argumentative essay tree map

• What is Critical Thinking?
• How to develop critical thinking skills?
• Contents Critical Thinking with Rationale
• Resources: Free downloads, Open courses..
• Examples Critical Thinking with Rationale (CTwR)
• For International Schools / IB
• Testimonials
• Research on Critical Thinking
• Articles on Critical Thinking & Argument Mapping
• Research on essay writing with Rationale
• Articles on Critical Thinking with Rationale
• Training & workshops
• What is Rationale?

Argument Mapping

• 6 Critical Thinking Steps
• Background Information on Rationale
• Comparison Rationale vs bCisive
• Rationale Online versus Rationale Windows
• Try & Purchase Rationale
• Rationale Blog
• Rationale on Twitter
• What is bCisive?
• bCisive: Product overview
• Building a map
• bCisive User Guides
• bCisive Interface
• Anatomy of a map
• Tips and tricks for using bCisive
• bCisive Quick Start videos
• Product comparison: bCisive vs Rationale
• Try & Purchase bCisive
• bCisive Online versus bCisive Windows
• bCisive Blog

What is argument mapping?

Argument maps are box-and-line diagrams that lay out visually reasoning and evidence for and against a statement or claim. A good map clarifies and organizes thinking by showing the logical relationships between thoughts that are expressed simply and precisely.

Argument maps are driven by asking, ‘ Should I believe that? Why, or why not? ’.

You can produce two kinds of argument maps in Rationale :

• Reasoning maps, which lay out arguments in a quick, intuitive way
• Advanced Reasoning ( or Analytic) maps, which enable a more careful and rigorous analysis of an argument.

How does Argument Mapping differ from other kinds of mapping?

Different kinds of map are defined by the nature of the relationships they depict – what the boxes and lines mean. What kind of map something is depends on:

• what goes in the boxes; and
• what the connecting lines indicate.

Argument Maps show only evidential (inferential) relationships between claims . In Argument Maps, the lines mean something very specific: that something is a reason to believe or a reason not to believe something else. Argument maps are driven by the question, ‘ Why should I believe that? ’. Any map driven by that question is an Argument Map.

Why would I map?

Argument maps

• help you organise and navigate around complex information
• clarify reasoning
• communicate reasoning quickly and effectively
• support critical thinking

• Public Maps

Not logged in. Sign in or Create an account .

Better thinking, clearer writing

Learn to think critically and write well with rationale.

• Structure arguments
• Analyse reasoning
• Identify assumptions
• Evaluate evidence

Subscription / Code

 education.

• Create an account first
• Register your license code
• Upgrade your account
• View plans & pricing
• View plans & pricing Education
• Rationale Help/FAQ
• Rationale Guide
• Rationale Tutorials
• Rationale WIKI

Editor's Pick

Learn more...

• Rationale & critical thinking
• Teaching Critical Thinking with Rationale
• Developing critical thinking skills: resear...
• Training & workshops
• Portal Critical Thinking on the Web

How-to videos

 how-to video’s.

• My first map
• Essay planning

• Lavinia Group
• Insight Education Group
• Course & Account Access
• Video Platform Account Access
• Graduate-Level Courses
• Fast Track Courses
• Course Bundles
• Certificates
• Flex Credit Courses
• Hours-Only PD Courses
• Advanced Degrees
• Course Topics
• Course Formats
• Term Calendar
• University Partners & Transcripts
• Course Pricing
• Pay as You Learn
• Group Registrations
• Group Savings
• Bundle Savings
• New Customer Discounts
• Refer & Earn
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• New York City
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• How it Works
• Become a Group Leader
• Use a Group Code
• Teacher Exemplar Video Library
• K12 Coaching & Learning Platform
• School & District PD
• New Teacher Course
• Substitute Teacher Course
• Build Your PD Program
• K12 Coaching & Learning
• Higher Education Programs
• Case Studies
• Book a Demo
• Chat With Us
• In the Press
• Downloadables
• Lesson Plans
• Presentations
• Video Blogs

January 9, 2020

Argument Mapping: A Visual Way to Prove Your Point

We’re in an age when people form opinions as quickly as they can read a headline. For this reason and others, it’s more essential than ever that educators teach students not what to think, but how to think. Critical, mindful thinking is a skill that ushers students through college and sticks with them through all their pursuits in life.

Argument mapping is a great way to challenge students to show their thinking and arrive at conclusions in a logical, reasoned manner. In this article, we’ll look at what argument mapping is, the benefits and drawbacks of it, and how to use it in the classroom.

Argument Mapping Defined

Especially when dealing with complex or controversial issues, it can be difficult to think clearly and logically. Argument mapping gives students a visual way to break down and clarify their thoughts to see if they’re coming to the best conclusion. According to ReasoningLab.com :

Argument maps are box-and-line diagrams that lay out visually reasoning and evidence for and against a statement or claim. A good map clarifies and organizes thinking by showing the logical relationships between thoughts that are expressed simply and precisely. Argument maps are driven by asking, “Should I believe that? Why or why not?”

Similar to mind mapping, students begin an argument map with a central idea, or contention, and then draw branches off that contention to show why their argument is valid. Here are the different parts of an argument map in more detail:

• Contention : The central argument, idea, or position the student is examining. Also sometimes called the conclusion , argument , or claim .
• Reasons : The foundational ideas supporting the contention. Also sometimes called the premises .
• Objections : Reasons one might object or argue against the contention.
• Counterarguments : Arguments against the objections.
• Evidence : The statistics, studies, or other resources backing up reasons, objections, or counterarguments.
• Conclusion : A brief summary of the major findings in the argument map.

Benefits of Argument Mapping

Argument mapping has many benefits , including the following:

• Gives a full-picture account of all sides of an argument : Like most people, students can easily become fixated on the side of an argument they agree with. Argument mapping forces them to engage with opposing viewpoints.
• Provides clearer thinking and sharpens reasoning skills : When you’re making a complex argument, it can be difficult to keep your points clear and distinct. Argument mapping helps students define their reasoning and organize their thoughts so they can communicate their points more easily.
• Helps teachers introduce new concepts : Some topics lend themselves to teaching them from many different angles. Assigning students to construct an argument map on the topic can be a great way to introduce it (see the Argument Mapping in Action section for ideas).
• Locates flaws in logic : If students are missing evidence for their reasoning or fail to address objections, an argument map will quickly point out these issues so they can work to address them.
• Promotes rational solutions in heated debates : Some contentions can spark deep emotions in people. Argument mapping provides a dispassionate way to examine these contentions and try to arrive at the most logical conclusion.

