work you are responding to. Therefore, you do not need to provide a lengthy summary. Focus on the main points of the work to which you are responding and use direct quotations sparingly. Direct quotations work best when they are powerful and compelling.
• State the main issue addressed in the work   Your thesis, or claim, will come after you summarize the two sides of the issue.

The Introduction

The following is an example of how the introduction of a Rogerian argument can be written. The topic is racial profiling.

Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Your summary of the two sides will be your first two body paragraphs. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.

An outline for a Rogerian argument might look like this:

• Introduction

Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. In the example above, both sides of the racial profiling issue want the U.S. A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side, and tries to accommodate both. Again, using the racial profiling example above, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence, and quotations when appropriate.

Quoting Effectively

Remember, you should quote to illustrate a point you are making. You should not, however, quote to simply take up space. Make sure all quotations are compelling and intriguing: Consider the following example. In “The Danger of Political Correctness,” author Richard Stein asserts that, “the desire to not offend has now become more important than protecting national security” (52). This statement sums up the beliefs of those in favor of profiling in public places.

The Conclusion

Your conclusion should:

• Bring the essay back to what is discussed in the introduction
• Tie up loose ends
• End on a thought-provoking note

The following is a sample conclusion:

Taken from Michael Franco’s PowerPoint Presentation Writing Essay 4: Rogerian Argument

• Rogerian Argument. Provided by : Utah State University. Located at : http://ocw.usu.edu/English/introduction-to-writing-academic-prose/rogerian-argument.html . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of Carl Rogers. Authored by : Didius. Provided by : Wikimedia. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Ransom_Rogers.jpg . License : CC BY: Attribution

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

29 The Rogerian Argument

Kirsten DeVries and Christina Frasier

Learning Objectives

• Understand the Rogerian structure of an argument.
• Identify argumentation that emphasizes finding common ground among thinkers.

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue.  If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset.  Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1.  Introduction : Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way.  Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate.  Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a  compromise  about the issue at hand.  If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight.  Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so  do not  include your thesis in your introduction.  You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion.  Once again, state the  intent  to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.

2.  Side A :  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the  opposing side  of the argument first.  The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called  empathetic listening , which guides the overall approach to this type of argument.  By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue.  Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view.  Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project.  If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay.

3.  Side B : Carefully go over  your side  of the argument.  When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A.  In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise.  Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4.  The Bridge : A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find  common ground  between the two sides.  There should be at least one point of agreement.  This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values.  This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section  builds a bridge  from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5.  The Compromise :  Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis.  The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society.  That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes.  For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

• The Issue: You are pro-homeschooling
• The Introduction: Indicate your intent to find a compromise. Outline both sides of the argument–what opponents argue and proponents argue
• Side A: You show a deep understanding of the positions of those who are opposed to homeschooling
• Side B: Present your side of the issue–the benefits of homeschooling
• The Bridge: Build a bridge to compromise between both sides–what can both sides agree on? In this case, both sides want the best education possible for all students.
• The Compromise: The states can ensure that parents who want to home-school can do so, while it also ensures that home-schooled students receive a high-quality education in a safe environment with information and access to standardized testing.

Adapted from Let’s Get Writing!  by Elizabeth Browning; Kirsten DeVries; Kathy Boylan; Jenifer Kurtz; and Katelyn Burton,  CC BY-SA 4.0  

The Rogerian Argument Copyright © by Kirsten DeVries and Christina Frasier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest

• Junk Food Tax Persuasive Essay
• What Is An Essay Template?
• SAT Essay Sample Topics

Recent Posts

• Discover The Total Enrollment At GCU!
• Student’s Guide: Installing Tableau Made Easy
• Students Construct Space Satellite With AA Batteries
• Unlocking The Purpose Of Writing: Benefits & Impact Explored
• Unlocking The Power Of APA Writing Style

Lastest Posts

LEGAL PAGES

• CCPA – California Consumer Privacy Act
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Paper Examples on Literature
• Topical Writing Prompts for Academic Success

© 2024 writingandriding.com

THEME BY ANDERS NOREN — Up ↑

Organizing an Argument

As with other aspects of writing an argument, your organizational strategy will vary according to the requirements of its disciplinary context, your knowledge and level of expertise within the field, and your previous experience preparing arguments.

