Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [213]
THE CLASSICAL ORATION FORMAT
All-purpose formats have been around a long time. Some are very simple. Others are more elaborate. The simplest organizing scheme consists of three parts: introduction, body, and conclusion. The format of the classical oration has a more elaborate form:
exordium, introduction
narratio, statement of facts
divisio, outline of the points or steps in the argument
confirmatio, proof of the case
confutatio, refutation of opposing arguments
peroratio, conclusion
If you read or listen to (for example) political speeches, you will find that many of them follow this order. This is because the form of the classical oration is suited primarily to argument—to the kind of writing in which the writer makes a case for or against something and refutes opposing arguments. As we have been demonstrating throughout this book, analytical thinking does not fit well into formats calling for an upfront statement of a predetermined claim, which is then simply proven to be correct. And so the book offers alternative organizational schemes that allow the space necessary for the recursive (back and forth between evidence and claims) thinking that analytical writing involves. These forms include some of the elements of the classical oration but without its emphasis on proof and refutation.
THREE COMMON ORGANIZING STRATEGIES
The following organizational patterns are determined more by rhetorical considerations—the desired effect on an audience—than by their idea-generating potential. As you will see, however, each also has potential for shaping thought. The first two patterns, climactic order and comparison/contrast, are common in all forms of writing. The third pattern, which concerns locating refutations and concessions, is particular to argument.
Climactic Order: Saving the Best for Last
Climactic order arranges elements from least to most important. The idea is to build to your best points, rather than leading with them and thereby allowing the paper to trail off from your more minor and less interesting observations. But what are your best points? A frequent mistake writers make in arranging their points climactically— and one that has much to do with the rhetoric of form—is to assume that the best point is the most obvious, the one with the most data attached to it and the one least likely to produce disagreement with readers. Such writers end up giving more space than they should to ideas that really don’t need much development because they are already evident to most readers.
If you follow the principle of climactic order, you would begin with the most obvious and predictable points—and ones that, psychologically speaking, would get readers assenting—and then build to the more revealing and less obvious ones. So, for example, if the comparisons between film A and film B are fairly mundane but the contrasts are really provocative, you’d get the comparisons out of the way first and build to the contrasts, exploiting difference within similarity (see Chapter 4).
If, for example, there are three important reasons for banning snowmobiling in your town, you might choose to place the most compelling one last. If you were to put it first, you might draw your readers in quickly (a principle used by news stories) but then lose them as your argument seemed to trail off into less interesting rationales.
Comparisons/Contrasts: Two Formats
In Chapter 7, we discuss comparison as an invention strategy. We now want to address this subject from the perspective of organizing a paper. The first decision a writer has to make when arranging comparisons and contrasts is whether to address the two items being compared and contrasted in sequential blocks (A and then B) or point by point
Organize by subjects being compared (subject A and then subject B), or
Organize the comparison under a series of topics (Topic 1: A and B, Topic 2: A and B, etc.)
If you are comparing subject A with subject B, you might first make all the points you wish to make about A and then make points about B by explicitly