STUCTURING THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR COMMENTARY

Directions:  First, decide what type of overall claim you should have (Fact, Definition, Cause, Value, or Policy). Write your claim in one sentence.  Be sure that it is properly qualified (Remember there is no such thing as absolute truth in academic argument). 

Next, imagine placing the word “because” at the end of your claim.  How many reasons “because” can you come up with?  Try to come up with four (you can do more if you wish).   These will become your subclaims below. 

After you have listed your subclaims, consider how they might be most effective.  As claims of fact, definition, value, cause, or policy?  Should you reword this subclaim to better reflect that type of claim?

After you have your subclaims, search through your research material for grounds/evidence to support your subclaims.  For each piece of evidence, remember that you will want to address logos (does the evidence logically support your claim?), ethos (does the evidence create credibility for you?), and pathos (would the evidence appeal to a reader’s emotion?).  Use the appeals that you think are most effective for your argument.

After you have completed these steps, next address the warrants for each of your subclaims.  Locate additional evidence to use as backing for each one. 

NOTE:  Warrants are not actually written in your paper, but as the writer you must be aware of what these assumptions are to aide you in choosing the most effective backing to include in your paper.

Lastly, look over your worksheet.  What would be the most effective manner in which to organize your evidence and backing (and the rebuttal for the main claim).  Where should you place your strongest piece of evidence?  Why?

                                                                   WORKSHEET

WRITE YOUR CLAIM  HERE (Don’t forget to properly qualify or limit the force of your claim.  i.e., “very likely,” “probably”, “maybe,” etc.):

What type of claim is this (Fact, Definition, Cause, Value, or Policy?)

CONDITIONS OF REBUTTAL:  What are the conditions under which your claim does not hold true?  Acknowledge its limits. Acknowledge what has been left out of your discussion and what you chose not to discuss.  This is crucial for building ethos.  You might say, “One must realize that this discussion is limited to …” 

Where would be the most effective area in the body of your draft to place this rebuttal?

SUBCLAIM 1 (REASON):

GROUNDS/EVIDENCE:

WHAT ARE THE WARRANTS ASSOICATED WITH THIS CLAIM?

BACKING (FURTHER EVIDENCE)

SUBCLAIM 2 (REASON):

GROUNDS/EVIDENCE:

WHAT ARE THE WARRANTS ASSOICATED WITH THIS CLAIM?

BACKING (FURTHER EVIDENCE)

SUBCLAIM 3 (REASON):

GROUNDS/EVIDENCE:

WHAT ARE THE WARRANTS ASSOICATED WITH THIS CLAIM?

BACKING (FURTHER EVIDENCE)

SUBCLAIM 4 (REASON):

GROUNDS/EVIDENCE:

WHAT ARE THE WARRANTS ASSOICATED WITH THIS CLAIM?

BACKING (FURTHER EVIDENCE)