Try It Out

Readers may think your reasons don’t add up to a logical argument if you fail to present them in an order that makes sense to those readers. If you have independent, parallel reasons, choose an order that best suits your readers’ likely response. If you have connected, sequential reasons, you should generally follow that sequence.

Let’s look at some examples to see how well you can arrange reasons in an effective order.

Consider this argument from a paper in an urban planning course. The author knows his claim: that his home town, Charlottesville, Virginia, should develop a light-rail system. He also has three reasons that he thinks support his claim.

As you read the three reasons, decide how you think they are related to one another. Which one should readers see first?

A) In almost all cases, traffic congestion decreases significantly after a city builds a light-rail system.
B) Population growth in Albemarle County has averaged 2% a year for the past 30 years. Continued population growth is inevitable, and this will create even more traffic congestion within Charlottesville city limits.
C) In recent years, traffic within Charlottesville city limits has reached unacceptable levels.

First

Second

Last

Correct. Reason (C) is a fact that is familiar and unquestioned by anyone who has ever driven in Charlottesville. It offers readers a basic building block of the argument: traffic is already a widely recognized problem. Reason (B) emphasizes the future magnitude of the problem. Reason (A) presents information that will be new, less familiar, and most contestable for most readers. Consequently this order helps readers in several ways: it moves from most to least familiar, from most to least obvious, and from the present to the future.

For most readers, reason (A) presents the newest, least familiar, and most contestable reason. On the other hand, reason (C) is a fact that is familiar and unquestioned by anyone who has ever driven in Charlottesville. Consequently, this order is likely to seem backwards for most readers. Try again.

It’s good to have reasons (C) and (B) together in this order. They belong together because they both concern the problem of traffic in Charlottesville. They belong in this order because it is chronological, from present to future. But they follow reason (A), which presents the newest, least familiar, and most contestable reason. Consequently, most readers are likely to feel that reason (A) is not the place to start this sequence. Try again.

This sequence ends with the reason that is most familiar to any reader who has ever driven in Charlottesville. It begins with the reason that is most tied to it: reasons (B) and (C) both concern the nature of the problem. These reasons are interrupted by the reason that is least connected to either of them—the one that concerns the solution. Consequently, most readers are likely to feel that this sequence jumps around. Try again.

It is useful to have reasons (B) and (C) together, since they concern the nature of the problem while reason (A) concerns the solution. But reason (B) concerns the future while reason (C) concerns the present. Readers generally expect to find chronological reasons in chronological order. Try again.

This sequence begins well: Reason (C) is a fact that is familiar and unquestioned by anyone who has ever driven in Charlottesville. It offers readers a basic building block of the argument: traffic is already a widely recognized problem. But reason (B) connects to reason (C) far more closely than does reason (A). Reasons (C) and (B) both concern the problem, while (A) focuses on the solution. Consequently readers are likely to feel that the reasons jump back and forth rather than follow in a clear sequence. Try again.

Consider this paper from a philosophy of medicine course, claiming that narrative is a useful tool in medicine. The author knows his claim: that the study of illness narratives can help in the development of international public-health policy. He also has three reasons that he thinks support his claim.

As you read the three reasons, decide how you think they are related to one another. Which one should readers see first? Which last?

A) Narratives can be a powerful public-relations tool for generating broad international support for health-care initiatives, as narratives are capable of bridging differences of language, culture, politics, and religion.
B) Greater knowledge about current health issues around the world can be gleaned from being attentive to illness narratives and how they function within various contexts (social, religious, political, etc.). If compiled and studied, this knowledge can be crucial to the development of effective health care policies.
C) Narratives can give doctors insight into how various factors—social, religious, political, etc.—affect how an individual patient deals with health issues, including disease.

First

Second

Last

Correct. For most readers, reason (C) is most understandable and familiar because of its limited scope: that of discrete doctor-patient interactions. Reason (B) concerns the same issue as reason (C): the improvement of patient care. But reason (B) expands the scope from individual cases of patient care to macro issues of policy development. This progression makes the most sense to readers, and they are likely to accept reason (B) if they first understand and accept reason (C). Reason (A) is the least familiar and most complicated reason for most readers. It also concerns the last step of the solution: how to build support for programs and policies presented with reason (B).

