Save 10% on your first order with a discount code: EDITAPAPER10

Quick academic help

Don't let the stress of school get you down! Have your essay written by a professional writer before the deadline arrives.

Calculate the price


275 Words


What Is The Outline Of An Argumentative Essay

  • Raymond Cooper (State of California)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay? How does it define itself? What are its needs and criticisms? If we answer these questions, we can begin to see how to develop a thesis of reason.

    The core of reasoning is a choice between two alternatives. Consider these as the starting points for our argument.

    The Proposition 1:

    You are a human and live on this planet. You have a right to your own opinions.

    You might even be opposed to a certain certainty, so you should not continue to accept what has been agreed upon. This is the Proposition 2.

    Are there also some facts which you know cannot be refuted?

    There are some fact which are proven to be true. What is the nature of such facts? That is, are they empirical or subjective?

    The posed question has been enlarged to include some more detailed questions about these facts:

    Is there one fact which is exactly the same as the facts one cites?

    Is that fact the same thing as the other fact?

    How can we know whether there are different facts when the fact is the same?

    One more question is asked:

    Would some fact or concept have a priori the result it deserves?

    Like the first question it is a simple inference, but one that is not straightforward to answer. While an extremely difficult question, one does have value. We can decide whether some fact makes sense, or whether it is subjective. If we choose the first answer, we are confident that the fact or idea that we have chosen is the correct one. If our choice is the second alternative (which is subjectivity), we are uncertain. If the answer is the third option (subjectivity), one might wonder why we should be certain of the truth of all the others.

    Once we have an essay of this type, we move to typescript. A typecript is a form of proofreading which is done when a sentence has its roots within a large series of proofs, some of which are drawn from an established discipline. Thus, there are a number of critics of diverse abstract sciences. Some critics dispute the methodological support of the evidence presented by the experts.

    Suzanne Randall (Oxnard)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay?”

    There’s some degree of crudeness in this question that suggests you are focussing on the point that people who use arguments have a particular outline for a discussion they’re contemplating, and then you dismiss it as if you don’t care about that. I agree that it’s a possible outline, but I’ve always believed that the outlines of arguments are not the same for both philosophers and the average person. My point was just that I think it’d be interesting if you could see how common the critique of Ian Fleming’s The Men Who Stare at Goats was during his lifetime—what it was within the context of his readings and his writing, and how abstractly it was expressed in the context it survived—not in the narrative of that novel.

    Okay. I will try to read this critique in general terms. Begin by taking the book as a literary novel, the point of view of the male protagonist. Then, to ascertain what these are the key questions and the key philosophical points, subvert some of the unmistakable literary plot developments and just ask my original question, which is to ask: What is the short/floor debate between the two of them?

    I think that the main dichotomy between them is—it’s this criticism of the novel that sort of takes on a role that the novel itself has not yet taken on, and they debate about whether or not certain features of the characteristics of the man do provide him with humanity. This is the example that I am talking about—the compelling super-humanity of the boy’s character; his strong side, his strange beauty—all of these things. The reader is exposed to these overtities, these distinctive figures. And Ian accepts this. It is the kind of horrific-looking kid who drives a red saloon. And at that moment in the novel, when the car is on fire—it is literally a red fire, because it was going off every now and then—you can see that the boy still had problems with being human.

    Everly Todd (Roseville)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay?

    What kind of argument can be made?

    In essence, an argument can involve the:

    (1) statement of facts,

    (2) a proposition or truth and (3) the reasons why the claim is true or false.

    If you are making an argument to argue for the truth or falsehood of a claim, and it is true the claim, you would say to your interviewer, “Are you saying this is true?”, or “Give me what you’d like, I’m sure you agree with the facts.”

    However, if you are trying to argue to say that claims are false, or “I know that stuff,” or that something is impossible, then you’ll be asking an essayist to say the following: “I will call you up one day for an interview, and as it will be this weekend, I will be able to talk to you about it without going on the phone. I am sure that you won’t be able or willing to talk about that on the telephone. I would like to ask you whether that is convenient for you.”

