I’ve written previously about structuring documents around Key arguments and Proofs (see here), but on a more general basis, how do you mount arguments that are persuasive and effective?
Draw Relationships
One of the most important aspects of a formal document that mounts an argument is to develop relationships between the points.
One way to draw these relationships is to select and prioritise the facts.
This is most easily understood when you view a document where prioritisation and selection of the facts has not occurred.
I once read an internal government report where the author (let’s call him Bill) was asked to research what would happen to a group of asylum seekers if they were returned to their country of origin.
Bill diligently went about his research, consulting many sources. The research was quite extensive, and in the report Bill summarised what each source had indicated was the case.
However, after I had read the report, I had no idea what would happen to the asylum seekers if they were returned!
That’s because Bill had not prioritised (or weighted) the points being made – they were all given equal significance. Points that were seemingly irrelevant were given the same billing as points that seemed vital to drawing conclusions. And, talking about drawing conclusions, Bill in fact drew none – no relationships were developed between disparate points! For example, internal contradictions were left to stand, not explained.
The outcome for the reader was a great big nothing…
Bill saw himself as literally a ‘reporter’ – someone who would just report what others had said or written.
But in nearly all cases, that is not what is wanted. Instead, the report writer needs to become an instant expert, able to interpret what the research indicates and then present an argument built around that interpretation.
Just repeating what others have said or written is insufficient.
Present facts both for and against
To have a good understanding of your argument, to achieve credibility and to be persuasive, you should always present facts for and against your case.
Again it’s easy to see this if you look at an argument that does not do this.
I once did some writing for a company that developed wind farms – the ones with huge wind turbines. I was asked to assess the content of their company website. On the website there was a section that was designed for landholders – the farmers who owned the land on which the company wished to build wind turbines.
This section contained content that I thought could be summarised as pure marketing – we understand your concerns, we reach agreements with landowners that are beneficial to both parties, and so on.
In assessing this writing, I decided to act like the audience. What would I, as a farmer, do after reading this material?
Firstly, I did a Google search under ‘big wind turbines and farms’.
The results showed that many people thought wind turbines noisy and many others suggested that bird strikes were a major problem.
Then I did a YouTube search. I quickly found video that showed a huge wind turbine, still spinning, completing engulfed by fire! Talk about frightening…
By mentioning none of the negatives of having wind turbines on farms, the wind energy company immediately lost credibility with their target readers. To put this another way, even the most cursory research showed that the company was telling only half the story.
The ironic thing about that situation is that, for nearly all landowners, the benefits of having wind turbines on their farms greatly outweigh the negatives. By presenting both sides of the issue, the company could in fact have mounted a very effective argument supporting their case!
Presenting only side of an argument results in a loss of credibility and makes it appear that insufficient research was carried out.
Anticipate audience ‘sticking points’
When you are mounting an argument, especially one that results in formal recommendations, think carefully about the resistance that the reader may have to your points. Can you anticipate the arguments that may be mounted against your points or conclusions – and address them before those objections arise?
For example, you may be writing a report that recommends the expenditure of a large amount of money. When you consider this carefully, you realise that the reader may find this a cause for concern. So rather than suggesting the expenditure occur in one financial year, you instead recommend that the project be implemented in two stages with expenditure occurring over two financial years.
Pre-empting reader objections is a very important part of building an effective argument.
Summary
Construct written arguments where:
- points are weighted
- relationships between points are drawn
- points both for and against the argument are presented
- reader ‘sticking points’ are addressed
Julian can be contacted directly or courses in writing can be arranged through training provider Anne Jenkins and Associates.