For most readers, reason (A) presents the most complicated and least familiar reason. On the other hand, reason (C) is most understandable and familiar because of its limited scope: that of individual doctor-patient interaction. Consequently, this order is likely to seem backwards for most readers. Try again.

It’s good to have reasons (C) and (B) together in this order. They belong together because both are concerned with improving patient care. They belong in this order because it builds in scope, from individual cases of patient care to macro issues of policy development. This progression makes the most sense to readers, and they are more likely to accept reason (B) if they first understand and accept reason (C). But these reasons follow reason (A), which is the least familiar and most complicated reason. Reason (A) also concerns the last step of the solution—how to build support for programs and policies presented with reason (B). Consequently, most readers would think that it is confusing to begin with reason (A). Try again.

This sequence ends with the reason that is most familiar and least complicated for readers because of its limited context: that of individual doctor-patient interactions. It begins with the reason that is most tied to it: reasons (B) and (C) both concern the improvement of patient care. These reasons are interrupted by the reason that is least connected to either of them—the one that provides the last step of the solution: how to build support for programs and policies presented with reason (B). Consequently, most readers are likely to feel that this sequence jumps around. Try again.

It is useful to have reasons (B) and (C) together, since they most directly concern the central focus of the argument—that attention to narratives is key to improving patient care. But reason (B) concerns a broad scope of implementation while reason (C) concerns individual doctor-patient interactions. Readers generally expect connected reasons to build in scope. Try again.

This sequence begins well: Reason (C) is understandable and familiar to most readers because of its limited scope—that of individual doctor-patient interactions. But reason (B) connects to reason (C) much more closely than does reason (A). Reasons (C) and (B) both concern the central focus of the solution (that attention to narratives can significantly improve patient care), while reason (A) provides the last step of the solution (how to build support for programs and policies presented with reason (B)). Consequently, readers are likely to feel that the reasons jump back and forth rather than follow in a clear sequence. Try again.

Sharon is a history major who has been studying the fall of Soviet rule and rise of democracy in Poland. Luckily for her, three different groups are sponsoring essay contests for which her work on Poland would be appropriate. She hopes to submit an essay to all three contests, but she knows she may have to change her essay to suit the three different sets of readers. She has identified three reasons why Poland was able to shake off Soviet rule:

A) The formation of the Solidarity movement among Polish workers created an alternative base of political power that eroded the monopoly of the Communist party.
B) International entities such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and the World Bank formed a coalition that isolated the communists and put increased pressure on the Soviet government.
C) The independent and intense involvement of the Catholic Church, led by the public and private efforts by the Polish Pope John Paul II, were decisive in inspiring resistance among the people.

Although Sharon plans to use the same three reasons in each essay, she plans to arrange them in different orders to suit her three different sets of readers. In each case, she wants to build up to the reason that will be most controversial for each group.

Now do this: below you will find a description of each set of readers. For each one, click to highlight the reason that Sharon should save for last because those readers will resist it and she wants to build her credibility first.

I. The Privateer Society

This is a group of international business leaders. Its mission is to promote free trade and challenge workers' unions.

A) The formation of the Solidarity movement among Polish workers created an alternative base of political power that eroded the monopoly of the Communist party.
B) International entities such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and the World Bank formed a coalition that isolated the communists and put increased pressure on the Soviet government.
C) The independent and intense involvement of the Catholic Church, led by the public and private efforts by the Polish Pope John Paul II, were decisive in inspiring resistance among the people.

You chose (A). Correct. Since the "Privateers" are interested in challenging workers' unions, they may resist the claim that Poland needed its labor unions to bring down the communist party. This reason forces these readers to accept organized labor, which they ideologically oppose, as a necessary check to communist, state-run economies, which they see as an even greater evil. To establish credibility with these readers as they progress through the argument, Sharon may want to present reasons (B) and (C) first.
You chose (B). International business leaders are likely to be familiar with the workings of international alliances, such as NATO, and transnational economic institutions, such as the IMF or the World Bank. The presentation of this reason is unlikely to surprise or trouble them. This may be a good choice to present first for Sharon to establish some common ground with her readers. Try again.
You chose (C). Reason (C) may be controversial for some readers, or it may be exactly what some expect, depending on their views on religious institutions. In general, though, this reason will be less relevant to the concerns of the group at large, so you may want to present it in passing in the middle of the argument. Try again.

