GUIDE TO WRITING A SOCIAL STUDIES POSITION PAPER

You may be asked to write a paper in which you pick some important question, decide on an answer to that question, and defend your conclusion.

In other words, you will be asked to make a decision and show why it is a good one. And good decision-making is not merely something needed in writing a paper, but also serves you in real-life situations. So we need to consider decision-making in general, and that involves reasons, argument, distinctions and issues.

REASONS

A good decision, as opposed to a foolish one, has good reasons behind it. Good reasons are reasons that we believe in and that lead to our conclusion about the decision we make.

ARGUMENTS

So we need to lay out our reasons and our conclusions about what to think or believe. When we give reasons together with the conclusion they lead to, this is called an argument.

And one more thing: When we talk about arguments, we usually use the term “premises” instead of “reasons.” An argument, then, consists of one or more premises and the conclusion they lead to.

Let’s look at arguments in an imaginary, simple, commonsense example:

Suppose we want to drive from Abbottsville to Bellefield. And suppose there are three ways we might possibly do so – by way of Miller Road, Newsome Ave., or Oliver Road. In considering how to decide on a route, you might say something like this to yourself, or you might hear it from others:

“I ought to take Miller Road, because it’s the most pleasant drive, and I want my

drive to be as pleasant as possible.”

“But maybe I ought to take Newsome Ave., because that’s the fastest, and I want

to go in the fastest way possible.”

“Or maybe I ought to take Oliver Road, because that’s the fastest.”

What you have is three arguments, which can be expressed in a more formal way as follows:

I want to make my drive as pleasant as possible.

To take Miller Road will make my drive as pleasant as possible.

Therefore, I ought to take Miller Road.

I want to make my drive as fast as possible.

To take Newsome Avenue will make my drive as fast as possible.

` Therefore, I ought to take Newsome Avenue.

I want to make my drive as fast as possible.

To take Oliver Road will make my drive as fast as possible.

Therefore, I ought to take Oliver Road.

These arguments all start out by mentioning a goal (to have a pleasant drive, or have as fast a drive as possible). Therefore they are called value arguments. Other arguments might merely concern the facts. For example, suppose someone argued in this way:

When a street has rush-hour traffic, traveling on it is slow.

Newsome Avenue has rush-hour traffic.

Therefore, traveling on Newsome Avenue will not make my drive as fast as

possible.

DISTINCTIONS

Newsome Avenue won’t be the fastest way to go when it has rush-hour traffic, but it may be the fastest way when it doesn’t have rush-hour traffic. This shows the importance of making distinctions – in this case, a distinction between Newsome Avenue during rush hour, and Newsome Avenue at other times.

ISSUES

What do we need in order to choose among the three arguments and come to a conclusion about which way to drive? Well, we need to decide two things: First, we need to decide whether we want to have a pleasant drive or a fast drive. Second, if we want a fast drive, we need to decide whether Newsome Avenue or Oliver Road is the fastest way. These are the questions that need to be decided in order to arrive at a reasonable decision, and they are called issues. The two issues behind our decision, then, are:

Do I want to make my drive as pleasant as possible, or to make my drive as fast as

possible?

If I want to make my drive as fast as possible, is Newsome Avenue or Oliver

Road the fastest?

In short, when you think about a decision to be made, or a controversy about some question about what ought to be done or what is true, think in terms of:

Arguments, on all sides of the question

Distinctions to be made

Issues to be recognized.

A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE: JOHN BROWN’S RAID

John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) in 1859 was one of the most famous events in American history. Let’s consider the plan in outline to decide whether it was justified or not.

John Brown, a radical enemy of slavery, planned to take his group of about 20 men, capture the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, and escape to the neighboring mountains with his captured weapons, to be joined by escaped slaves in an “army of emancipation” that would free the slaves of the area. As it turned out, Brown did capture the armory but he did not escape to the mountains. He was surrounded by federal troops, captured, tried and hanged.

Was John Brown’s raid justified? Let’s look at the arguments.

To begin, the raid was a violent act of rebellion against established government for the sake of a just cause, the abolition of slavery. Thus on the one side you can give the argument:

Violent rebellion against established government is wrong.

John Brown’s raid was a violent rebellion against established government.

Therefore, his raid was wrong.

On the other hand, you might argue:

To fight (violently) for a just cause is right.

John Brown was fighting (violently) for a just cause.

Therefore, John Brown’s raid was right.

