The argumentative analysis of a text, then, will depend on the detection of the arguments expressed therein and the categorization of these as valid or invalid, according to the rules of Logic.

For this, an exploration of the text that will show its structure is suggested. After that a critical reading, which will allow the comprehension of a text, should be done.

Argument analysis exploration

First of all it must be clear that an academic reading responds to very specific objectives. According to the argument analysis essay example, the reader must have clear understanding of these objectives. Then you can follow next strategies: browse and examine the text.

When examining an extensive text, the following data should be searched: title of the text, name of the author, date of publication, bibliography, indexes (general, onomastic, analytical), titles and subtitles of the chapters, tables and tables and glossary.

If a short text is revised, such as argument analysis essay, the following elements should be detected: title, first full paragraph, first sentence of each intermediate paragraph, last complete paragraph, bold italics, etc.

How to write an argument analysis: critical reading

The second step that must be taken is that of a critical reading. The reader should consider the following types:

1. The evaluation of the text as a valid source of information
2. The way of presenting the information as facts (events, events), opinions (value judgments) or inferences (logical deductions)
3. The author’s purpose
4. The tone he uses (emotion that reflects: solemn, cheerful, sarcastic, and neutral)
5. The type of language he uses (colloquial, far-fetched, technical)
6. The thesis or hypothesis held by the author (is the subject of the text, the central idea that gives unity)
7. The coherence of the argument
8. The influence exerted by the text on the reader
9. The position that the reader has before the text (the initial attitude with which he faces what he reads, the judgments and prejudices with the reader reads).

The subject and the thesis are closely related. If the subject is the subject, the thesis is what you want to demonstrate about the topic. Sometimes the subject is a thesis, sometimes they are differentiable. The difference between the thesis and the hypothesis is not great. A thesis is a conclusion or proposition that is supported by reasoning. According to the argument analysis example, a hypothesis is a thesis that has not been verified and that occurs regularly in a theoretical-scientific context. In the texts there is a central thesis and there are other secondary ones, subordinated to the first one.

A logical coherent text is one in which there is a harmony between its central thesis and the secondary theses, between the theses and the arguments while analysis essay. The argument can be weak or solid. The first one lacks clarity and completeness because it lacks explanations, examples, ambiguities, overgeneralizations, stereotypes, sophisms, and so on. The second has the elements to perform a forceful demonstration.

Now, the arguments that can be found in the texts are theoretical, practical or evaluative. In other words, the theoretical arguments are reasons that propose acquiring a belief about facts; the practical arguments try to persuade to acquire an attitude or intention with respect to doing; arguments are valuable when they seek to convince to appreciate something ethical, aesthetic or axiological (good-bad, ugly-beautiful, cheap-expensive).

Argument detection

Sometimes it is not easy to locate an argument in a text. An argument is that which aims to prove the validity of a thesis. This can be done with the detection of fundamental statements, the observation of punctuation marks, and the use of argumentative connectors in line with argumentative analysis.

When reading the text, the main ideas should be extracted. You can make a summary, a synthesis or a synoptic table to achieve this goal.

To detect the fundamental ideas one can search for the statements of support in the text, that is, sentences that help to understand the main point of a text. The statements of support show facts, inferences or opinions that claim to demonstrate the main ideas. Consequently, in analytical essay writing they use certain patterns of textual organization that offer explanations, examples, a chronological order, lists, questions-answers, comparisons-contrasts, analogies. When detecting those patterns with their respective statements, one can ask: where does it take me? What do you want to demonstrate or conclude? Then the main points will be detected.

It also helps the detection of argumentative connectors that are words or expressions that serve to express argumentative relationships between two or more statements. That is, they are links that articulate information and arguments. Examples of connectors are the following: however, in spite of, even though, though, well, when, as, decidedly, de facto, in fact, put another way, anyway, indeed, over, on the other hand, in effect, in other words, in summary, in synthesis, in short, in any case, that is, the reality is that, the truth is that, however, but, because, therefore, on the other hand, precisely, therefore, , since, really, however, if, well, since, etc. There are also verbs that serve as connectors, for example: test what, demonstrate, corroborate, drive, conclude, etc. Grammatically the connectors are constituted by some verbs, prepositions, conjunctions of coordination, conjunctions and locutions of subordination and by conjunctive adverbs and conjunctive adverbial locutions. These expressions, however, do not always have an argumentative function.

Unfortunately, there is no precise and automatic method to segment the text fragments that link the connectors. It is known that there is a context on the left and another context on the right of the connector, which generate the following schemes:

• Context left-connector-context right;
• Subject (argument) – verb connector-predicate (conclusion).

The mapping of arguments

The way we handle arguments has such an automatic and omnipresent feature that it is almost invisible: the arguments are presented or expressed in sequences of words, either oral or written. Nothing could be more natural, it seems, than to express the argument in a linear verbal sequence. In fact, most people do not even imagine that there is an alternative. However, there is an alternative, one that is quite obvious too little that is reflected. If the evidence forms complex hierarchical structures, then these can be diagrammed. Put another way, we can draw maps that make the logical structure of the argument completely explicit.

Van Gelder gives an example of the argumentative analysis essay. Share a paragraph with an implicit argument and then map it. Let’s see the short text: “What value does your life have for you? At first glance, it seems like a stupid question. No amount of money could compensate for the loss of life, for the simple reason that money would no longer be of any use to you when you are dead. ”

This outlined it like this:

According to Van Gelder, plot maps offer the following advantages:

1. They facilitate understanding of reasoning;
2. Allow the identification of important problems;
3. Encourage the development of critical thinking;
4. Graphically express the student’s thinking.

The plot mapping is a recent technique. Richard Whately, in 1859, in his book Elements of Logic, apparently, was the first or one of the first to make a plot map.

Before computer technology it was quite cumbersome to design plot maps, which, in addition, are modified as our knowledge of the text, the context and the intertextuality of what we map improve. So the re-elaboration of the map became difficult.

The mapping of arguments is a method that divides the arguments into their parts using lines, colors and boxes in an organized manner in which the conclusion of the speech appears up and down the arguments related to that conclusion are distributed according to their connections. By conclusion is understood the main point that you want to defend in a speech, then will establish reasons to demonstrate that point.