Although Sharon plans to use the same three reasons in each essay, she plans to arrange them in different orders to suit her three different sets of readers. In each case, she wants to build up to the reason that will be most controversial for each group.

Now do this: below you will find a description of each set of readers. For each one, click to highlight the reason that Sharon should save for last because those readers will resist it and she wants to build her credibility first.

II. The Washingtonian Society

This is a group of people who call themselves patriots and hold to isolationist ideals. Its mission is to protect America’s national sovereignty. Like President Washington, this group believes that America should avoid permanent alliances and foreign entanglements.

A) The formation of the Solidarity movement among Polish workers created an alternative base of political power that eroded the monopoly of the Communist party.
B) International entities such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and the World Bank formed a coalition that isolated the communists and put increased pressure on the Soviet government.
C) The independent and intense involvement of the Catholic Church, led by the public and private efforts by the Polish Pope John Paul II, were decisive in inspiring resistance among the people.

You chose (A). Since the Washingtonian society opposes foreign entanglements, they may, like the founding fathers, be fiercely protectionist when it comes to labor. Since the formation of labor unions doesn't necessarily touch on the avoidance of foreign alliances, and may well suit this group’s political leanings, it's unlikely that the Washingtonians will find reason (A) controversial. In fact, it may be the reason to start off with in order to build your credibility with these readers. Try again.
You chose (B). Correct. This reason is likely to raise some eyebrows among the Washingtonians. Since they are interested in promoting national sovereignty, they are likely to be suspicious of large international alliances such as NATO, or multinational economic institutions that make decisions outside of elected governments. Assuming they also see the Soviet Union as a threat to national sovereignty, this reason forces them to question their ideals, so Sharon may want to present it last, once she has established her credibility with these readers.
You chose (C). This reason may be controversial for some of these readers, or it may be exactly what some expect, depending on their views on religious institutions. In general, though, this reason will be less relevant to the concerns of the group at large, so you may want to present it in passing in the middle of the argument. Try again.

Although Sharon plans to use the same three reasons in each essay, she plans to arrange them in different orders to suit her three different sets of readers. In each case, she wants to build up to the reason that will be most controversial for each group.

Now do this: below you will find a description of each set of readers. For each one, click to highlight the reason that Sharon should save for last because those readers will resist it and she wants to build her credibility first.

III. The Jefferson Society

This is a group of people concerned about the intrusion of religion into politics. Its mission is to protect the wall of separation between church and state.

A) The formation of the Solidarity movement among Polish workers created an alternative base of political power that eroded the monopoly of the Communist party.
B) International entities such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and the World Bank formed a coalition that isolated the communists and put increased pressure on the Soviet government.
C) The independent and intense involvement of the Catholic Church, led by the public and private efforts by the Polish Pope John Paul II, were decisive in inspiring resistance among the people.

You chose (A). Reason (A) may be controversial for some of these readers, or it may be exactly what some expect, depending on their views on organized labor. In general, though, this reason will be less relevant to the concerns of the group at large, so you may want to present it in passing.Try again.
You chose (B). Reason (B) may be controversial for some of these readers, or it may be exactly what some expect, depending on their views on multinational institutions. In general, though, this reason will be less relevant to the concerns of the group at large, so you may want to present it in passing. Try again.
You chose (C). Correct. Readers who are suspicious of the involvement of the church in state matters may have some serious questions about whether it is a good idea for a particular religious institution, such as the Catholic Church, or religious leader, such as the Pope, to become involved in political affairs. Since these readers are likely to disapprove of any state that enforces one national policy on religion—as the Soviet Union did, even if it officially promoted atheism—then they may be troubled that the church played an important role in the democratization of Poland. If it was the church that helped to bring about religious freedom in Poland, they may have to reexamine some of their principles. Consequently, this will be a complex reason for them to accept, and Sharon may want to save it until after she has established her credibility with less controversial reasons.

User login

Choose a Parallel or Sequential Order for Your Reasons

Warning!

Site Map

Reference