In expressing such arguments, you don’t need to lay them out in the formal way you find here. However, you should clearly express both premises, because the soundness of your argument depends on whether these premises are true. To give yourselves and others a chance to decide whether the premises are true, you must show clearly what those premises are.

The second argument states that John Brown was fighting for a “just cause.” But you might say, how could John Brown be the final judge as to whether his cause was just? So you might want to make a distinction between fighting for a just cause and fighting for a cause that you believe to be just. In that case you might change the argument to read:

To fight (violently) for a cause you believe to be just is right.

John Brown was fighting (violently) for a cause he believed to be just.

Therefore, John Brown’s raid was right.

Thus the issue raised by these two arguments is:

Is it right to fight (violently) for a cause one believes to be just?

Or better: When is it right to fight (violently) for a cause one believes to be

just?

Of course you will want to look at the strength of the arguments on each side, and perhaps decide which is the stronger. We’ll get to that later. Now let’s look at another aspect of John Brown’s plans:

John Brown expected to be joined in the mountains by escaped slaves, and he expected that these escaped slaves, along with him and his followers, would wage a campaign to emancipate the slaves in the area. Suppose we believe that it is right to wage a violent fight for what one believe to be just. One could still argue that Brown was wrong to make his raid, because he had no reasonable chance of succeeding in his plan. The argument might look like this:

It is wrong to fight (violently) for a plan that has no reasonable chance of

success.

John’s Brown plan had no reasonable chance of success.

Therefore, John Brown’s raid was wrong.

What is the argument (or what are the arguments) on the other side? Well, of course, you might argue that the raid did have a reasonable chance of success. So a factual issue is raised:

Did John Brown’s raid have a reasonable chance of success?

And the arguments on both sides of this issue might have raised further issues: For example:

How many escaped slaves were in the region, and would they have joined John Brown’s

“army?”

If he and his slaves could have established a base in the surrounding mountains, could he have held out against U.S. troops?

And if he could have held out, could he have been successful in liberating other slaves?

Here is where your historical research comes in. There are many interesting facts to be unearthed. But remember that the facts are interesting for one reason: Because they help to settle the issues raised by the arguments. So make sure you focus your research on these issues.

But in addition to questioning the second premise of the argument, you might also question or judge the first premise. (This shows the value of laying out your premises explicitly. If you don’t express both of the premises that are behind your conclusion, you won’t be able to question or judge those premises.) In other words, you might raise the issue:

Is it right to fight (violently) for what one believes to be just, even if it has

no reasonable chance of success?

This is probably a hard issue to resolve. Your answer may just depend on your way of looking at life. But at least in recognizing the issue you recognize where you differ from those who have a different view.

COUNTEREXAMPLES AND ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGY

Counterexamples and arguments by analogy are two ways to resolve issues. They apply especially to value issues (issues about what is right or what we want to do), which cannot be resolved by looking at the facts.

A counterexample is a statement about some particular fact that contradicts a general statement and thereby knocks it down. For example:

It’s wrong to lie.

Counterexample: What about lying to dying friends about their condition?

Every major city is built on a river.

Counterexample: What about San Francisco?

In the case of the arguments about John Brown’s raid, you might use a counterexample to knock down the premise “Violent rebellion against established government is wrong.” The counterexample might be: “What about the American Revolution?”

(This immediately brings to mind one way to defeat a counterexample, which is to make a distinction between the counterexample and the statement being attacked. That is, you could point out relevant ways in which John Brown’s raid was different from the American Revolution as a basis for distinguishing the two.)

Arguments from analogy involve comparisons. They are based on the assumption that if two (or more) things are similar in some important respect, they are also similar in another respect. For example, suppose we have two books and have read book A but not book B.

Now suppose we know of book A:

It’s a mystery written by Joe Smith, and is pleasant reading.

And suppose we know about book B:

It’s a mystery written by Joe Smith.

We would conclude that book B is also pleasant reading.

In discussing John Brown’s raid, you might use arguments from analogy to help judge the possibility that his planned campaign of slave emancipation would be successful. You could draw analogies between that campaign and various slave uprisings and guerrilla campaigns, such as the slave rebellions in the South, Spartacus’ slave uprising against Rome, the successful slave rebellion in Haiti, and Fidel Castro’s guerrilla campaign which overthrew the Cuban government. What you need to determine, of course, is how much John Brown’s planned campaign was like the successful ones, and how much it was like the unsuccessful ones.

For other ways of arguing, especially in discussion with others, see “A Handbook on Reasoned Discussion,”

(also available at the Library Reference Desk.)