Argument Essay Guidelines and Sample Responses

Argument Essay Guidelines and Sample Responses

Argument Topic #1

" A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 percent less likely to be involved in a work-related accident than employees who do not receive payment for sick leave. Researchers hypothesize that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during time of illness for fear of lack of pay. On-the-job accidents are then spurred by impaired judgment or motor skills due to illness or illness-related medications. The highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed the highest discrepancy between paid and unpaid leave. " 

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers’ hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.

Here’s a take on this topic — followed by an actual essay 

I read the instructions first, then the argument. The instructions focus on the “questions” needed to evaluate the argument; because I knew this when I started making notes, I was able to put as many as possible into question form. Later, when I began to write, I already had many questions that I could fold right into the argument.

The argument has two significant flaws. First, the study results (in sentences 1 and 4) do not address any part of the hypothesis (that is, whether people are working while ill and whether that then causes accidents). Second, the argument fails to address (and dismiss) any alternate explanations for the data.

My raw notes are fairly long, but notice how I’ve got them organized paragraph by paragraph. When I start writing, I actually type right underneath the notes for each paragraph, so that I can re-use exactly what I’ve already typed and then simply delete any extraneous words. This is similar to writing a detailed outline first and then fleshing out the first draft. The only thing I don’t brainstorm is the conclusion — my conclusion will just be a restatement of everything I’ve already said.

Argument Essay Guidelines

P1: Hypothesis = pressured to work. But evidence doesn’t show WHY there are more accidents. Conjecture.

P2: Can the existing data be made to show actual causation? Study could poll people as to why they had the accident. Did they actually come to work sick?

P3: Other possible explanations? Differences based upon job title or level? Desk-job workers probably less likely to have accidents; are they also more likely to have paid sick leave? Blue-collar jobs more likely to cause accidents and also less likely to offer paid sick leave? Salary vs. hourly wage work?

P4: Other reasons why people feel pressured to work? Perhaps unpaid sick leave correlates with certain kinds of jobs where it’s more problematic for a team if someone doesn’t show up for work that day. [Note: as I wrote the essay, I realized that this was already too much like paragraph 3 — luckily, by then, I’d thought of something else to say in paragraph 4.]

P5: conclusion

The instructions specifically ask us to “explain what effects the answers” would have on the argument. It’s not enough to ask the questions — I also have to state how various responses might help or hurt the argument. Note that I did not necessarily say “If the answer is yes, then this will happen; if the answer is no, then that will happen.” It’s enough to say something like “if X happens, this would support the hypothesis.” I did, though, make sure that some questions were presented in a way that allowed me to say “If so, this strengthens the hypothesis” and others were presented in a way that allowed me to say “If so, this weakens the hypothesis.”

Sample Responses

Essay 1:

The author provides two pieces of evidence in support of the researchers’ contention that workers without paid sick leave are more likely to work when ill, and that such workers are more likely to experience a job-related accident as a result. The results of the study cannot be disputed — we must accept as true, for example, that those with paid sick leave are significantly less likely to have work-related accidents than those without paid sick leave. We might, however, question whether the study was large enough, or representative enough, to draw broad conclusions. Further, the study does not demonstrate causation: it does not tie the incidence of work-related accidents to illness. While the researchers’

hypothesis is certainly one possibility, more research is needed to eliminate other possibilities and to bolster the strength of this argument.

The largest leap in the argument is the assumption that those without paid sick leave feel pressured to work when ill. No evidence is presented to establish this supposition. In order to strengthen this part of the argument, the researchers might ask study participants whether they have actually come to work ill during the same timeframe covered by the original study and, if so, why they chose to come to work when ill. If

the study participants who did experience a work-related accident were also more likely to come to work ill for fear of lack of pay, then the hypothesis would be much more strongly supported, particularly if this occurred with a correspondingly large proportion of workers (to match the 28% greater incidence ofaccidents in the original study).

The researchers would also strengthen their case by addressing alternate explanations for the data in the original study. For instance, are there differences between the two groups based upon industry or job performed that might explain the data? For example, are hourly workers more likely to lack paid sick leave, while salaried workers are more likely to receive it? Are hourly workers more likely to work in blue-collar or more manual occupations, where on-the-job accidents are more frequent? If so, then we would expect a correlation between unpaid sick leave and a higher incidence of workplace accidents because the work itself is inherently more dangerous, not because people are choosing to work when ill. Further, if it is the case that higher-risk occupations in general are more likely to lack paid leave, then the second piece of evidence also loses its significance. In such a case, the researchers’ hypothesis would be significantly weakened.

The data presented also lacks a depth of detail that would help us to evaluate the significance of the study results. How many people were surveyed? What is the margin of error and how was the study conducted? Is the 28% figure statistically significant? If the study represented a large enough survey group to extrapolate to the general population, across regions, industries, and job responsibilities, then the study

results may be conveying something significant. If, alternatively, few people were surveyed or the incidence of job-related accidents were very low, then perhaps the 28% difference represented a small number of people, well within the statistical variance expected.

While the argument presents an interesting hypothesis, the data presented is not strong enough to establish the validity of the conclusion to even a small degree. First, at a basic level, we need to know whether the existing data is statistically significant and sufficiently representative. There are also several gaps in the logic chain, assertions made without supporting evidence. Finally, the researchers could

strengthen their case by examining, and dismissing, alternate explanations for the data presented thus far. These steps might not be enough to establish the validity of the hypothesis beyond a doubt, but they would allow the researchers to determine whether the pursuit of the hypothesis is a good use of time, funds, and attention.

Here is a second opinion:

Phew! Stacey has done a phenomenal job with this brutal Argument Essay. What makes it so hard? Well, the argument itself doesn’t actually make a huge number of outright logical errors (e.g., “This burrito has guacamole, therefore it is the best burrito in Los Angeles!”). Instead, the majority of errors here are errors of omission. Stacey needs to use all the rules she knows about making a good argument in order to describe everything the author left out.

Every Argument Essay presents you with a terrible argument, and it’s up to you to explain why it’s terrible. But in this case, the argument just isn’t that bad as written. Thankfully, the prompt gives some hint of this. By asking what questions would need to be answered to justify the conclusion, it’s more or less telling you that you’ll need to consider things the prompt ignored. Make sure you take note of the special instructions on every essay, because they often provide helpful hints such as this one.

Honestly, I can’t think of much I would do differently in this essay, though I do think Stacey missed one juicy lowhanging point. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention is likely to have as its prime focus the desire to stop the spread of disease (it’s not particularly interested in making sure random construction workers get good benefits). The best way to stop the spread of disease is to make sure sick people stay home, and the best way to get sick people to stay home is to ensure that they all get paid sick leave. Since the CDC’s conclusion happens to coincide with that ulterior motive (getting sick people to stay home), we might have reason to doubt the CDC’s conclusion.