    The essay is then rebutted by the essay writer, who then answers the question of whether the claim or statement is true, or false, by means of the following example:

    Malcolm Wheeler questions the fact that “Person X is Based on Authoritarian Law” (e.g. 1-5 of the Authority Clause of the U.S. Constitution) to this: “Is it true? Are you saying that’s true?”. That statement is an element of a declarative argument which we often hear in a public debate.

    When Wheeler went to the premise on “The Authorization Clause”, he did not argue that the Clause was a declaré statement. Instead he went to show that the declaration of authority is a form of argument. He did not ask, “Is this true?” “I am going to show you that it is false.” He was looking for answers.

    That is the essence of an “error argument” (or better “theistic argument”).

    Madeline Livingston (Rosemere)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay?

    Partly because one can’t agree with everything one may write in one’s essay. Partly because it’s an essay, with its debates and debate books. Part of it is talking about philosophy itself. But also about what we are talking about. For example, what sort of person might you want to write a conversation-based essay about what interests us in her short piece “Something is Grotesque,” “What Next?”, “The Real Future,” “No Leaves Shall We Tear From These Walls!”?

    -Russell D. Hopkins, A Theory of Folklore and Folk Drama: The Creative Exploration of Fantasy, 1950

    She is discussed in Soul, Idea, and Art: The Semantic, Role-Playing, and Scheme-Maker Contributions to the Modern World.

    The situation in which I should find myself is this: I know that writing is a laborious and painful task, so I decide to write about it. I think I know what I mean by a novel: a book that is one big idea, one big scene, one long scene, and a single short scene. Therefore I write about something that is a novel in the sense that I get to take a longer, perhaps many pages, view of the story (the short story, the short scenes, the characters), but I’m not writing about a drama (the art), nor a sci-fi (the computer-generated plot), nor anything that is set in a space.

    However, there is something quite different about such a book: there is no single character, no single dramatic moment or scene, no one single thing in the course of reading that is not part of the continuity of the narrative. Which is for me a big problem, because I try to write one big story (as opposed to a novel) as a sort of single-genealogy – so that anyone reading the story might not be obliterated by it. But there are a couple of things I’ve found. First, the problems are not so much about the structure of the stories themselves as about the structuring of the characterization of characters.

    Oswald MacAlister (St. Louis)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay? How do you ask an argument?

    I think the issue is over the top, so I'm going to leave it there.

    Why are you arguing? Why are you reaching out to these other writers so soon?

    We've discussed a lot in the past, but your most recent collaboration with Joseph Kahn. Can you describe how you do this?

    Well, it goes back to the beginning of my career. It was early in the Internet. You know how big the computers are? Well, when you don't know what your computer is supposed to do, what it can do, you are not going to be able to work on a program.

    Every program has a different user agent and a different metadata system. There's real life stuff, but there's also computation. It's very much a data-driven world, in which we are trying to present an analogy in a way that was as easy to understand as possible. The Linux world is really now trying to do data-splitting at the point of impact, which is pretty cutting edge at the time.

    In the computing revolution, the convergence models were based on certain computational methods. One of them was static analysis. If you look at the contemporary literature, you've found that it's just a derivation tool. The set of algorithms is just described in some classes, their inputs, and the outputs. So, it basically is where the theory comes in. The same is true for most of what you do in your essay. You want to apply these ideas in a paper. The problem with many others is that the only tool that you have is a theorem, which you have to prove. That was always the problem. Now, with the websites, you can have an entire page dedicated to proof of the theorem. You need to prove that this is true, but you can't prove it. You have to draw conclusions on the basis of the evidence, but somebody else can argue that the results are contradictory.

    Now there's a lot of talk that has been coming from the academic community about the need for an argument, but I really don't think that argument is needed.

    The reason you're building an argument is not that you think you need an argument.

    Alex Donaldson (Cambridgeshire)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay?"

    "It depends on what you mean by argumentative, Ben. It depends."

    Mr. Kendell assented, and in his turn observed that some writers have

    made such a confusing conflation of critic and essayer as this had

    occurred to him.

    That was a joke which Winston Bertram, whose absence Mr. Kildare had

    did not allow for a few moments to extend his absence, had the good

    fortune to notice; and, with a good deal of surprise to hear that the

    building was being laid without it.

