Making an Argument Stick — Essay Writing 7 (C1)

ESSAY WRITING · LESSON 7

Making an Argument Stick

C1–C2 · IELTS Writing Task 2 · 90 minutes

The myth: the 78% study

Task Alone: score the statement on the 1–5 scale and write your number down. In pairs: compare numbers. Then each of you finish this sentence: "A number in an essay makes me believe the writer when…"

1

strongly agree

2

mostly agree

3

on the fence

4

mostly disagree

5

strongly disagree

"If you have no real figures, invent one. 'A recent study shows that 78%…' makes an essay sound convincing."

Two paragraphs, one claim

Task In pairs, read both paragraphs. Imagine a sceptical reader who drives to work. Which paragraph is more likely to change their mind? Then find two sentences in Paragraph 1 that the reader would have to take on trust, and say what Paragraph 2 does instead.

PARAGRAPH 1 · 76 words

PARAGRAPH 2 · 95 words

Charging drivers to enter city centres is an effective way to cut pollution. A recent study shows that 78% of urban air pollution comes from private cars, so reducing traffic would almost solve the problem. For example, many people drive to work every day, and if they had to pay, they would choose another way to travel. Research also proves that cities with a charge are much cleaner. Governments should therefore introduce this policy without delay.

Charging drivers to enter city centres is an effective way to cut pollution, because it puts a price on a cost that drivers normally pass on to everyone else. A commuter who drives twelve kilometres alone each morning pays for fuel and parking, but not for the exhaust that people on the pavement breathe. Once a daily charge appears, the bus or train that seemed slightly inconvenient begins to look cheap. If even a modest share of such drivers switch, the streets they leave behind become quieter and cleaner, and the buses on them faster.

What counts as support

With no sources in the room, support comes from four places:

TR

CC

LR

GRA

“Did it answer the question?”

Reasoning

A specific, plausible example

Explain why the claim is true: the cause, the mechanism, the trade-off. "Because it puts a price on a cost that drivers pass on to everyone else."

One concrete case the reader can picture and check against their own experience: a commuter, a family, a town. Not "for example, many people…", which is a second claim, not an example.

A consequence

An analogy

Show what follows if the claim is acted on, or ignored: "The streets they leave behind become quieter and cleaner."

A comparison with a familiar case: a charge on driving works like a charge for plastic bags: a small price at the moment of choice changes a habit. An analogy illustrates; it doesn't prove. It works only if the two cases share what matters.

What counts as support (2)

Claim, grounds, warrant

The philosopher Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument, 1958) showed that an argument has a claim (what you want the reader to accept), grounds (what you offer in support) and a warrant (the assumption that links them). Readers stop believing when the warrant is missing or false.

Introduction

Body 1

Body 2

Conclusion

40–50

100–110

100–110

30–40

0

100

250 minimum

200

~320 ceiling

~300 target

Evidence audit

Task In pairs, read the paragraph. For each lettered move, A–F, write a letter and a code, e.g. "A = R". A code may be used more than once. Then agree which one move does the most damage to the paragraph, and why.

R

reasoning

E

example

C

consequence

I

invented claim

O

overgeneralisation

AUDIT PARAGRAPH · 106 words

Governments should replace short domestic flights with rail wherever a train can make the trip in a few hours. (A) A train moves hundreds of people on electricity that can come from clean sources, while a plane burns fuel fastest during take-off and climb, which is much of a short flight. (B) Experts agree that 90% of travellers would happily switch. (C) A consultant flying between neighbouring capitals spends as long in queues as in the air; a train runs from centre to centre and lets her work. (D) Everyone prefers trains anyway. (E) As demand grows, operators can add services, so the alternative keeps improving. (F) Rail is always cheaper, too.

A

B

C

D

E

F

What the audit found

R: reasoning.

It explains why rail produces less pollution per passenger.

O: overgeneralisation.

"Everyone" is false, and it adds nothing to A–C.

A

D

I: invented claim.

"Experts" and "90%" can't be checked and aren't explained.

C: consequence.

What follows if the policy works.

B

E

E: example.

One specific traveller the reader can picture.

O: overgeneralisation.

"Always" invites an easy counter-example.

C

F

Objections make you stronger

A careful reader is already thinking of an objection. If you name it first and answer it, you show that your position has survived it.

The objection: the strongest case against your point, put fairly, as its supporters would put it.

CONCESSION AND REBUTTAL · 85 words

1

Cities should turn some on-street parking into trees and cycle lanes. Shop owners have the strongest objection: some of their customers arrive by car, and a sudden loss of parking could cost them trade. That risk is real. However, it is an argument for doing the change carefully, not for avoiding it. Keeping delivery bays and a few short-stay spaces protects the shops that most depend on drivers, while a street that is pleasant to walk along gives everyone else a reason to stay longer.

2

The concession: admit what is true in it. Be brief and honest.

The rebuttal: show why your position still holds. Three common ways: the objection is smaller than it looks; it can be managed; or the benefit outweighs it.

3

Counter-argument relay

Task Work in pairs, A and B. Choose one statement from the list, or write your own on an environmental topic. Write in your own document and paste each step into the chat.

Round 1 (5 min)

1. Wealthy countries should pay most of the cost of protecting poorer countries from climate change.

2. Supermarkets should be required to sell fruit and vegetables without plastic packaging.

3. Governments should tax frequent flyers more heavily than people who fly once a year.

4. Schools should spend more time outdoors and less time in classrooms.

5. Building new nuclear power stations is the best way for a country to cut its emissions.

A

writes a claim in one sentence

about 20 words, 1 minute

B

writes the strongest objection

about 25 words, 1.5 minutes

A

writes a concession plus a rebuttal

about 40 words, 2.5 minutes

Round 2 (5 min): Swap roles, with a new statement.