There are probably as many ways to draft an argument as there are arguments; however, there are a few tried and true methods-from adversarial to mediation based, and deductive to inductive reasoning-which work well in the academic world. None of them are carved in stone, however. Here we'll explore a number of useful methods to guide you in drafting your own argument.

Rogerian Method

Most of the time we think of arguments as adversarial, taking place between people who fundamentally disagree. One will be right and the other wrong; one wins and the other loses. This works in legal systems as well as in the context of many other situations. But often-especially in academic arguing-no single position regarding a controversy is completely right.

When you're working on an issue or problem about which more than one viewpoint may be valid, you may want to try drafting an argument that is oriented more toward mediation. Unlike adversarial arguments, which typically begin with a firm claim, an argument that mediates will postpone stating a position until much later in the presentation, often the middle or the end.

There are a number of ways to do this; one of the best being based on the work of psychologist Carl Rogers. A Rogerian argument presumes that if author and audience find common ground regarding an issue or problem, they will be more likely to find, or agree upon, a common solution. It succeeds only when the author understands the audience. He or she must present the audience's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly before asking them to consider an alternative position or solution.

This method downplays emotional appeals in favor of the rational and is particularly useful in dealing with emotionally charged, highly divisive issues and allows for people of good will on different sides of an issue to find, or agree upon, solutions together.

Parts of a Rogerian Argument

The introduction typically points out how both the author and the audience are similarly affected. Rather than presenting a thesis demanding agreement, which is often seen as an attack on whomever holds an opposing view; this presentation emphasizes unity, putting the audience first.

The audience perspective comes next. Described as clearly and accurately as possible-typically in neutral language-the author acknowledges their point of view and the circumstances and contexts in which their perspective or position is valid. Done well, the author builds good will and credibility with the audience, a crucial step leading toward potential compromise. Honest, heartfelt sincerity is the key here: if the audience perceives an attempt at manipulation, the Rogerian argument strategy generally backfires.

The author's perspective comes in the next chunk of the argument. For the audience to give it a listen it must be presented in as fair-minded a way as was theirs, in language as equally neutral and clear. To be convincing, besides describing the circumstances or contexts in which the position is valid, it must contain the evidence that supports the claim.

The closing of a Rogerian argument doesn't ask the audience to give up their position, but shows how they would benefit from moving closer toward that of the author's. In other words, it ends by laying out the ways a compromise or alternative solution benefits both audience and author under a wider variety of circumstances than either can account for alone.

Deductive Method

The traditional academic argument is deductive, placing the author's position in the introduction and devoting the rest of the argument to presenting the evidence. Unless you are in a field where inductive reasoning is the norm, you can hardly go wrong with this method.

In some cases, all the evidence may be directed at proving the main point; in others, each piece may lead to a sub-point that needs proving before a convincing argument for the main point can be made. Depending on how directly each piece of evidence relates to the position, a deductive argument can be organized in a variety of ways.

When All Evidence Relates...

When all evidence relates directly to your main point, or thesis, and each piece of evidence is equally relevant, a typical arrangement simply introduces the position and presents each piece. Transitions connect each to the thesis.

Depending on their strengths and weaknesses, the order in which each piece of evidence is presented, as well as the rebuttals of opposing arguments, can differ greatly.

More often than not, even when all evidence is directly relevant, some pieces may be more convincing-less open to question or interpretation-than others. In these cases, arguments are typically arranged as follows:

• Introduction establishing the context of the argument as well as the author's position.
• Body of Evidence presented, depending on the audience analysis, from most to least, or least to most convincing.
• Conclusion summarizing the argument, presenting a call to action, or suggesting further research.

When Seemingly Unrelated Sub-Points...

When seemingly unrelated sub-points need to be made and proven in order to prove the main point, the author must show how the particular premises of each, along with its supporting evidence, connect, collectively and logically, to support the main position.