Drawbacks of Argument Mapping

As beneficial as argument mapping can be, it might not work for every student or every assignment. Here are some instances when you might not want to use argument mapping:

• Auditory and kinesthetic learners : Argument mapping is a visual medium, so it may not “click” as well for auditory and kinesthetic learners. That’s why it’s important not to depend solely on the visual diagram when teaching how to form arguments. Instead, make sure to let your auditory learners talk about their arguments aloud, or let your kinesthetic learners move around or use objects to represent the different parts of their argument.
• Group work : Argument mapping is not always effective for group work. Students may be able to construct a map together (i.e., come up with reasons and evidence together), but teachers should keep an eye on groups to make sure they don’t become ideological echo chambers or hostile to other groups’ positions.
• Hot-button issues : Argument mapping is designed to help people look past emotions and make rational claims. However, some issues are so loaded and controversial that students might become contentious discussing them regardless of the method you use.

Argument Mapping in Action

Here are some examples of how you might use argument mapping in the classroom:

Teaching the Parts of an Argument

When students hear the word argument , they likely think of emotional disagreements, not reasoned debates. Argument mapping can be a great way to illustrate to students the importance of having multiple reasons and pieces of evidence behind any argument they make. Simply drawing a map and defining each part can help you teach students the different components of an argument and give them a blueprint for how to think through issues in writing and conversation.

Starting and Revising an Essay

Writing a persuasive or argumentative essay is an essential skill for students’ future education and work. Some students struggle to grasp concepts such as using evidence to support claims or refuting objections to their argument. An argument map is a perfect way to outline an essay or identify gaps in a weak essay.

Teaching Historical Debates

It’s sometimes difficult for students to remember or understand controversial issues in history because they aren’t comparable to the types of issues we face today. Argument mapping can be a great way to help students understand both sides of historical debates (and thus better understand the historical period more generally). For example, you could assign students to draw an argument map for the debates between:

• Tories vs. Patriots
• Hamilton vs. Jefferson
• Lincoln vs. Douglas

Preparing the Next Generation of Readers and Thinkers

Today’s middle and high school students have grown up surrounded by astonishing levels of communication and technological advancements, and they’ve also experienced some of the biggest cultural shifts in recent history. They have news and opinions coming at them as quickly as they can think, so giving them the skills to read effectively, break down arguments, and think clearly and logically will pay dividends for years to come.

Related Topics in Instructional Planning & Strategies

Related content.

Julie Kuntz

4 Syllabus Templates to Start the School Year in Style!

Dr. Wendy Amato

3 Ways to Utilize Video with Your Teachers-in-Training

Search the k12 hub, more from teaching channel.

How does summer fly by so quickly? One minute you are in ultimate relaxation mode, and the next minute you are scrambling to find your

First, please accept my sincere thanks for the work you are doing to prepare new teachers. Second, you can rest assured that you are not

Incorporating Informal Science Learning into Your Classroom

Science education should not be confined within the walls of a classroom or the pages of a textbook. It should be present in both formal

Recommended Courses

Learning to learn: student skills for school and for life, instructional strategies.

Flex Credit

Engaging Learners Through Productive Struggle

Using universal design for learning (udl) to create inclusive and equitable classrooms.

Want to partner with us?

We’re always looking for new authors! If you’re interested in writing an article, please get in touch with us.

Subscribe to our Newsletter!

Get notified of new content added to K12 Hub.

• I am a Teacher or Teacher leader
• I am a District or School Administrator or Leader

• The Key is Being Metacognitive
• The Big Picture
• Learning Outcomes
• Test your Existing Knowledge
• Definitions of Critical Thinking
• Learning How to Think Critically
• Self Reflection Activity
• End of Module Survey
• Test Your Existing Knowledge
• Interpreting Information Methodically
• Using the SEE-I Method
• Interpreting Information Critically
• Argument Analysis
• Learning Activities
• Argument Mapping
• Summary of Anlyzing Arguments
• Fallacious Reasoning
• Statistical Misrepresentation
• Biased Reasoning
• Common Cognitive Biases
• Poor Research Methods - The Wakefield Study
• Summary of How Reasoning Fails
• Misinformation and Disinformation
• Media and Digital Literacy
• Information Trustworthiness
• Summary of How Misinformation is Spread

Critical Thinking Tutorial: Argument Mapping

The purpose of argument mapping.

Before we conclude, let's take a look at argument mapping , notably one of the most useful tools to help you become a better critical thinker. Remember that arguments are not always neatly packaged in ways that are easy to understand. Simple arguments contain one or two premises, but complex arguments contain multiple premises that can function independently or co-dependently . Analyzing an argument from the raw text alone can be challenging, but creating an argument map can help you locate the evidence in support of the claim and see the connections between them.

By definition, an argument map is a visual representation of a complex or multi-layer argument that makes it easier to see the connections between the premises and the conclusion they support. By using an argument map, you should be able to determine whether the connections are logical, and if the argument is valid, sound, strong or weak.

Source: Studies in Critical Thinking by Martin Davies; Ashley Barnett; and Tim van Gelder , licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Argument Mapping in Action

It takes a great deal of practice to accurately reconstruct multi-layer arguments from a passage of raw text. Thankfully, it's much easier to think critically about a text if you're aware of how to analyze an argument using its component parts. This short video from thinkeranalytix.org uses a free online mapping tool called Mindmup to demonstrate how argument mapping works.

Source: Map an Argument with MindMup by ThinkerAnalytix on YouTube

Dig a Little Deeper

Argument mapping can be quite involved and depends on a good working knowledge of the components of an argumen and the interplay between those components. For more information and step-by-step instructions, see Chapter 10 of Studies in Critical Thinking , an open textbook provided by eCampusOntario. Scroll down to the bottom of the chapter, or use 'cntrl F' to find : 'A procedural approach to argument m apping' and follow steps 1 - 8.

• << Previous: Learning Activities
• Next: Summary of Anlyzing Arguments >>
• Library A to Z
• Follow on Facebook
• Follow on Twitter
• Follow on YouTube
• Follow on Instagram

The University of Saskatchewan's main campus is situated on  Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.

© University of Saskatchewan Disclaimer | Privacy

• Last Updated: Dec 14, 2023 3:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usask.ca/CriticalThinkingTutorial

• X (Twitter)

How and When to Use an Argument Map?

We can use mind-mapping tools in support of teaching critical thinking. Yet often, they are used as an example of a common issue. The skill of using critical thinking skills is gained, but it doesn’t always transfer over to the real world. That’s where an argument map comes in and helps tackle complex arguments affecting us today.

Argument maps can provide visualization for argumentation theory and help with argument mapping. It is how conclusions can be supported or countered by premises while using reasoning skills.

What is an argumentation map or argument mapping?

An argumentation map is taking these complicated arguments and building out argument visualization. Organizing information visually always helps you have a better perspective.

Argumentation theory can first be seen by Richard Whately back in the 19th century. Essentially it takes the contention of the argument at the top. From there, argument diagrams look like tree diagrams (or decision trees ) and concept maps (read more about what is concept mapping ).

You’ll include activities common in arguments beyond the main argument. This includes reasoning, logic, debates, claims, and ideas.