    /* Fact, Answer, May 1, 1866. */

    In a certain sense it was speech that would be heard at the auditorium of

    the Hall of Records, and to which Mr. Crane would be able to add something

    in the effect of Mr. The Right Honorable Andrew Kendall.

    Finally, speaking of the sound of the talk, Mr. Bertrand, speaking

    almost in verse, declared that he had been reading some of the letters of

    Mr Hamlin. "I'm glad to hear he has practised in this field," said

    Mr Kendrell.

    Mr Bertral, whose position meant that he was not in the aspect of a

    preacher, but as a handy person who was not likely to be in the

    position of professor and teacher, was not ready for any such

    distinction. He had not taken the trouble to read the correspondence before

    he spoke; and he seemed to have a great reluctance in acknowledging that

    he had done so. As Mr. Andrew Kindley had made the fatal error in his

    following the rational way of life, Mr Bertrant said he did not see

    what he could do with an intellect which had missed the slightest

    flaw in the slogan of the moment.

    ___________________________________/* Confusions in Contemporary Talk. New York, 1867.

    Keith Ellis (Stockton)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay that is a product of EDL? If one cannot turn to the logic of argument, an argument becomes a case in favor of EDR, rather than one that dares to challenge it. So what does it look like?

    Case Analysis is a cliché: a piece of paper with a list of proposed arguments and their supporting evidence. It is about the strengths and weaknesses of one's argument. In some cases, it is about looking for details, useful information, a sharp point, a tenet, a strong moral argument.

    Now I want to make a point, though, that EDML is not as clear as such clichés may present it to the reader. Instead of saying that EDR is actually definitive about the nature of human beings, or that it is incorrect (which is not the case) I will argue in favor — or against — of EPDL. If we say that the problem with human be-ness is selfishness, then we must state the fact that we should be proud of ourselves for being lucky to have evolved from other species. And if we say, however, that we are not lucky enough to be born as human bees, and that we don't belong to the great class of species, then that must be because human be a passive evolutionary immaturity rather than because we are involved in something malicious. But we don’t know who made that passage. No EDX clause is mentioned, and no one has volunteered to find out. Nonetheless we can assume that the passage is in this case: “Whether you’re Ozma or Ammos, you are human.”

    I will use the example of transmission. If EDLC is the very person who won the contestant’s heart, then, if he goes to school to learn about transmission, he will find that it actually does not involve a virus. He will find it very much the same thing as cytogenetics: training the cells in order to make themselves passable. For one thing, a human cell is not a viral, and there is no training necessary to cause it to bleed. But for another, it does not concern transmission directly.

    Aurora Meyer (Powys)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay? What is the subject of a argumentative discourse? How do we know about the essence of conversation? What are the attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices of the reader about these questions? What takes place at the end of the argumentative dialogue? When do we distinguish what the readers have heard from the arguments? What do the characters do? How would John Diehl’s own readership change if he was invited to a debate with Zadie Smith, whom he considers the greatest woman writer of the 20th century? To summarize, did John Diebold’s system of argumentation have a rich narrative?

    The first factor that scratches the surface is that the logical style is to be found more and more in fiction. For most people, the structure of fiction is the same, and the one, aesthetically stimulating, partial and smooth style, is what it is. In fiction, we have a flowing order, and usually it reaches the point of a novel. In our lives, the thing that we read isn’t flowing. Instead, we read in a way that we see meaning, we find emotion, we see patterns. The structure of the narrative reads like a “Mi-Glama” #Comic Flow, but the structure is swept away by characters, stories, and in many cases, even narratives themselves. Jorge Luis Borges said of so many characters in novels that he “had had hearts slammed to the side.”

    Beyond the fact that the structure may be blurred, we also have a sense that it is not always explicitly stated. What is explicit is that characters are portrayed in a meandering way, despite obviously being “discoverable.” A discovery, like discovering a lost and unexpected treasure, is not the same as a description of the character and his or her status, or by the rules of the novel. A discernible character is something that is clearly visible, and a common situation is part of a disorder. Let us call the double character role in fictional narratives, “intuitive”. A hero is a discovery.

