Within good writing, there is a distinct balance between creativity and discipline. Strunk (1918) argues, “In exposition and in argument, the writer must likewise never lose his hold upon the concrete, and even when he is dealing with general principles he must give particular instances of their application” (p. 23). To write an effective analytical paper, a writer should convey ideas by being conscious of mechanical and grammatical mistakes but should also develop personal style and creativity within those constraints.
Rosenwasser and Stephen (2011) argue that the five analytical moves are the best way to convey a message while effectively balancing creativity and discipline. These “moves” begin with first, completely understanding the subject …show more content…
The four strategies for “reforming binaries,” or analyzing closely, begins with first locating a range of opposing categories (p. 94). This allows a writer to “uncover oppositions in your subject matter that might function as organizing contrasts” (p. 95). The second step is defining key terms within the binaries. This permits a writer to understand each binary at a deeper level than just distinguishing contrasts (p. 95). The third step is a lot like the first in that it asks the author to question binary terms. The main difference within this step is that after questioning the terms the author should rephrase, to set up a statement of refinement (p. 95). Finally, the last step of the binary reformation is to strategize a way in which the author fashions questions that answer “either/or” (p. 95). Utilizing previous steps and prior knowledge, this process allows the writer to create arguments (p. 95). Reformulating binaries is essential in developing careful, accurate arguments. Rosenwasser and Stephen (2011) argue that utilizing a process like this in writing will help achieve several outcomes. First, discover that the author has not named the binary properly, or identify the author may have weighed heavily on side of the binary than the other. Lastly, detect if the author may have terms that closely relate in nature, or can be separated into different issues (p. …show more content…
Toulimin’s model of argument renames and reorders the process of reasoning described in the Aristotelian syllogism (Rosenwasser & Stephen, 2011, p. 194). Toulimin first identifies what data, or what the evidence is based on to support a statement. Next, Toulimin questions reason. Toulimin identifies this as a “warrant” (p. 194). Within the warrant, “a general principle or reason used to connect the data with the claim” (p. 194). Finally, Toulimin creates a “claim” to the response, data, and the warrant. Using an argument process like Toulimin’s, allows research to move towards truth and could ultimately provide more of a pluralistic outcome. If a writer were to use Toulimin’s model of argument, he or she leaves the argument open to assumptions within their claim. Toulimin is leading an argument towards “recognizing claims, data, warrants” which is much more diverse than the syllogistic
Rosenwasser and Stephen (2011) argue that the five analytical moves are the best way to convey a message while effectively balancing creativity and discipline. These “moves” begin with first, completely understanding the subject …show more content…
The four strategies for “reforming binaries,” or analyzing closely, begins with first locating a range of opposing categories (p. 94). This allows a writer to “uncover oppositions in your subject matter that might function as organizing contrasts” (p. 95). The second step is defining key terms within the binaries. This permits a writer to understand each binary at a deeper level than just distinguishing contrasts (p. 95). The third step is a lot like the first in that it asks the author to question binary terms. The main difference within this step is that after questioning the terms the author should rephrase, to set up a statement of refinement (p. 95). Finally, the last step of the binary reformation is to strategize a way in which the author fashions questions that answer “either/or” (p. 95). Utilizing previous steps and prior knowledge, this process allows the writer to create arguments (p. 95). Reformulating binaries is essential in developing careful, accurate arguments. Rosenwasser and Stephen (2011) argue that utilizing a process like this in writing will help achieve several outcomes. First, discover that the author has not named the binary properly, or identify the author may have weighed heavily on side of the binary than the other. Lastly, detect if the author may have terms that closely relate in nature, or can be separated into different issues (p. …show more content…
Toulimin’s model of argument renames and reorders the process of reasoning described in the Aristotelian syllogism (Rosenwasser & Stephen, 2011, p. 194). Toulimin first identifies what data, or what the evidence is based on to support a statement. Next, Toulimin questions reason. Toulimin identifies this as a “warrant” (p. 194). Within the warrant, “a general principle or reason used to connect the data with the claim” (p. 194). Finally, Toulimin creates a “claim” to the response, data, and the warrant. Using an argument process like Toulimin’s, allows research to move towards truth and could ultimately provide more of a pluralistic outcome. If a writer were to use Toulimin’s model of argument, he or she leaves the argument open to assumptions within their claim. Toulimin is leading an argument towards “recognizing claims, data, warrants” which is much more diverse than the syllogistic