English: Literature, Rhetoric & AP Essays · Module 6 of 13
Argumentation & Evidence
Building a convincing case: claims backed by evidence, addressed counterarguments, and sound reasoning.
Claims, Evidence & Reasoning
- A claim states a position; evidence supports it with facts, examples, or quotations; reasoning explains how the evidence proves the claim — often called CER: Claim, Evidence, Reasoning.
A student writes: "Social media harms teenagers. Studies show increased screen time correlates with higher rates of anxiety." What's missing to complete the CER structure?
Solution. Reasoning — an explanation of why or how that evidence actually supports the claim that social media harms teenagers.
Using Textual Evidence
- Quoting uses an author's exact words in quotation marks; paraphrasing restates the idea in your own words — both require credit to the source.
- Evidence should be introduced (context), presented (quote or paraphrase), and explained (analysis) — never just "dropped in" without comment.
Why is it a problem to include a quote in an essay without explaining its connection to your argument afterward?
Solution. A "dropped" quote leaves the reader to guess how it supports the argument; the writer must explain its relevance and connect it back to the claim.
Counterarguments & Rebuttal
- A counterargument acknowledges an opposing viewpoint; a rebuttal then explains why that viewpoint is flawed or less convincing than the writer's position.
- Addressing counterarguments can strengthen an argument by showing the writer has considered other perspectives.
A student argues homework should be reduced, then writes, "Some say homework reinforces learning, but studies show excessive homework causes burnout that undermines learning instead." What is this an example of?
Solution. A counterargument (homework reinforces learning) followed by a rebuttal (it causes burnout that undermines learning instead).
Avoiding Logical Fallacies
- A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that weakens an argument, such as a hasty generalization (a broad conclusion from too little evidence) or an ad hominem attack (attacking the person instead of their argument).
"You can't trust his opinion on climate policy — he's not even a scientist." What logical fallacy is this?
Solution. An ad hominem fallacy — attacking the person's credentials or character instead of addressing the actual argument they made.
Check yourself
2 of this module's 5 quiz questions. Pick your answers, then check them in the app, with an explanation for every question.
1. What does the "R" in CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning) stand for, and what does it do?
2. What is the difference between quoting and paraphrasing?