Analysing arguments - some tips and strategies!

[TheLlama]

Strengthening your ability to analyse argument can take some time, but don't be put off if you're finding this task difficult. I thought it might be useful to share some of the strategies and approaches that I've noticed tend to make a big difference for students.

1. Big picture / little picture
If you've had a look at the Study Design, one thing you're expected to do is "identify and analyse the way in which language and argument complement one another and interact to position the reader."
Essentially, this leads to one of the main stumbling blocks with this task: students will often focus on either the little picture or the big picture in isolation. That is, they might spend time focusing on techniques or language and stop there. Alternatively, they might focus quite broadly on the overall contention without zooming into the language that supports the argument. It's really about blending and linking them.

Keep in mind that these are interconnected, that the writer (or illustrator) is choosing language with a purpose: the small but deliberate linguistic choices a writer is making all feed into some larger argument. Think about it like this:

• Do I notice a particular choice that seems designed to nudge the reader?
• Are there other similar choices?
• How do these choices work together to reinforce an argument?

By asking yourself about how the writer's choices are connected - how they follow a particular pattern - you're much more likely to start explaining the reasons why the writer has made those particular choices. Consequently, that just might provide you with a platform to explain how the small choices lead to the bigger picture!

2. Becoming lost in the haze of argumentative language
At times, you might be overwhelmed by the vocabulary choices you see others using. As much as word choice is important in setting your response apart and revealing your precise understanding, simplicity has a lot going for it.

Let me put that a bit differently: walk before you try to run. If you're the type of student who hasn't done heaps of reading and writing, but are setting yourself particularly high goals, remember that improvement happens in stages, rather than all at once. Sure, you might notice that your peers are using flashy vocab and you're keen to borrow all of these new words. It's important that you understand how to use them and understand when it's appropriate to use them. More than that, until you've actually tried writing with those fancy words a few times, they won't come to you as easily as you might like. And for this task, speed and clarity are important: you want your reader to understand your meaning the first time they read. If they have to force their way through a confusing hedge maze of phrases and hesitant language, you're not only making it difficult for your reader, there's a good chance you've had to slow down quite a bit to wrestle with a sentence.

So believe that you'll improve with time and effort. But it takes time - don't try to do it all at once.

3. Recognising subtlety and nuance
Often, the students who do really well in analysing language and argument are those who can peel apart a text and recognise something quite interesting going on. That can come across in the language they select (both to analyse and to use when writing their analysis) as well as in the connections and jumps they make when approaching a piece.

There's a recent opinion piece in The Age]a recent opinion piece in The Age that I'll use as an example. Julie Szego is commenting on Barnaby Joyce's paid interview on the Seven network. As I read, I'm paying attention to her choices - "who doesn't share in the distaste" comes early on. But then the piece seems to switch: "let's at least acknowledge", "we remain over-invested... in the scandal", our interest". It's a theme she returns to at the very end: "we're hooked on it", "do not tune in".

One more basic way of responding might be:
Szego argues that we are to blame for the attention given to Barnaby Joyce. She suggests that complaints have been overstated and that we should "at least acknowledge" that "we remain over-invested", "the bizarro soap opera" and are contributing to the attention given to the interview. Moreover, this argument reappears later in the piece as Szego invites readers to "not tune in" as a result.

However, if I wanted to add a little more spice and texture, I might say this:
From the outset, Julie Szego recognises reader fury over the Barnaby Joyce imbroglio, however she aims to carefully cast a light on the public's own role in keeping the scandal alive. Aligning herself with readers as interested in the ordeal through the inclusive "we remain", Szego carefully prepares readers to reflect on and "at least acknowledge" their own seemingly harmless complicity. More powerfully, she metamorphises reader "over-invest[ment]" in the interview as feeding something exceedingly strange in the "bizarro soap opera". Crucially, the writer returns to this notion as the piece closes: Imploring us to "not tune in" to this addictive scandal, Szego refocuses power firmly within her reader's grasp, at least metaphorically in the form of their remote control.

Hopefully that gives you some ideas that help you out with analysing argument. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!