The Art of Argument

Argument can be defined as the art of influencing others. With argument, the author attempts to influence the audience by getting them to act a certain way or to come to a favorable conclusion relative to the author’s position. A successful argument employs clearly defined terms, a fair use of information, and clear logic. When well executed, an argument is dramatic in nature; creating passionate debate on both sides of the issue-at-hand. Not all arguments end with one side declared the clear winner. Often times a compromise between many several extreme viewpoints is the only agreeable conclusion. To be able to persuade, the argument must be viewed as having merit. It is not merely enough to quote reports or studies; the author must use well-documented, credible sources in a well-executed manner.

Joe Kita – a writer and editor at Mens’ Health magazine – successfully persuades his audience with his well-researched and eloquently executed article (Kita 489). His augment immediately grabs the readers’ attention with its opening line: “Vertically challenged men are paying up to $80,000 to have their legs broken, caged, and then lengthened (Kita 489).” The following paragraphs introduce the reader to Jim Conran in his current condition following an operation to add inches to his height. Jim is described as having cages surrounding his legs like little scaffolds (Kita 489). Powerful descriptions like this coupled with quotes from credible sources help make a powerful argument.

Quoted estimates from economists at the University of Pennsylvania give the reader an insight to the thoughts and reasoning that might lead an individual to undergo such a painful procedure for a gain of three inches (Kita 491). Mr. Kita also quotes Nancy Etcoff, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School as citing “a study of Fortune 500 CEOs that found that more than half were taller than 6 feet, and just 3 percent were shorter than 5’7” (Kita 491).” According to Etcoff, less than one-half of one percent of women marry men who are shorter than they are (Kita 491).

While there are many medically acceptable reasons for a painful procedure where the patient must undergo the agony of having bones broken and repositioned, the cosmetic use of this procedure has far too high a complication rate to justify the three inch gain. Known as the Ilizarov method, this method’s legitimate medical uses include the “correction of leg-length deformities, bow legs, anchondroplasis (dwarfism) (Kita 492).” Overall, there is a twenty-five percent complication rate from the surgery, with the most common problem being pin-site infection. A less common but still serious complication is nerve damage (Kita 492). The relatively high rate of such gruesome complications should be enough to discourage any sane individual from perusing such a horrendous act of self-mutilation.

With vivid descriptions and statistical references from experts in varying disciplines, Mr. Kita establishes a sound argument. He employs clearly defined terms, a fair use of information, and clear logic to support his position. This article makes it clear that perhaps the greatest benefit gained by undergoing this surgery is psychological rather than physical.

There being clear consensuses that sex and violent sells, it should come as no surprise that depictions of these very subjects are becoming increasingly graphic and widely available. Ron Kaufman proclaims: “One fact should not be in dispute: TV is violent! Guns, shootings, murders, hitting, punching, slapping, screaming, kicking, stabbing, explosions, car chases, car smashes, disasters, and death are shown daily throughout TV programming (693). Mr. Kaufman’s essay is a prime example of a well constructed and properly sourced argument. With charts and graphs from several well-known sources, he successfully argues the negative effects of violence on TV on children. His argument is well-planned and skillfully executed. With a logical outline – starting with the violence-driven storyline (694) to his conclusion that children watch too much television in this country (700), Mr. Kaufman makes a very strong case for turning off the TV for the children’s sake (706).

Being a trained teacher gives Mr. Kaufman an added level of credentials to speak on the subject of child behavior. His break-down of learned violent traits is broken down by age groups ranging from newborns to six graders (Kaufman 699). One study quoted that is particularly disturbing is that “high viewing levels have been shown to interfere with reading development (Kaufman 699). Knowing this makes it difficult to argue that our children’s lack of reading skills is directly linked to the fact that “the vast majority of children are growing up in homes where television is a near-constant presence (Kaufman 694).”

On the other end of the spectrum from the well-constructed argument lies the poorly-constructed argument. The poorly-constructed column on privacy written for the New York Times is a prime example of how not to argue (Herbert 613). Mr. Herbert starts off on the wrong foot. The first sentence of the first paragraph read: “A recent report out of Washington tells a story about . . . (Herbert 613).” If Mr. Herbert is attempting to build a credible argument, he has failed before even starting. The troubles with argument don’t end there. Mr. Herbert goes on to make outrages claims such as hidden video cameras being legally installed in bathrooms and dressing rooms (Herbert 613). There is not a single case that would merit installing video cameras in public restrooms or public dressing rooms. He later references a report released by the Center for Public Integrity. This might sound an important group, but not one many people are familiar with.

The writings of this columnist build no credibility with the reader and render his argument ineffective and utterly useless. With serious claims of invasion of privacy during computer training, Mr. Herbert should support his argument with concrete sources rather than a mere mention of an article he once read (Herbert 613). He further discredits himself with vague statements like “Congress has gone out of its way to preserve the right of employers to eavesdrop and otherwise spy upon and collect personal data on employees (Herbert 614)” and “tremendous amounts of money are being made from the rampant transfer of the most personal types of information (Herbert 614).” While both these statements might be completely accurate, a well constructed argument requires the author to provide supporting evidence – perhaps a few well-known examples in his conclusion can add credibility to this hopelessly ineffective argument.

The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the author to investigate a topic, collect, generate, and evaluate evidence, and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner. It require the writer do more than simply state his views on a subject matter and hope that that the audience follows his argument blindly.

Works Cited

Herbert, Bob. “What Privacy Rights?” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 613-14.

Kaufman, Ron. “Filling Their Mind with Death: TV Violence and Children.” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 693-706.

Kita, Joe. “All to Be Tall.” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 489-95.