An argument supporting a ban on logging in rain forests might first need to establish and provide evidence regarding five other environmental premises, each supporting the author's position, regarding the effects of logging. For instance:

• It causes soil erosion
• It affects global warming
• It destroys native species
• It alters water routes and levels
• It destroys indigenous lifestyles

Each premise is a debatable issue in and of itself. Therefore, some measure of the supportive evidence behind each-at least enough to connect them as reasonably evidentiary links-must be given before they can be used to collectively support the author's main position. In these cases, arguments are typically arranged as follows:

• Brief Preview outlining each premise, or reason, to be used as evidence supporting the claim.
• Body of Evidence presented, depending on audience analysis, in an order which will make the most sense to the audience.
• Conclusion summarizing the argument and demonstrating how each premise leads logically to the author's position, presents a call to action, or suggests further research.

Note: This arrangement is ideal for content sub-headings where each heading describes the premise/reason to be discussed.

When Opposing Arguments...

When opposing arguments or points of view must be addressed there are a variety of ways to argue against or refute them. They can be place almost anywhere in the text, however, the strength and power of the opposing arguments and how familiar your audience is with them should be your main considerations. Here are a couple of options:

When opposing arguments are less persuasive or, at best, equal to, rebuttals are best saved till last where the opposing argument will appear less credible in light of your own:

Introduction Your argument and evidence Rebuttal of opposition claims Conclusion

When opposing arguments are particularly strong and readily accepted, discrediting them point-by-point may be the best strategy for convincing an audience to consider alternative points or support a different position.

Introduction Rebut first opposing argument followed by first counter-argument Rebut next opposing arguments, followed by further counter-arguments as you go along Conclusion

Inductive Method

Inductive arguments are more difficult for an audience to follow, thus they are less commonly found in the academic world than deductive arguments. Typically they begin with the author introducing an issue without proposing a solution or stating a position. Instead, various takes and opposing positions are introduced and argued, for and against, all of which then leads up to the author stating his or her position.

The goal of an inductive strategy is to present all the evidence and information in a manner such that, when the author's position is finally stated, the audience has been moved, or persuaded to agree that it is the one and only logical conclusion.

Inductive arguments can be organized in a variety of ways depending either on your assessment of what position the audience already holds or, on whether you are arguing a position from original research. It may be completely inductive, saving your position for the end, or partially inductive, introducing your position somewhere in the middle of the argument.

When an Audience Completely Disagrees...

When an audience completely disagrees with your position convincing them that their reasons for disagreeing are faulty before presenting your own position may be the best strategy.

Introduction: States the issue to be addressed and why it is important.

Body of Argument: Examines positions already proposed and refutes each one, showing why they are inadequate. Typically organized like this.

Position 1 Your refutation of position 1 Position 2 Your refutation of position 2

Alternatively, all positions might be examined first and then refuted second.

Position 1 Position 2 Your refutation of position 1 Your refutation of position 2

Conclusion/Position Statement: Once all other positions are shown to be inadequate, conclude with your position as the only logical choice.

When an Audience Partially Disagrees...

When an audience partially disagrees with your position, the best strategy still looks a great deal like when they completely disagree: convincing them that their reasoning is faulty before presenting your own position.

Position Statement: Introduced as the only logical choice after the positions your audience finds most persuasive are shown to be inadequate.

Presentation of Evidence: Supports your position as not only reasonable, but the best one available as well.

When an Audience is Completely Unfamiliar...

When an audience is completely unfamiliar with the issue, presenting evidence and leading to a logical conclusion may be the best choice because you are informing the audience while simultaneously proving the position.

Body of Argument: Presents the different work done on the issue and the conclusions reached.

Logical Connections: Looks at how conclusions reached in the research fit together leading to a particular answer to the problem or position on the issue. An alternative arrangement would include connections between each conclusion presented and proven.

Conclusion/Position Statement: ends the argument with your position as the only logical choice.

When Original Research Forms the Basis...

When original research forms the basis for an argument, particularly in the sciences, the study itself and the results must be discussed before a conclusion or interpretation of the data can be discussed. It must be made obvious to the audience that your position emerges from the research rather than being one you are ensuring the research will support. A deductive arrangement, starting with the conclusion or position, implies that the research may be biased.