Compare (2 min): For each rebuttal, did it answer the objection that was actually made, or a weaker one?

Spot the weak link

Task Alone: for each sentence, write the word or phrase that overclaims, then rewrite the sentence so it is accurate but still makes a point. In pairs: compare rewrites and choose the one rewrite that keeps the most force.

Everyone recycles now, so plastic waste is no longer a serious problem.

Since the factory opened, the river has had fewer fish, which proves that the factory is killing them.

A

D

B

Electric cars produce no pollution at all.

Young people care far more about the environment than older people do.

E

C

Planting trees will always solve a city's flooding problems.

F

If meat were taxed, people would immediately stop eating it.

Back to the 78% study

Task Score the statement again on the 1–5 scale. Has your number moved? Why?

1

strongly agree

2

mostly agree

3

on the fence

4

mostly disagree

5

strongly disagree

"If you have no real figures, invent one. 'A recent study shows that 78%…' makes an essay sound convincing."

Back to the 78% study (2)

What the myth gets right: specific support persuades, and vague support doesn't.

Why the invented figure fails:

1

2

3

The reader can't check it. Everyone in the room knows you had no sources, so the figure carries no weight.

It's filler. It sits where the explanation should be. The reader still doesn't know why the claim is true.

It's dishonest reasoning. An argument that rests on a made-up fact isn't an argument.

Instead: explain the reasoning, give one specific and plausible example, show a consequence, or use an analogy. If you really do know a well-established fact, state it plainly, without false precision.

Write: body paragraph 2

Task Write body paragraph 2 of your portfolio essay, 100–110 words, in your own document. 15 minutes.

100–110

3 min

Plan: your second main idea from your Lesson 4 plan, and the strongest objection to it.

WORDS

10 min

Write: a topic sentence, support (reasoning, a specific example, a consequence), and a concession plus rebuttal.

15

Check: count your words. Mark each support move R, E or C. Any I or O? Fix it.

MINUTES

2 min

When you've finished: underline any "always", "never", "everyone" or "all" and ask whether it's true.

Peer check

Task In pairs, paste your paragraph into the chat and read your partner's. Answer the four questions in writing, then tell your partner one strength and one change.

1. Code each support move R, E, C, I or O. Are there any I or O moves?

2. Is the objection the strongest one you can think of?

3. Does the rebuttal answer that objection, or a weaker one?

4. Is the writer's position still clear at the end of the paragraph?

Homework

Task Revise your portfolio body paragraph 2 using your partner's comments. Keep it to 100–110 words, with a concession and rebuttal that answer the strongest objection. Then audit body paragraph 1 (from Lesson 6): code each support move R, E, C, I or O, and replace any I or O with reasoning, a specific example or a consequence. Bring both paragraphs to Lesson 8. About 30 minutes.

Before Lesson 8

An argument sticks when the reader can follow why it is true, and sees that you have already met their best objection.

TR

Task Response

CC

Coherence and Cohesion

Support without sources is reasoning, specific examples, consequences and analogy. Invented figures and words like "everyone" and "always" make readers doubt the good support around them.

LR

Lexical Resource

Next lesson: Coherence and Cohesion. How a reader moves from one sentence to the next, and why more linking words don't make an essay easier to follow.

GRA

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

TEACHER'S REFERENCE · SKIP OR DELETE BEFORE CLASS

Answer key (1)

TWO PARAGRAPHS, ONE CLAIM

• Paragraph 2 is more likely to persuade the sceptical driver: it explains why a charge changes behaviour (the driver pays for fuel and parking but not for the exhaust), gives one specific commuter, and shows a consequence (quieter, cleaner streets and faster buses).

• Sentences in Paragraph 1 the reader must take on trust: "A recent study shows that 78%…" (invented and uncheckable; it also leads to the overclaim "almost solve the problem"); "Research also proves…" (no reason, and "proves" is too strong). "For example, many people drive to work every day" is not really an example: it is a second general claim, and the step "if they had to pay, they would choose another way" is asserted, not explained.

EVIDENCE AUDIT also on "What the audit found"

• A = R · B = I · C = E · D = O · E = C · F = O.

• Most damaging move: B is the usual answer (an uncheckable figure presented as fact). D is a strong second: "everyone" is plainly false and makes the reader doubt the good moves. Accept either if the pair's reason is that it damages trust in the rest of the paragraph.

TEACHER'S REFERENCE · SKIP OR DELETE BEFORE CLASS

Answer key (2)

SPOT THE WEAK LINK sample rewrites; accept any that are accurate and still make a point

• A. Overclaim: "Everyone recycles now" (and the leap to "no longer a serious problem"). Rewrite: "Recycling has become more common in many countries, but much plastic waste is still burned, buried or lost, so the problem remains serious."

• B. Overclaim: "no pollution at all". Rewrite: "Electric cars produce no exhaust in the street, although making their batteries and generating their electricity can still cause pollution."

• C. Overclaim: "will always solve". Rewrite: "Planting trees can reduce flooding in a city by slowing the water that runs off streets, but it is unlikely to be enough on its own."

• D. Overclaim: "which proves" (an unsupported causal leap: two things happening together does not show that one caused the other). Rewrite: "Since the factory opened, the river has had fewer fish, which suggests the factory should be investigated as a possible cause."

• E. Overclaim: a sweeping statement about two whole age groups. Rewrite: "Many young people campaign visibly on environmental issues, but concern for the environment is found across all age groups."

• F. Overclaim: "immediately stop". Rewrite: "If meat were taxed, some people would probably eat less of it, especially if cheaper alternatives were easy to find."