From here, we can see a clear structure and path of thinking for any argument. Debates can arise from an argument tree, and both sides can argue their points clearly. While they can have objections to them, argument trees are also meant to come to a conclusion. The conclusion isn’t just a single premise and is only an example of a possible outcome. 

How do you use an argument map?

The best way to start using an argument map is with a complex argument. Complicated arguments set the stage for critical thinking skills and argument analysis. Then you take those complicated arguments and place them in an argument diagram. This is typically a logical structure that can have a mix of intermediate conclusions and a final conclusion.

They can help us navigate complex information via argument diagrams that clearly present important arguments. This argument mapping has also been known to provide better conclusions than standard critical thinking courses. Professor Yanna Rider is one of many that have started to showcase the prowess of modern argument mapping.

She and fellow colleagues use a term known as LAMP, or Lots of Argument Mapping, as the future of critical thinking. That’s because when we use argument mapping, it pushes our critical thinking to the limits as we absorb both sides.

Critical thinking, in general, has us focused on a sole aspect and a few relationships. Argument mapping has us take a holistic approach to the entire argument, intermediate conclusions, and the final main conclusion.

While this is a great way to teach critical thinking and helping how students learn, let’s look at an example. This example is quite simple, where a government body wants to raise taxes. Raising taxes is at the top of the argument diagram.

As you go down the next leg of the argument diagram, you will have two core sides. One side considers raising taxes as a good reason with several assumptions and some informal reasoning. These can be everything from more income for the municipality and, thus, better services. The other side has an objection and presents arguments and debates to not raise taxes.

How argument mapping helps with critical thinking skills

The reasoning behind always discussing critical thinking is because of just how important it is . Critical thinking helps to not only analyze complex arguments but also evaluate the possible solutions from argument analysis.

Taking complex thoughts and organizing them with structure and concept mapping makes them easier to process. This can lead to multiple conclusions, but the human intellect can go further.

That’s why you want to support critical thinking with mind mapping via an argument map. Argument mapping lays out the whole set of logical relationships and informal reasoning that can go into a decision. Argument mapping will help expand upon critical thinking, showcasing different scenarios and outcomes.

Critical thinking benefits from this argument visualization using the visual diagram format instead of having to typically take a linear path of thinking. Otherwise, all the information that’s combined for complex arguments starts to look chaotic and incoherent. There’s no clear path without an argument map of where to head next, which can lead to going in circles.

Applying argument map techniques to a complex argument

Now that we’ve been able to enhance our critical thinking via argument mapping, it makes it clear to tackle issues. Going back to the relatively simple tax example above, when we do a deeper dive into it, we notice how much more complex it can be. While it may seem there are only two sides to the argument, there are numerous direct and indirect intricate relationships.

There are multiple premises to consider as well as supporting reasons with this example. Where should the extra funding go? How will constituents feel about increased taxes for the next election? Can the citizens afford the additional burden, or will it force the municipality to launch programs to support the burden? Is the tax flat or going to be progressive? It’s not just one single premise to consider here, but mapping out everything that can be possible.

Argument mapping helps to bring order and logic and build an environment for debates and objections. Everything can be broken down into smaller issues to argue and write down mini conclusions as they come up.  Pretty soon, you will always consider using an argument map or argument mapping techniques with complex arguments.

Having the right tools for argument mapping

You may have been developing methods of critical thinking. You might also be part of the new generation working with argument mapping. Your classroom setting and teaching were done with critical thinking at an advanced level.

Now it’s about having the right type of diagramming tool or diagram software to work with. It’s critical to have a graphic organizer when you’re working with argument mapping, and that’s where Mindomo comes in. You don’t want to build out argument maps by hand. An argument map should use a digital tool for easy editing. Otherwise, your argument mapping will be less organized.

Mindomo helps to be a mind map diagram tool that can be easily converted into an online argument mapping tool. You can easily take the skills you’ve learned and use this argument mapping tool for the next set of complicated arguments you may have.

Its argument mapping software will provide you with all the features needed for rich argument maps. at the same time, you will have a visual representation of your argument. Welcome to the next generation of how to handle an argument.

Keep it smart, simple, and creative! The Mindomo Team

Related Posts

The Power of an AI Mind Map & How It Can Change Your Project Planning, Task Management & More

Top 5 Fishbone Diagram Templates You Need To Know About!

Unlocking the Benefits of Mind Maps in Health: Examples and Insights

Unleashing Creativity and Organization with the Mind Map Method

Science Mind Maps: Harnessing the Power of Mind Maps for Science Research

The Power of an Idea Map: Your Guide to Creative Thinking & Organizing Ideas

Write a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Argument Visualization

How to use MindMup for critical thinking with visual trees

Create on MindMup Cloud Create on Google Drive

Argument maps visualize the logic of arguments. They help organize and navigate complex information; they encourage clearly articulated reasoning; and they promote quick and effective communication. Having laid bare their moving parts, you will be better equipped to discuss and evaluate complex arguments.

For more resources for students and teachers interested in argument visualization, check out philmaps.com . Students at Princeton, Harvard, CMU, and Berkeley have been reporting finding the resources very helpful.

Critical Thinking with Argument Maps

By Dave Kinkead, University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project

Argument mapping checklist

How did you go in the last activity? Did your map look anything like this?

With these assumptions identified, it becomes clearer where the debate on this issue might really lie. In my example argument, much will depend on the notion of personhood and killing that was initially left unstated.

This is where argument mapping can be very useful. It provides us with a visual scaffold for our thinking and makes analysing and evaluating arguments much easier.

As you might expect from a very short introduction, we’ve skipped over a great deal of content and nuance. Argument mapping and thinking critically are skills that require practice to develop but what we’ve covered in the last 8 lessons is enough to get started.

So to summarise how we can use argument mapping to help us think critically, use the following checklist as a launch pad:

What is the conclusion? State it propositionally (in a way that it can be true or false)

List the reasons that do/could support it being true.

Connect those reasons appropriately (are they independent or co-dependent)?

Is there evidence for those reasons (or do they need their own supporting reasons)?

Are there any unstated reasons needed to make the inferences stronger?

If you’ve enjoyed this course or found it useful, then you might want to think about the following subjects at UQ PHIL1110 & PHIL7111 where these ideas are covered in a lot more depth.

Finally, if you have any questions, please get in touch .

Dave Kinkead UQ Critical Thinking Project

Help Menu | Tutorial Menu

So, what exactly is an argument map?

This is a quick introduction into argument maps: How to create them, how to read them and what you can expect to get out of it.

An Argunet argument map visualises the structure of complex argumentations and debates as a graphical network. In this network all nodes are either sentences or arguments and all relations between them are either attack or support relations.