Research questions: Describes study and the issue, problem or question it was designed specifically to answer.

Methods: Describes in detail the methods employed in the study.

Results: Summarizes and provides a detailed presentation of findings.

Conclusion/Position Statement: Argues for a particular interpretation of the results which leads to a conclusion addressing or answering the original issue, problem or question investigated.

Tying it All Together

American methods of academic argument are best depicted as a straight line. No matter what-be it evidence, sub-points, refutations of other positions, or personal anecdotes-everything used must lead clearly back to the position being argued. Although the relevance of each is always clear to the author, their connections are not always so obvious to the audience. Therefore, it is up to the author to carefully explain them.

Toulmin Method

One of the best ways to demonstrate why a given piece of evidence supports the thesis, claim or position of an argument is to explain the reasoning process by which they are logically connected. In the Toulmin method, these explanations are referred to as warrants.

First, for each claim that is debatable, or open to question, a reason is offered that supports the claim's validity. A warrant-consisting of a sentence or two-then follows, explaining the reason. Finally, evidence is supplied that supports connecting the reason to a given point or the overall claim of the paper.

Example of the Toulmin Method

Thesis, Claim or Position

Grading should be optional in non-major courses.

Reason/Point #1

Non-major courses are designed to help students become intelligent, well-rounded citizens. If the goal of such courses is the exploration and acquisition of knowledge, grades only get in the way.

Rather than learning for the sake of becoming a better person, grades encourage performance for the sake of a better GPA. The focus grading puts on performance undercuts learning opportunities when students choose courses according to what might be easiest rather than what they'd like to know more about. [Introduces why proof is relevant to point]

For example, students polled at CSU in a College of Liberal Arts study cite the following reasons for choosing non-major courses:

• Easy grading (80%)
• Low quantity of work (60%)
• What was available (40%)
• Personality of teacher (30%)
• Something they were interested in knowing more about (10%)

Similarly, in an interview I conducted with graduating seniors, only two of the 20 people I spoke with found their non-major courses valuable. The other 18 reported that non-major courses were a waste of time for a variety of reasons:

• I'm never going to do anything with them.
• I just took whatever wouldn't distract me from my major so I didn't work very hard in them, just studying enough to get an A on the test.
• Non-major courses are a joke. Everyone I know took the simplest, stupidest, 100-level courses needed to fulfill the requirements. I can't even remember the ones I took now.

Although not everyone in the interviews or the CLA poll cited grades explicitly as the reason for choosing easy, irrelevant, non-major courses, we can read such reasoning into many of the less explicit references as well. Clearly, students are not choosing courses based on what they can learn from them. Yet they are fairly consistent in their choices: 100-level courses with little work. Although laziness might be seen as the cause of such choices, it is just as likely that choosing according to the amount of work, selecting simple courses, or only studying for the exam are a result of the GPA system. Higher work loads and more complex topics obviously could mean receiving a lower grade; thus, they should be avoided. [Demonstrates how proof leads to point as necessary conclusion.]

Using Subheadings and Transitions

Chunking text into sections according to where a new point is being made, a new reason in support of your thesis is offered, or a new opposing argument is being addressed helps establish coherence among the various parts of your argument. Using sub-headings to label these different sections will help the audience follow your argument.

In addition, transitions explaining why one section helps support the point made in the previous one or how the next point follows logically from the first helps the reader see more clearly how these points ultimately relate to the claim, or position being argued.

Using Subheadings and Transitions: An Example

Thesis/Claim: Greenlife's proposal to ban all logging in rain forests should be supported.

Reason #1: It would help prevent global warming. [This sentence then gets developed, followed by a transition leading to Reason #2.]

Transition between #1 and #2: Although global warming may be the most persuasive reason to stop logging in rainforests due to the effect it has on the entire planet's population, the effect on local culture, affecting a much smaller number of people, is just as important. Losing native habitats destroys ways of life which can never be replaced, displacing people and devastating cultures that can never be restored. [ Logic: both are equally important reasons to stop logging.]