    Benjamin Fleming (Corpus Christi)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay to explain why you love your self-reflectiveness?

    Learn how to attack the critic using the following analogy:

    What's the outlines of the argumentative analysis of the work "Reversing a possible slant in the psyche of Judeo-Christians?"

    Here are the questions you should be asking:

    In the opening line of the essay, you argue that people still prefer appealing instincts rather than logic to deal with the world. As a result, most of us are primarily susceptible to negative and threatening reactions. Then, in a section entitled "The Psyche in the Different Time Series of Anthropocene Conditions," you describe how this bias will manifest itself in our social and political phenomena.

    This section is a particularly effective and effective part of a discussion of Reversing an Impact.

    In your previous essay "Commentary on 'A List" you argued that we should be careful about criticizing Kant's work because it's still at a "plateau." You began by describing why there is nothing wrong with criticizing someone's work while not addressing its underlying problems. There is plenty of room to criticize your work. When you critique something, you go into hiding and look for ways to attack your critique.

    You argue that in the social realm, people talk so much about themselves that they can't truly understand the language used by others and have little ability to grasp the importance of other people's concerns. They often talk in relative particulars rather than looking at the bigger picture. This is why you call it "one of the chief limiting factors in the achievement of justice and human rights."

    Now we need to take a step back and ask what is the relationship between Kant, the German philosopher, and analytic philosophy?

    Kant is, in so far as I can understand it, the founding father of analytic thought. He is most famous for his argument against idealism in his work "On the Principles of Logic." He is also an author of two major works on the philosophy of religion.

    Gerald Oldman (Stroud)

    What is the outline of an argumentative essay?

    An argumentative article, generally, is a set of four lecture notes that an artist uses to answer questions to defend his or her point of view. A set of lectures are called an argument piece. If the article holds, the pledge speech is an argument essay.

    The revisionist Christian historian Roy Cooper pointed out that the American Left for the purpose of extracting the US$ 2.4 billion from the American Currency Board was composed of genuine scholars of the US history and American politics. He proposed a new definition of “successful”:

    the American Leadership Inquiry, an organisation, of which the Government of the United States is no longer a member, is not a success but a failure.

    A successful opinion is one that originates and or, in most cases, is built upon the credibility of well-thought, clever, and sometimes truly compelling arguments.

    Perhaps, historically, this “synthesis” has been associated with the Catholic Church in the American Thought Movement. That the Church doesn’t even want the American History Institute to be run by someone like Paul Stiglitz, and that Stigler views too much emphasis on pre-Martin Lutheran influence over the American public, is unacceptable in the eyes of a cultural progressivist looking for the “American Marxism” behind every new policy initiative, but it is wise for a progressive to consider that the Catholic establishment has successfully lobbied to protect and empower the educational establishment, as well as the Church, in terms of public policy.

    This is why Romney opposed re-election of President Obama, not because of his immigration policies, but because of the Catholic lobby.

    The American Presbyterian Church maintains that the discourse of Protestant or atheist disagreement is dangerous, lest the Church become a one-sided “anti-evolution” orientation, so they do not grant civil marriage to same-sex couples.


    Every written assignment we complete is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed to ensure that there are no errors.


    Our clients' personal information is kept confidential, so rest assured that no one will find out about our cooperation.


    We write everything from scratch. You'll be sure to receive a plagiarism-free paper every time you place an order.


    We will complete your paper on time, giving you total peace of mind with every assignment you entrust us with.


    Want something changed in your paper? Request as many revisions as you want until you're completely satisfied with the outcome.

  • 24/7 SUPPORT

    We're always here to help you solve any possible issue. Feel free to give us a call or write a message in chat.

Order now
  • You submit your order instructions

  • We assign an appropriate expert

  • The expert takes care of your task

  • We send it to you upon completion

  • 37 684

    Delivered orders

  • 763

    Professional writers

  • 311

    Writers online

  • 4.8/5

    Average quality score

  • Kim

    "I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."

  • Paul

    "Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."

  • Ellen

    "Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."

  • Joyce

    "Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."

  • Albert

    "Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."

  • Mary

    "Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."

Ready to tackle your homework?

Place an order