The reconstruction and visualisation with argument maps can be useful in many ways:

• Argument maps can give you a fast overview over the state of a debate
• Argument maps help you to remember complex argumentation structures
• The logical reconstruction allows a detailed analysis and evaluation of arguments and dialectic strategies
• Argument maps help to keep focused on relevant parts of the debate by filtering out irrelevant or redundant information
• Argument maps help concentrate on a rational, fair debate
• Argument maps can guide and structure live discussions. Misunderstandings, repitition and unfair persuasion techniques can be avoided.
• Argument mapping can be used for presentations or whole seminars

How do I read an argument map?

Argument Maps contain two elements: Sentences and Arguments.

Sentences are visualised as small framed white boxes.

Arguments are visualised as small colored boxes

Reconstructed Arguments

If an argument has been logically reconstructed, the argument is visualised as a small framed colored box. You can open the logical reconstruction by clicking on it.

Logically an argument consists of nothing else but sentences. But these sentences play different roles in an argument. Every argument has one inferred sentence (the conclusion) and at least one sentence from which the conclusion is inferred (a premiss). This premiss-conclusion structure is visualised as a sentence list: First all premisses of the argument are listed. Each horizontal line symbolizes an inference. Under the line the conclusion is listed (sometimes there are preliminary conclusions). Under the last line stands the main conclusion of the argument.

Support relations

If an argument supports a sentence of another argument, a green arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the support relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument supports another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is equivalent to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as equivalent.

If the arrow is dashed, the support relation is only sketched and not logically reconstructed.

Attack relations

If an argument attacks a sentence of another argument, a red arrow is drawn from the former to the latter.

If the arrow is drawn-through, the attack relation has been logically reconstructed. Logically, an argument attacks another argument, if the conclusion of the supporting argument is contrary to a premiss of the supported argument (”Socrates is mortal”, “Socrates will never die”).

If you click on the arrow, you can see which sentences are defined as contrary.

Reading tips

• Start from the center of the debate. Look for the central thesis (sometimes there are more than one). Open and read all reconstructed arguments that support or attack the central thesis. Proceed by going from the center to the periphery.
• An attack does not necessarily mean, that the attacked argument is a bad argument. A support does not necessarily mean the argument is good. It all depends on your evaluation: How plausible do you find the premisses of the attacking/supporting argument? Where are the weak points of the argumentation?
• Are the reconstructed arguments really valid? Does the conclusion follow from the premisses? If the argument is valid and the premisses are true, the conclusion has to be true, too. Is there a counter-example?
• Naturally, no argument map can contain every argument. The authors have always made a selection. Are there important arguments missing?

Please read the  introduction  of the Argunet Editor Help for further information.

Do argument maps tell me, what I should believe?

No, they don’t. Argument maps are just a tool you can use for making up your mind. The better an argument map is, the more unbiased and neutral it is.

Every argument presupposes premisses. How good the arguments in the argument map are depends on how plausible their premisses are. The attack and support relations of the argument map do not determine the plausibility of the premisses, they only limit the possibilities by relating the plausibilities of different sentences to one another.

So, it is really up to you. Argument maps can show you, which questions you have to answer to make up your mind. They can not answer these questions for you.

Just download  Argunet Editor  for free. Start Argunet and click on “Create a new debate”. You can create local debates on your computer or start an online debate to collaborate with others.

 How can I create an argument map?

Follow the instructions in our  first Tutorial  (All tutorials come with your Argunet installation, so you do not have to read them online). It won’t take long and will teach you the Argunet basics.

Is there any difference to mind-mapping?

Yes, there are many differences. Argument maps may remind you of mind maps, because they look similar. But that’s about it. Mind maps have a different methodology, serve different purposes and are used by different people. Here are just some important differences:

• Mind maps are used for brainstorming, i.e. the collection of subjective associations, opinions, ideas of all sorts. Argument maps are used for the logical reconstruction and analysis of controverse debates. In most cases these debates will take place between different people with different perspective and not in your mind alone.
• In mind maps the visualisation means to you, what you want it to mean. That may be great for you, but it is not so great if you want to share the products of your mind with others. In every Argunet argument map the meaning of all elements always stays the same and is well defined by logic or argumentation theory. This precision is not only necessary if you want to assess complex arguments and argumentations. It gives you also the opportunity to share your insights with others in a common visual language.
• There are no real rules in mind-mapping. You can do what you want. Nobody can say what is right and what is wrong. In contrast, giving and taking reasons is a rule guided practice. There are rules about good and bad reasoning. Argument maps can not guarantee good reasoning. But they can restrict the users options in a way that makes it more probable. This rule-guided reconstruction makes it possible to collaborate on argument maps even if the participants have opposing views in the reconstructed debate.

3 Responses to “So, what exactly is an argument map?”

My PhD is related to domain ontologies and their construction process. As a shared conceptualization, they are discussed by stake holders. Capturing the ontology design rationale might be also approached as an argumentation process. Thus, your approach seems to converge with my investigation. Do you have the language meta-model? Or any material from which I can go further in studying the applicability of you work? Thanks.

Sorry for answering so late.

Thanks for your interest. You might want to check out http://philpapers.org/rec/BETAAV and other publications of us where we introduce the theory of dialectical structures.

Mapping an argument

A PhD must have a “thesis of the thesis”. This is sometimes called the thesis statement . This is the thing you say when people ask: “what’s your thesis about?” You reply: “ My thesis argues that … [some claim]’ .

A thesis statement is a claim that your thesis argues for .

A claim on its own is not enough of course. A thesis statement always conceals an argument . It is not enough to assert some claim without an argument—especially when writing a PhD! You are assessed not only on your thesis statement, but your argument for it.  

Your PhD thesis supplies this argument. In some theses the argument occurs at the start of the thesis, and evidence is provided for the argument in subsequent chapters.  In other theses there is a sustained argument throughout the entire thesis, i.e., every chapter illuminates some element of the argument (or provides subsidiary arguments for an overarching argument). See below. Of course, many other permutations are possible.

Examiners of PhDs look not only for 1) thesis statement; but 2) the argument for it; and 3) the evidence supporting the argument.

This page will look at how to make an argument using a useful technique called argument mapping.

What is an argument?

An argument is central to a PhD. ‘Argument’ means two things: a) a verbal fight (or worse, like this):

It also means: b) a series of statements that together allow us to infer a conclusion or contention . Of course, it’s the second of these definitions that we mean when we refer to ‘arguments’ in doctoral theses.

An argument is often defined as a connected series of statements intending to establish, or infer, some proposition or claim. There must be links between the statements offered in an argument. They can’t be disconnected or have no relationship to teach other. If there were no links between the statements of an argument it wouldn’t be a good one! These links are known as inferences.

Definitions

Here are some definitions of argument-related terms:

• A contention is a claim that you argue for and want to support (this is also called a conclusion in an argument).
• A statement in support of a contention is called a reason
• A statement   against a contention is called an objection
• A statement against an objection is called a rebuttal
• An inference is the connection between the reason and the contention, i.e., that allows us to draw a conclusion from the reasons provided. Inferences are identified by means of inference words
• An inference word (or phrase) is a linking expression that indicates an inference is being made.