Reason #2: Logging destroys indigenous lifestyles. [This gets developed, followed by a transition leading to Reason #3.]

Transition between #2 and #3: Not only is the effect on indigenous cultures and global climate impossible to reverse but logging also has a lasting effect on the local environment that could have equally disastrous consequences. The erosion caused by logging results in a change in the ecosystem, particularly the loss of rich, fertile soil essential to both plant and animal life. [ Logic: human effects of global warming and loss of indigenous cultures are not the only considerations: effects on ecosystems are also consequences of logging.]

Reason #3: Logging produces erosion in the local environment. [This gets developed, followed by a transition leading to Opposing Position #1.]

Transition between reason 3 and opposition #1: Of course, many have argued that the loss of plant life and soil should be considered necessary damages if they work in favor of increasing the quality of human life. [ Logic: Introduces opposing argument #1 and leads to its refutation.]

Opposition #1: The argument that human life is more important than plant life, however, simply does not hold up when considering that the devastation of an ecosystem also affects human life. These effects, as I've already shown, can be measured not only in terms of climate change and the loss of indigenous cultures, but also in terms of losses to farming and other local economic systems. [ Logic: Demonstrates that opposition to point 3 is not viable because of points 1, 2, and 3.]

Using Topic Sentences or Explanatory Paragraphs

Another good way to help an audience follow the logic of your argument is to use of topic sentences literally telling them how each point relates to the claim, clearly connecting them so that there isn't any question how or why they relate. In longer arguments, entire paragraphs can serve this purpose by explaining the connections between extended summaries of evidence or the logical arguments of sub-points to the main claim.

Paragraph Example

Claim/Thesis of Paper: Writing teachers fail to deal with multicultural issues to the detriment of their students.

Section One: An analysis of the weaknesses of current curricular approaches to writing

Transitional Paragraph tying analysis to thesis and next section: As the analysis above shows, none of the available curricular models address multiculturalism except in the most cursory manner. Worse, their very superficiality does more damage than good. By introducing the topic of writing for multiple communities, the pedagogies make an attempt to bring diversity into the classroom; yet their focus remains on teaching academic writing with standard usage and grammar. Although they admit that such teaching is only for this context, putting such emphasis on standard forms introduces the issue: which forms of writing have more power in society, something none of the pedagogies address. By putting forth the academic model as the one which must be taught and learned in schools, they implicitly devalue other forms. The failure to foreground these power issues, then, leads students of difference to conclude that although their language and forms of writing might be acceptable in certain places, they are not welcome in the places which count in society. The effect of such an implicit message can be devastating to maintaining cultural values and difference.

Section Two: Discussion of research on multicultural student reactions' to writing classes.

Topic Sentence Example

Main Claim or Thesis of Paper: Professor X is a good teacher and should retain her job at CSU.

Introduction: Agues that determining whether Professor X is a good teacher involves evaluating her performance against criteria for good teachers.

Body of Argument: Works through several criteria to judge Professor X's teaching quality.

Topic Sentence Example: The first and probably most important criteria for judging the quality of a teacher is student opinion and, by any measure of student opinion-course evaluations, interviews, and class enrollment-Professor X is clearly one of the best teachers at CSU. [Paper goes on to offer summaries of all three forms of proof listed and then moves onto the second criteria with a topic sentence that ties back to the overall judgment of Prof. X as a good teacher.]

Example of When Methods are Combined

Claim of Paper: Decreasing the average work week to 32 hours would help support family values.

