Argumentative Composition: Build a Claim, Support It and Answer an Objection

Argumentative Composition: Build a Claim, Support It and Answer an Objection

A convincing argument helps a reader make a decision. It states what should happen, explains why, and faces the strongest difficulty with that choice. A confident voice cannot replace evidence. In this lesson, you will decide how a fictional school should use one room, then see how a complete composition turns the supplied information into a qualified recommendation.

The school, evidence pack, figures and composition below are invented for learning. They describe no real school, survey or examination result. This is a written argument: you do not need a greeting, a speaker’s salutation or report headings.

The decision and the original evidence pack

Mapera School has one spare room. Its student committee must recommend either a quiet reading area or an indoor board-game room for the next term. Both are worthwhile uses. The committee can spend up to KSh 9,000 on the initial setup. Use only this pack for factual claims about the school.

Analysed case 1: turn a preference into a defensible thesis

Weak thesis: “Reading is good and games are good too.” This is balanced but makes no decision. “Everyone wants a library” makes a decision using an unsupported claim. Neither tells the reader what the committee should actually do.

Stronger thesis: “Mapera should trial a quiet reading room on the three supervised afternoons next term, while using the dining room for the games club’s two available sessions.” The choice, time boundary and provision for the competing need are clear. It does not pretend that every learner agrees. The condition about supervision matters because access that cannot be safely staffed is not yet an available benefit.

Analysed case 2: evidence needs an explanation

Weak paragraph: “We should choose reading because 22 learners support it. Reading always makes everyone successful. Games waste time and the cheaper option must be worse.” The response count is relevant, but the other claims are absent from the pack. The paragraph dismisses a legitimate need and confuses price with quality.

Revised paragraph: “The response sheet offers some support for a reading room: 22 of the 36 respondents preferred it. That is a majority of those who replied, although it does not establish the whole school’s preference. More importantly, the existing library is unavailable during the activity period, so the new room would provide reading access at a time when the current facility does not.”

The final sentence is the reasoning link: it explains why the timetable evidence supports the proposed use. A number is not self-explanatory. Notice also that a cautious claim can be stronger than an exaggerated one because the reader can test it against the evidence.

Analysed case 3: answer a serious objection fairly

Objection: A dedicated games room would protect activities from rain and cost KSh 1,400 less to set up. Both points follow from the pack. This is a stronger opposing case than “some people just dislike reading”.

Response: The dining room offers two supervised indoor sessions, whereas no after-school reading venue is listed. However, packing equipment away is an inconvenience, and the reading room’s 12 seats cannot accommodate every interested learner at once. A trial with a rotation plan addresses capacity without pretending to remove the trade-off. The response acknowledges a cost, compares the available alternatives and sets a review point.

A complete model composition

How the model works: the opening makes the decision; the next two paragraphs explain positive evidence; the fourth presents the strongest objection; the fifth compares alternatives; the sixth qualifies implementation; the conclusion weighs the same evidence. Recording use and introducing bookings are recommendations, not claims that these systems already exist.

Three solved tasks

1. Task: Correct “Most of the 60 invited learners chose reading.”

   Answer: “Most respondents chose reading: 22 out of 36.” Twenty-two is fewer than half of 60, and the remaining 24 preferences are unknown. Do not turn silence into either support or opposition.

2. Task: Does the pack prove that the games room would be cheaper to run throughout the term?

   Answer: No. It gives lower setup costs, a difference of KSh 1,400, but supplies no complete running costs. Distinguish a known comparison from an unanswered question. Either proposal could require later expenses.

3. Task: Repair this conclusion: “Therefore reading will improve every learner’s marks.”

   Answer: “Therefore a supervised reading trial would address the stated access gap, with use and unmet demand reviewed after one term.” The pack contains no achievement measurements. The revised conclusion follows the argument without inventing an outcome.

Two transfer prompts

Prompt A: Argue for the games room using the same pack. Emphasise rain, lower setup cost and permanent storage, but answer the missing after-school reading venue. A defensible answer may choose differently from the model if it represents the evidence fairly and explains its priorities.

Prompt B: Suppose the only changed fact is that the dining room is no longer available. Revise the thesis and counterargument. This strengthens the games case; it does not automatically erase the reading need. Explain how the loss changes the comparison instead of copying the old conclusion unchanged.

Before you finish

• Underline the decision your thesis recommends.
• Match each factual claim to a pack item; label proposed actions as proposals.
• Explain why each piece of evidence matters.
• Give the opposing view its strongest fair form.
• Keep qualifications attached to the claims they limit.
• Check that the conclusion introduces no new statistic or guarantee.

Frequently asked questions

For other tasks, browse the English topical revision collection. That collection may include resources with separate access requirements.