Inference words and phrases are used to connect premises (reasons/objections/rebuttals) to contentions, and to connect contentions to premises.

These indicators can signal that what goes before is a premise, and that what comes after is a conclusion: 

• (premise) …because… (conclusion)
• (premise) …shows that/is shown by… (conclusion)
• (premise) …indicates that… (conclusion)
• (premise) …proves that… (conclusion)
• (premise) …entails that… (conclusion)
• (premise) …implies that… (conclusion)
• (premise) …establishes that …(conclusion)
• (premise) …allows us to infer that… (conclusion)
• (premise) …gives us reasons for (conclusion)

An indicator can also signal that a conclusion which comes before has as its premises some statements which come after :

• (conclusion) …is shown by… (premise)
• (conclusion) …is indicated by… (premise)
• (conclusion) …is proven by… (premise)
• (conclusion) …is entailed by… (premise)
• (conclusion) …is implied by… (premise)
• (conclusion) …is established by… (premise)

The following short passage shows the use of inference indicator words in context:

• Evidence from public health suggests shows that the public should be concerned about a rising rat population. First, the presence of rats shows that a rising rat population is an economic issue. They damage utility lines and wires, start fires and damage a lot of a city’s infrastructure in locations we can’t observe as indicated by damage to sewer walls or under sidewalks. Secondly, it’s a public health concern because rats roam the sewer systems and carry all kinds of germs. With a higher number of rats it can be assumed that our chance of coming into contact with those germs increases. Third, a rising rat population is an aesthetic issue. The presence of rats entails, and is a common indicator of, a degraded environment.

Working out the contention of an argument involves looking for conclusion indicator words . Sometimes, “therefore” or “hence” or “thus” is used, and the contention is very obvious. But these words are not always used. Can you spot the conclusion and the conclusion indicator words in this example?

The contention is: The public should be concerned about the rising rat population. The conclusion indicator is “shows that”.

Argument maps

Arguments can be made clearer by means of argument maps . This is a visual way of displaying conclusions, reasons, objections, rebuttals, and inferences. Being able to map your argument is helpful in thesis writing as it helps you get clear about what you are trying to say. Making an argument map forces you to make an argument as opposed to simply describing information.

In general an argument map can be explained as follows: 1) a contention is provided at the top of the map; and 2) as many reasons as required are provided in support or against a contention below it; 3) there is an inferential link between the reasons and the contention. In this example, the link is the word ‘because’.

Simple argument map s

An argument map can come in simple and complex forms.  A simple argument has one reason that is given for a contention (or conclusion). Below it is argued that It is a good time to invest in property because interest rates are very low . The contention is at the top of the map, the reason is given below it. The inference word is ‘because’.

Complex argument maps

Below is a more complex argument with more than one reason:

Note that there are separate reasons here: 1) the interest rate reason; 2) the keenness to lend reason. In argument maps you must clearly separate different reasons and allocate them to separate reason boxes.

Below is a much more complex argument for the contention that Research into genetically modified food is a good thing . Notice here that objections are given to the contention, and reasons supporting the objections are provided.

Evidence in argument maps

How does evidence come into all this?

Evidence is provided in arguments as they provide support to reasons. The reason Interest rates are very low would need to be supported with evidence, e.g., the current official cash rate provided by the Reserve Bank. The reason Banks are keen to lend money could be supported with a media report about bank enthusiasm for lending.

Evidential sources can also be supplied to objections to contentions as well as the following example shows:

Sometimes many evidential sources are needed to back up the reason(s) being made. It is conceivable that multiple evidence sources might be needed to back up some reason, but typically one or two sources of evidence are sufficient:

The strongest sources of evidence in academic scholarship are peer-reviewed research publications , and experimental data , but other sources of evidence are possible depending on the discipline area, e.g., case study evidence and legal judgments might be appropriate in some contexts.

Co-premises

A premise is another word for a reason in an argument. A co-premise is a reason that helps another reason. Sometimes co-premises seem trivial as they are below. (NB: Co-premises are show in argument maps as a helping reason under ‘umbrella’ shading):

Providing co-premises makes the argument tight. The logic of the argument can be easily seen. If it is accepted that Interest rates are low (reason) and if it is the case that When interest rates are low it is a good time to invest in property (co-premise) it can be concluded that It is a good time to invest in property (contention).

Of course, none of these claims might be right. If so, objections can be made to them. This is good. This means you are getting your argument clear. You will need to find evidence for your objections of course. But responding to assumed co-premises by rebutting them or calling them into question helps to make your reasoning more precise, clear and explicit.

On other occasions a co-premise is not trivial at all, and can be the source of an error in reasoning. A good argument map will make all co-premises explicit. Doing so will allow you to see flaws in your reasoning. For example, if I contend that Dogs make better pets, based on reasoning that Dogs like to play ( because Dogs fetch balls ), and assume the co-premise Pets you can play with make better pets is the reasoning compelling? It isn’t. Old people don’t necessarily like playful pets. The helping premise Pets you can play with make better pets need not be accepted. Your challenge when mapping your discipline-specific arguments is to make all co-premises explicit .

Argument units

Complex arguments can be considered in terms of argument units which, when combined, give rise to larger argument structures. In these complex arguments, intermediate conclusions give rise to final conclusions .

An example is provided below. In this case, one argument unit is comprised of premise A1-b which is supported by premises 2B-a and 2B-b. Premise 2B-a, in turn, is supported by another argument unit comprising premises 3B-a and 3B-b. Another argument unit is comprised of premise 1A-a which is opposed by premise 2A-a and 2A-b. Yet another argument unit consists of premise 2A-a, which in turn, is rebutted by premises 3A-1 and 3A-b. All four argument units contribute to the main argument unit comprising 1A-a and 1A-b which provide support for the main conclusion.

Naturally, the argument advanced in a PhD will be complex with many different argument units. It helps to make these clear in argument maps. Doing so will make it easier to articulate your arguments in prose.