From Body of Paper: Although most of us know that working too much affects family time and thus family structure, we usually assume that this is the case only for people who work 40+ hours a week. Studies of how work-related stress influences family time, however, suggest that too much work, even within what is considered "normal," has detrimental effects on family time. [Topic sentence connects evidence (studies) to the point that 40 hour work weeks have negative affects on families.] For example, in Smith's 1987 study of 15 average, middle-class families, he describes the undue pressure a 9-5 schedule puts on families. In particular, he notes that this time schedule translates to at least three forms of unnecessary family stress: (1) "rushed" mornings where parents desperately try sticking to a rigid time schedule that gets the children off to school and themselves to work between the hours of 7 and 9; (2) financial pressure of paying babysitters or day care facilities during school holidays and the 2 or 3 hours after school while parents are still at work; (3) overly frantic weekends where, since many businesses close at 5:00, all errands must be done before then. [Note how the author highlights only the parts of the study that influence family pressures.] The stresses Smith documents are not in families where parents work 60-70 hours a week. The parents working 40 hours a week are secretaries, mechanics, bank employees, etc. The effects on them, he notes, clearly translate to less time spent with family members because of work demands as well as increased pressure when the family is together. [Warrant explaining why proof shows the problem is the 40-hour work week discussed in the initial point made]

Such pressures can't help but influence the quality of time the family spends together, influencing its ability to stay together or to have the type of time most conducive to instilling family values. [Topic sentences which ties point 1 to overall claim of paper] In fact, as psychological studies show, the type of time spent together has a great influence on family cohesiveness. [Transition connecting point 1--effect of 40 hour week on families--to point 2: the influence of time pressures on keeping family together]

Next Paragraph: Summaries of psychological studies to support the new claim of effect on cohesiveness.

Reviewing and Revising Your Connections

After drafting an argument you'll want take a step back and check the logic of its organization. You want to make sure that everything is connected and that every connection will make sense to an audience.

Analyze by Outlining

Chunk your argument into numbered sections: read through the text and place a number in the margin every time you change focus, even slightly. These changes may or may not come at regular intervals: one section might take three paragraphs while another takes only one. When you are finished, ask the following questions:

• Do similar points come up in different sections? If so, put them together.
• Are any sections only a few sentences long? Are they relevant? If so, expand them; if not, cut them out.
• Can you define the relationship each section has to the position being argued? How is each one relevant? Look at your revised argument and create a list of reasons that connect each section to the position being argued. Those that don't should be cut. Save this list, the reasons you have identified will make excellent transitions between argument sections.
• Can you explain why section #2 follows section #1 and so on? If not consider how sections might be moved around so that you have a clear reason for why each one follows another. Make another list, including these reasons. Consider using them as transitions between argument sections as well.

Get Some Peer-Review

Have a friend or several friends read through your argument. Ask them to mark where they get lost or are not sure of your point or where you are going next. These are places where rearrangement or clearer transitions are probably necessary. Also, try reading the argument aloud, to yourself and your friends. Frequently, when you hear an argument out loud, you can pinpoint where its logic doesn't add up. Changes can then be made.

Cut and Paste

Cut and paste. Play around with your organizational structure. Literally cut your paper into paragraphs and then make piles out of those which have things in common. If only part of a paragraph does, then cut some more. Save the leftovers in a separate pile. What do the pieces in each pile have in common? Construct a title for each pile based on the reason: Finally, ask yourself: what is the relationship between each pile: How are they related? Don't be afraid to shuffle them around and look at them in different positions. This will help you order the sections of your argument when pasting it back together. Look at your pile of left over pieces to see if they belong. If they do, consider expanding them so their relevance is made clear. If not, leave them out. Remember, throwing stuff out is not a sign of failure; it's an integral part of rewriting.

LeCourt, Donna, Kate Kiefer, & Peter Connor. (1996). Organizing an Argument. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=56

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

122 Rogerian Argument

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise on a controversial issue.

If you are using the Rogerian approach your introduction to the argument should accomplish three objectives:

• Introduce the author and work Usually, you will introduce the author and work in the first sentence, as in this example: In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator addresses an inevitable by-product of war – racism. The first time you refer to the author, refer to him or her by his or her full name. After that, refer to the author by last name only. Never refer to an author by his or her first name only.
• Provide the audience a short but concise summary of the work to which you are responding Remember, your audience has already read the work you are responding to. Therefore, you do not need to provide a lengthy summary. Focus on the main points of the work to which you are responding and use direct quotations sparingly. Direct quotations work best when they are powerful and compelling.
• State the main issue addressed in the work   Your thesis, or claim, will come after you summarize the two sides of the issue.

The Introduction

The following is an example of how the introduction of a Rogerian argument can be written. The topic is racial profiling.

Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Your summary of the two sides will be your first two body paragraphs. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.

An outline for a Rogerian argument might look like this:

• Introduction

The Claim Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. In the example above, both sides of the racial profiling issue want the U.S. A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side, and tries to accommodate both. Again, using the racial profiling example above, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence, and quotations when appropriate.   Quoting Effectively Remember, you should quote to illustrate a point you are making. You should not, however, quote to simply take up space. Make sure all quotations are compelling and intriguing: Consider the following example. In “The Danger of Political Correctness,” author Richard Stein asserts that, “the desire to not offend has now become more important than protecting national security” (52). This statement sums up the beliefs of those in favor of profiling in public places.   The Conclusion Your conclusion should: Bring the essay back to what is discussed in the introduction Tie up loose ends End on a thought-provoking note The following is a sample conclusion: Though the debate over racial profiling is sure to continue, each side desires to make the United States a safer place. With that goal in mind, our society deserves better security measures than merely searching a person who appears a bit dark. We cannot waste time with such subjective matters, especially when we have technology that could more effectively locate potential terrorists. Sure, installing metal detectors and cameras on public transportation is costly, but feeling safe in public is priceless.  

English Composition II Copyright © by Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Rogerian Argument: Definition and Examples

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as  Rogerian rhetoric , Rogerian argumentation , Rogerian persuasion , and empathic listening .

Whereas traditional argument focuses on winning , the Rogerian model seeks a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Rogerian model of argument was adapted from the work of American psychologist Carl Rogers by the composition scholars Richard Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike in their textbook "Rhetoric: Discovery and Change" (1970).

Aims of Rogerian Argument

The authors of "Rhetoric: Discovery and Change" explain the process this way:

"The writer who uses the Rogerian strategy attempts to do three things: (1) to convey to the reader that he is understood, (2) to delineate the area within which he believes the reader's position to be valid, and (3) to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution). We stress here that these are only tasks, not stages of the argument. Rogerian argument has no conventional structure; in fact, users of the strategy deliberately avoid conventional persuasive structures and techniques because these devices tend to produce a sense of threat, precisely what the writer seeks to overcome....

"The goal of Rogerian argument is to create a situation conducive to cooperation; this may well involve changes in Format of Rogerian Argument.

When presenting your case and the case of the other side, the style is flexible with how you set up your information and how long you spend on each section. But you do want to be balanced—spending an inordinate amount of time on your position and only giving lip service to the other side, for example, defeats the purpose of using the Rogerian style. The ideal format of a written Rogerian persuasion looks something like this (Richard M. Coe, "Form and Substance: An Advanced Rhetoric." Wiley, 1981):

• Introduction : Present the topic as a problem to solve together, rather than an issue.
• Opposing position : State the opinion of your opposition in an objective manner that's fair and accurate, so the "other side" knows that you understand its position.
• Context for the opposing position : Show the opposition that you understand under what circumstances its position is valid .
• Your position : Present your position objectively. Yes, you want to be convincing, but you want the opposition to see it with clarity and fairly as well, just as you presented its position earlier.
• Context for your position : Show the opposition contexts in which your position is also valid.
• Benefits : Appeal to the opposition and show how elements of your position could work to benefit its interests.

You use one type of rhetoric when discussing your position with people who already agree with you. To discuss your position with the opposition, you need to tone that down and break it into objective elements, so the sides can more easily see areas of common ground. Taking the time to state the opposing side's arguments and contexts means the opposition has less reason to get defensive and stop listening to your ideas.

Feminist Responses to Rogerian Argument

In the 1970s and into the early 1990s, some debate existed about whether women should use this conflict-solving technique.