Tips for mapping your argument

Argument mapping requires high-level skills, but the basic principles are simple enough. Follow these steps when mapping your argument:

• First, get clear about your main contention . This is the claim that follows the introductory clause: “My thesis argues that…” This is a claim that sums up your unique and original contribution to the literature in your field. It may be that you are not clear on this yet, especially if you are early in your candidature. However, you can begin with a tentative contention, and revise and refine it as your thesis progresses. This is common with thesis writers. As the thesis sharpens and becomes clearer you will also need to refocus and tighten up your contention, and the argument supporting it.
• Second, determine the first tier reasons supporting your contention. Arguments can be complex, consisting of many argument units . It is likely that you will require many cascading tiers of reasons supporting a variety of intermediate conclusions . Try to concentrate on the levels within an argument. Thinking in terms of first, second and third, tiers of reasons, etc., and localised argument units can help. Ask yourself: ‘Is reason X supporting this claim or this claim’? (Use inference indicator words to help you do this: ‘Am I claiming that X is true because of this, i.e., for this reason’?) Is there a clear link between the reason and the claim? Revise your argument until the logic of the connection between reasons and claims is transparent and clear.
• Third, determine any first tier objections to your contention. Follow the same process with reasons against claims as you did with reasons for claims.
• Fourth, determine whether some of the objections can be rebutted . Can you think of claims that refute, or otherwise cast doubt , on objections? Follow the same process as you did for reasons and objections.
• Fifthly, determine second tier reasons . How would you support the reasons you provide in the first tier of your argument? What reasons would support these reasons? Establish third-tier reasons/objections as requried.
• Finally, establish any tacit co-premises that might be implicit in your argument, i.e., statements that are assumed but not often stated (making these clear that help you determine the originality of you argument, i.e., you might be casting doubt on an assumption in previous arguments in the literature).

IMPORTANT: When mapping your argument strip all linguistic flourishes and academic jargon out. You are interested in getting the argument clear. Make all claims clear and precise and as short as possible (your argument can be “converted” into stylised academic prose later).

IIn the previous “rat” argument, the contention is clear (underlined):

• Evidence from public health sources suggests that the public should be concerned about a rising rat population . First , the presence of rats shows that a rising rat population is an economic issue. They damage utility lines and wires, start fires and damage a lot of a city’s infrastructure in locations we can’t observe as indicated by damage to sewer walls or under sidewalks. Secondly, it’s a public health concern because rats roam the sewer systems and carry all kinds of germs. With a higher number of rats it can be assumed that our chance of coming into contact with those germs increases. Third, a rising rat population is an aesthetic issue. The presence of rats entails, and is a common indicator of, a degraded environment.

Paying attention to the inference indicator words (in bold ), and the signposting language (in italics ) we can display the tiers of reasoning along with tacit co-premises (tagged in yellow):

Now practise your understanding of argument mapping by mapping your own argument. Show your argument to colleagues and your supervisor. Ask them to focus on the links between the claims, reasons, objections and rebuttals. Ask them to consider the evidence provided. Revise your argument, and then turn it into prose backed up with appropriate citations from the literature.

For a downloadable introduction to argument maps, see our helpsheet ,

Further Reading

Argument mapping is an advanced-level skill. This page has only covered some basic principles. Further information can be obtained from the following readings.

• Davies, M. (2019). New directions in teaching critical thinking.  Change: Magazine for Higher Learning , 51 (5), 18-27.
• Davies, M., Barnett, A., van Gelder, T. (2021), Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students, in  Studies in Critical Thinking  (A. Blair Ed)  Windsor Studies in Argumentation  (Vol. 8), 2nd Edition: Centre for Research in Reasoning, University of Windsor (L. A. Groarke and C. W. Tindale, Editors in Chief): Open Monograph Press.
• Kirschner, P. J., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003).  Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-kaking . London: Springer-Verlag.
• van Gelder, T. (2011). What is argument mapping? in H. Pashler (Ed.),  Encyclopedia of the Mind .  Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage https://timvangelder.com/2009/02/17/what-is-argument-mapping/

Quick links

• Apply online
• Course Finder
• Scholarships
• Indigenous matters
• my Student Centre
• Student Webmail
• FedUni Moodle
• ePortfolios
• Staff email
• Captive portal
• Change password
• General enquiries
• Staff directory
• Facilities and services
• Emergency and security
• ITS Service Desk portal

How to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline

An argumentative essay is a piece of writing that uses logical evidence and empirical data to convince readers of a particular position on a topic. Because of its reliance on structure and planning, the first step in writing one is often drafting a solid argumentative essay outline. 

Of course, drafting an argumentative essay outline can be just as daunting as actually writing one. Choosing topics is one thing, but organizing your thesis , research, reasoning, and conclusion is a whole other endeavor—and that’s all before beginning the first draft! 

So in this quick guide, we explain how to make an effective argumentative essay outline, covering all three major formats: Classical (Aristotelian), Rogerian, and Toulmin. We’ll also include argumentative essay outline examples and templates to help you understand what works. 

Communicate with confidence. Grammarly helps you communicate effectively Write with Grammarly

Table of contents

How is an argumentative essay structured? 

How to create an argumentative essay outline

Classical argumentative essay outline template, rogerian argumentative essay outline template, toulmin argumentative essay outline template, argumentative essay faqs.

An argumentative essay uses facts, data, and logical reasoning to substantiate a specific stance on any given topic. They are typically structured to “build an argument,” with a clear thesis statement , unambiguous conclusion, and as much evidential support as needed.  

While all seven types of essays follow the same introduction-body-conclusion structure, argumentative essays tend to be more complex to fit all the necessary components of a convincing argument. For example, you may want to dissect opposing points of view to strengthen your own argument, but where would you put that section? Before your argument? After? Intermingled throughout the essay with each new piece of evidence? 

There’s no one right way to structure an argumentative essay; it depends on your topic, opposing viewpoints, and the readers, among other things. In fact, to accommodate different types of argumentative essay styles, three methods have emerged as the go-to formats: Classical (Aristotelian), Rogerian, and Toulmin, explained below.  

No matter the format or topic, a strong argumentative essay outline makes it easier to organize your thoughts and present your case in the best possible way. So before you get down to the actual essay writing , take a little time to prepare what you want to say in an outline. 

Knowing how to write an outline is just half the battle. Because an argumentative essay outline requires extra structure and organization, it often requires more extensive planning than the standard essay outline . After all, the goal is to present the best argument for your topic, so you need to make sure each section is in the optimal place. 

As mentioned, there are three main options for how to structure an argumentative essay. Before we dive into the details, let’s look at an overview of each so you can decide which one best fits your essay. 

Classical (Aristotelian)

When to use it: straightforward and direct arguments

The most forthright approach, the Classical or Aristotelian format is closest to traditional essay structures. It follows a simple layout: explain your argument, explain your opposition’s argument, and then present your evidence, all the while relying on credibility ( ethos ), emotion ( pathos ), and reasoning ( logos ) to influence the reader. 

When to use it: both sides make valid arguments; your readers are sympathetic to the opposing position

The Rogerian format gives ample respect to opposing stances, making it a great “middle-ground” approach for representing both sides. This method is ideal if your thesis is a compromise between conflicting positions or an attempt to unify them. 

Likewise, this format is best if you’re writing for readers who are already biased toward an opposing position, such as if you’re arguing against societal norms. 

When to use it: complicated arguments with multiple facets; rebuttals and counterarguments

The Toulmin method is a deep analysis of a single argument. Given its methodical and detailed nature, it works best for breaking down a complicated thesis into digestible portions. 