"Feminists are divided on the method: some see Rogerian argument as feminist and beneficial because it appears less antagonistic than traditional Aristotelian argument. Others argue that when used by women, this type of argument reinforces the 'feminine' stereotype, since historically women are viewed as nonconfrontational and understanding (see especially Catherine E. Lamb's 1991 article 'Beyond Argument in Freshman Composition' and Phyllis Lassner's 1990 article 'Feminist Responses to Rogerian Argument')." (Edith H. Babin and Kimberly Harrison, "Contemporary Composition Studies: A Guide to Theorists and Terms." Greenwood, 1999)

• 5 Steps to Writing a Position Paper
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• Argument (Rhetoric and Composition)
• Preparing an Argument Essay: Exploring Both Sides of an Issue
• How to Write a Persuasive Essay
• Writing an Opinion Essay
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition
• AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
• Propositions in Debate Definition and Examples
• How to Write and Structure a Persuasive Speech
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• Use Social Media to Teach Ethos, Pathos and Logos
• Quoting Out of Context Fallacy
• Definition and Examples of Evidence in Argument
• Socratic Dialogue (Argumentation)

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.7.1: Rogerian Argumentation

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 20621

• Athena Kashyap & Erika Dyquisto
• City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

Rogerian Argumentation

Rogerian argument is an organizational technique for persuasive argument that works especially well when your reader is not likely to agree with you. It was developed by a Carl Rogers, a psychologist. This argument technique can be effective for persuasion because you obtain the "buy in," or agreement, from someone whose opinion differs from yours at the beginning. In a Rogerian argument, you demonstrate that you understand the other person's viewpoint, even that you have empathy for it. By showing this, a person is more likely to listen to your point of view.

This technique of argumentation is sorely needed right now in our civic lives. Try it in your interpersonal relationships and see how well it can work!

The organization of the Rogerian argument is very important for it to be effective. If you don't organize it this way, your argument is pointless--it won't be persuasive; rather, it will just appear confused.

Here is the organization technique:

Introduction

Write a paragraph about the topic in general just to give the context about the topic and draw the reader in. Do not place your main idea - or even give away your opinion - in your introduction. Think of it like playing poker or 21. You don't want to give away your hand.

Body Paragraph 1

This paragraph is where you should explain the other person's opinion on your main topic that you can concede or agree with a little bit and explain that point of view thoroughly (for a whole paragraph). Do not place your main idea - or even give away your opinion -- in body paragraph 1 in a Rogerian argument. The reason for explaining the other person's point of view for a whole paragraph is to show that you understand their viewpoint. People are much more likely to listen to your viewpoint if you show that you understand their viewpoint first.

Body Paragraph 2

The beginning of this paragraph will begin with a concession statement in which you acknowledge the viewpoint that you previously explained but then emphasize the problem with that viewpoint. Please see concession statements . In this paragraph you begin to give away your opinion by explaining how the idea that you wrote about in body paragraph 1 is illogical or problematic from an ethical standpoint. Explain the problem with that viewpoint for the whole \paragraph. This is your counter­-argument paragraph. Please see counter-argument paragraphs for more information about this.

All Subsequent Body Paragraphs until the Conclusion

In these paragraphs you develop separate reasons for your point of view in each paragraph (remember PIE paragraphing !) This is more like what you do in a traditional, argumentative essay. Although you are giving your opinion, do not state your thesis yet. You should be building toward it. ·

Give your thesis at the beginning of your conclusion. Basically, your whole argument has led up to this. Your thesis may very well be a two-part sentence with a concession in it, which allows it to relate to the totality of your paper (including the first body paragraph). The rest of your conclusion should focus on the future. How should things be in the future with regard to this topic? What changes could be made? What needs to change in order for things to get better? Please see conclusions for more information about concluding paragraphs.

Graphic Organizer for the Body of your Rogerian Argument

Directions: Use the graphic organizer below to organize and map out the main points of the body paragraphs of your paper.

First, write down the opposing point of view.

Then, write down your counter-argument/refutation – or at least the main reasons.

Next, write down your first main reason for your point of view.

Next, write down your second main reason for your point of view.

Finally, write down your last main reason for your point of view. If there are more main reasons, add them in separate paragraphs.

Contributors and Attributions

• Revision, Adaptation, and Original Content. Provided by: Libretexts. License: CC BY-SA 4.0: Attribution.

This page was most recently updated on June 6, 2020.