The Toulmin method is rather nitpicky in a very systematic way. That makes it an ideal format if your essay is a rebuttal or counterargument to another essay—you’re able to dissect and disprove your opposition point by point while offering a more reasonable alternative.  

Aristotle had a gift for explaining things clearly and logically, and the Aristotelian argumentative essay structure leans into that. Also known as Classical or Classic, the Aristotelian format is the most straightforward: the writer presents their argument first and then refutes the opposing argument. 

Let’s look at the details in this argumentative essay outline example for the Classical or Aristotelian format. 

I. Introduction

A. Open with a hook, something to keep the reader interested enough to read until the conclusion (known as exordium ) B. Give any background information or context necessary to understand the topic (known as narratio )  C. Provide a thesis statement explaining your stance and why you feel that way (known as proposito and partitio )

II. First reason 

A. Start with the least controversial reason to support your argument, explaining your point clearly as an overview 1. First evidential support of your reason (known as confirmatio )

2. Second evidential support of your reason, then third, and so on

B. Summarize your first reason again and tie it together with evidential support 

III. Second reason, etc. 

A. Continue to list your reasons in the same format as the first. List your reasons from least to most controversial 

IV. First opposing point of view

A. Explain the reasoning of the opposing side. Point out their defenses and evidence—what would they say if they were writing the essay?  1. Point out weaknesses and inconsistencies in their argument

2. Refute their points with evidential support (known as refutatio )

3. Reinforce your position as the more reasonable position

V. Second opposing point of view, etc. 

A. Continue to present and refute opposing points of view in the same format as the first 

VI. Conclusion

A. Reiterate your position and thesis statement, drawing on your strongest evidential support and rebuttals of opposing points (known as peroratio ) B. Wrap everything up with a thought-provoking ending or call to action (a suggestion you want the reader to take) 

Of all formats, Rogerian gives the most attention to opposing arguments. Its goal is to create a middle ground between two arguments, pointing out the validity of each and finding a way to unify them as one. If positions on a particular topic are too polarized or unable to coexist, this format won’t work. 

Let’s take a closer look at the Rogerian argumentative essay outline example below and notice the concessions for opposing points of view. 

A. State the problem that needs to be solved and any context necessary for understanding it B. Explain the ideal solutions from your position as well as the ideal solutions from opposing positions (and point out any overlap) C. Make your thesis statement

II. Summarize the opposing position

A. Summarize the opposition’s point of view respectfully; consider their defense and reasoning  1. Present evidential support for the opposing position

2. Comment on or refute their support

B. Follow the same format for additional opposing points of view

III. Validate the opposing position

A. Show that you understand and/or sympathize with the opposing position 1. Explain the context and reasoning behind your opposition’s perspective

2. Elaborate on the evidence and data from opposing positions

B. Affirm the areas in which you agree with the opposition

IV. Present your position

A. Summarize your first reason for holding your position 1. Present your first piece of evidential support

2. Present your second piece of evidential support, and so on

B. Summarize your second reason for holding your position, and so on 

V. Bring both sides together (compromise)

A. Consider which aspects from each argument are most reasonable B. Propose a compromise that combines the best elements from each position

A. Reaffirm your respect for the opposing point of view B. Reiterate the areas in which the opposition can benefit from your argument and vice versa C. Summarize the earlier compromise and, if possible, end on a positive note

Stephen Toulmin’s original purpose was to analyze the nature of arguments, but the application of his teachings has evolved into an argumentative essay format, especially for challenging existing arguments. It focuses on the six elements that make up a good argument: claim (thesis), grounds (data and reasons), warrants, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals. 

The argumentative essay outline example below shows the recommended order in which to put these elements: 

A. Open with a hook, if you can, to garner interest B. Explain the topic and its necessary context C. Make your thesis statement

II. Present the grounds (hard evidence) to validate your thesis

A. Present your first evidential support of data or logical reasons  B. Present your second evidential support of data or logical reasons, and so on 

III. Explain your first warrant (justification for your thesis)

A. Explain how the warrant relates back to your thesis B. Provide backing to support your warrant (could be more evidence or data or just logical reasoning) C. List any qualifiers that undermine or limit your warrant—the idea is to acknowledge any weaknesses in your own argument

IV. Explain your second warrant, and so on

A. Continue to explain your individual warrants as above 

V. Discuss opposition

A. Explain the first opposing point of view 1. Discuss the opposition fairly and transparently

2. Explain your rebuttal to defend your thesis

B. Explain the second opposing point of view, and so on 

A. Connect all your warrants and data together  B. Reiterate the opposing position and your rebuttals C. Draw a conclusion to make your final claim and reaffirm your thesis

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay is a short, nonfiction piece of writing that uses logical evidence and empirical data to convince the reader of a certain point of view. 

Argumentative essays typically include an explanation of the writer’s position (thesis), evidence supporting that thesis, opposing points of view, and rebuttals against that opposition. The order in which these sections are presented, however, depends on the format. 

What are some common ways to organize an argumentative essay outline?

The most straightforward approach to an argumentative essay outline is to first present your position, including the evidence and reasoning to back it up, and then address the opposing points of view. However, the more complex the topic, the more layers must be added to the outline. 

Persuasion Map

About this Interactive

Related resources.

The Persuasion Map is an interactive graphic organizer that enables students to map out their arguments for a persuasive essay or debate. Students begin by determining their goal or thesis. They then identify three reasons to support their argument, and three facts or examples to validate each reason. The map graphic in the upper right-hand corner allows students to move around the map, instead of having to work in a linear fashion. The finished map can be saved, e-mailed, or printed.

• Student Interactives
• Strategy Guides
• Calendar Activities
• Lesson Plans

The Essay Map is an interactive graphic organizer that enables students to organize and outline their ideas for an informational, definitional, or descriptive essay.

This Strategy Guide describes the processes involved in composing and producing audio files that are published online as podcasts.

This strategy guide explains the writing process and offers practical methods for applying it in your classroom to help students become proficient writers.

Through a classroom game and resource handouts, students learn about the techniques used in persuasive oral arguments and apply them to independent persuasive writing activities.

Students analyze rhetorical strategies in online editorials, building knowledge of strategies and awareness of local and national issues. This lesson teaches students connections between subject, writer, and audience and how rhetorical strategies are used in everyday writing.

Students examine books, selected from the American Library Association Challenged/Banned Books list, and write persuasive pieces expressing their views about what should be done with the books at their school.

Students will research a local issue, and then write letters to two different audiences, asking readers to take a related action or adopt a specific position on the issue.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

• Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
• Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
• Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
• Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
• Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
• Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

• Make a claim
• Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
• Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
• Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

• Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
• Cite data to support your claim
• Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
• Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

• Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
• Highlight the problems with this position
• Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
• Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

• Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
• Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
• Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
• Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, what is your plagiarism score.

• Activity Diagram (UML)
• Amazon Web Services
• Android Mockups
• Block Diagram
• Business Process Management
• Chemical Chart
• Cisco Network Diagram
• Class Diagram (UML)
• Collaboration Diagram (UML)
• Compare & Contrast Diagram
• Component Diagram (UML)
• Concept Diagram
• Cycle Diagram
• Data Flow Diagram
• Data Flow Diagrams (YC)
• Database Diagram
• Deployment Diagram (UML)
• Entity Relationship Diagram
• Family Tree
• Fishbone / Ishikawa Diagram
• Gantt Chart
• Infographics
• iOS Mockups
• Network Diagram
• Object Diagram (UML)
• Object Process Model
• Organizational Chart
• Sequence Diagram (UML)
• Spider Diagram
• State Chart Diagram (UML)
• Story Board
• SWOT Diagram
• TQM - Total Quality Management
• Use Case Diagram (UML)
• Value Stream Mapping
• Venn Diagram
• Web Mockups
• Work Breakdown Structure

Persuasion Map Example

Persuasion Map Example is an interactive graphic organizer that enables students to map out their arguments for a persuasive essay or debate. Students begin by determining their goal or thesis. They then identify three reasons to support their argument, and three facts or examples to validate each reason.

You can easily edit this template using Creately's block diagram maker . You can export it in multiple formats like JPEG, PNG and SVG and easily add it to Word documents, Powerpoint (PPT) presentations, Excel or any other documents. You can export it as a PDF for high-quality printouts.

• Flowchart Templates
• Org Chart Templates
• Concept Map Templates
• Mind Mapping Templates
• WBS Templates
• Family Tree Templates
• VSM Templates
• Data Flow Diagram Templates
• Network Diagram Templates
• SWOT Analysis Templates
• Genogram Templates
• Activity Diagram Templates
• Amazon Web Services Templates
• Android Mockups Templates
• Block Diagram Templates
• Business Process Management Templates
• Chemical Chart Templates
• Cisco Network Diagram Templates
• Class Diagram Templates
• Collaboration Diagram Templates
• Compare & Contrast Diagram Templates
• Component Diagram Templates
• Concept Diagram Templates
• Cycle Diagram Templates
• Data Flow Diagrams(YC) Templates
• Database Diagram Templates
• Deployment Diagram Templates
• Entity Relationship Diagram Templates
• Fishbone Diagram Templates
• Gantt Chart Templates
• Infographic Templates
• iOS Mockup Templates
• KWL Chart Templates
• Logic Gate Templates
• Mind Map Templates
• Object Diagram Templates
• Object Process Model Templates
• Organizational Chart Templates
• Other Templates
• PERT Chart Templates
• Sequence Diagram Templates
• Site Map Templates
• Spider Diagram Templates
• State Chart Diagram Templates
• Story Board Templates
• SWOT Diagram Templates
• T Chart Templates
• TQM - Total Quality Management Templates
• UI Mockup Templates
• Use Case Diagram Templates
• Value Stream Mapping Templates
• Venn Diagram Templates
• Web Mockup Templates
• Y Chart Templates

Related Templates

Using Digital Map Tools to Assist Learning of Argumentative Essay Writing

• Conference paper
• First Online: 18 November 2019
• Cite this conference paper

• Cheng-Yu Fan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7813-5859 12 ,
• Mahesh Liyanawatta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8932-5025 12 ,
• Su-Hang Yang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9593-1120 13 &
• Gwo-Dong Chen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5741-5512 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11937))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Innovative Technologies and Learning

3040 Accesses

1 Citations

In this paper, we design and implement a system that uses a digital map system to assist the learning of argumentative essay with Argument map and Concept map. The system had experimented in a primary school with 346 students for 20 weeks that is a whole semester with three groups: Argument Map, Concept Map, and conventional method. The contribution of this study is to improve the quality of student’s essay writing by using the advantage of Argument Map. This study compares the effectiveness of the arguments in the essay writing based on the use of different argumentation strategies such as traditional writing, Concept Map writing, and Argumentative Map writing. The experiment results show that Argument Map group is the most significantly improving among the three groups. The analysis results on the improvement on three dimensions of argumentation: (1) claim, reason, and evidence, (2) arguments on supporting the claim and on refuting opposition claim, and (3) completeness and coherence are also reported in the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Effects of a computer-assisted argument map learning strategy on sixth-grade students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension.

Development of software to support argumentative reading and writing by means of creating a graphic organizer from an electronic text

Argument mapping as a pre-writing activity: Does it promote writing skills of EFL learners?

Ferretti, R.P., Lewis, W.E., Andrews-Weckerly, S.: Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? J. Educ. Psychol. 101 (03), 577–589 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014702

Article   Google Scholar  

Kuhn, D.: Education for Thinking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2008)

Google Scholar  

Wingate, U.: ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 11 , 145–154 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001

Golder, C., Coirier, P.: The production and recognition of typological argumentative text markers. Argumentation 10 (02), 271–282 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180729

Buzan, T., Buzan, B.: The Mind Map Book. BBC Consumer Publishing, London (2000)

Santiago, H.C.: Visual mapping to enhance learning and argumentation ability skills. Optom. Educ. 36 (03), 125–139 (2011)

Van Gelder, T.: Semantic Scholar: Argument Mapping with Reason!Able. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/633e/5f052ac2d4e1a39cda10b2dcf48ba90d4997.pdf . Accessed 09 July 2019

Chiang, K.H., Fan, C.Y., Liu, H.H., Chen, G.D.: Effects of a computer-assisted argument map learning strategy on sixth-grade students’ argumentative essay reading comprehension. Multimedia Tools Appl. 75 (16), 9973–9990 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-2904-y

Perry, K.D., Mary, R.A.: Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Res. Q. 45 (04), 433–461 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.4

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., López-Rodriguez, R., Erduran, S.: Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: a case study in primary school. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, Texas (2005)

Fulan, L., Paul, S.: Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System 45 , 117–128 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005

Moore, N.S., MacArthur, C.A.: The effects of being a reader and of observing readers on fifth-grade students’ argumentative writing and revising. Read. Writ. 25 (6), 1449–1478 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9327-6

Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Southern California (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840005

Negari, G.M.: A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners’ writing skill. Int. J. Engl. Linguist. 1 (2), 299–307 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p299

Kuhn, D., Udell, W.: Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Think. Reasoning 13 (02), 90–104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Cheng-Yu Fan, Mahesh Liyanawatta & Gwo-Dong Chen

Department of Hospitality Management, Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Su-Hang Yang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Dong Chen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Lisbet Rønningsbakk

National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan

Ting-Ting Wu

Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

Frode Eika Sandnes

National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan

Yueh-Min Huang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Fan, CY., Liyanawatta, M., Yang, SH., Chen, GD. (2019). Using Digital Map Tools to Assist Learning of Argumentative Essay Writing. In: Rønningsbakk, L., Wu, TT., Sandnes, F., Huang, YM. (eds) Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11937. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_82

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_82

Published : 18 November 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-35342-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-35343-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research