Essay One Eng 101

8/3/2019 Essay One Eng 101

1/5

1

A Poor Attempt at Argumentative Writing

If youre in combat, will the person standing next to you be the one who saves your life?

The article that I am addressing discusses the issue of whether or not homosexuals should be able

to openly serve in the military. While reading the article, Homosexuals in the Military: Combat

Readiness or Social Engineering? by Daniel L. Davis, you have to look at the stance the author

takes. There are many reasons that I dont agree with the writer. The fact that he doesnt support

his stance very well just reinforces my opposition to his article in the Washington Times. If you

look at the pillars of writing an argumentative piece, you can clearly see where Davis lacks in his

article. My essay addresses how Davis leaves out the four key pillars of an argumentative writing

and how his doing so detracts from his persuasion of the reader.

The first pillar of argument is a thesis statement. This statement is supposed to give the

reader a clear understanding of the position on the subject addressed. In Davis article, he

doesnt give a clear thesis statement. The introduction to his article does express what he will be

addressing, however, there is no decisive position taken. In the introduction, Davis says, Such

an important issue ought not to be decided based on such an out-of-balance ratio. He believes

that the only position being heard is the one that supports the ban of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell

policy. Although, he doesnt let the reader know whether or not he supports or opposes the

policy himself. The first issue with his article is that he doesnt have a clear thesis statement.

The next pillar of argument that Davis fails to uphold in his article is evidence. The only

support that he gives is that the religious service members will be completely against

homosexuals openly serving in our military. However, he does not list facts or site any kind of

data to support this statement. The remark that Davis makes, It is clear beyond question that the

homosexual person who seeks to serve in the military believes that his or her lifestyle is perfectly


2/5

2

moral and no one will ever convince them otherwise. ruins any chance he had of credibility.

This statement is tainted and completely opinionated. Davis also states that by lifting the ban, the

unit will not work as well together because the difference in beliefs between the homosexual and

the religious troops. As long as a troop trusts each other and knows that the person next to them

will do everything they can to protect one another a sense of unity is hard to break. Davis makes

a poor effort to give any kind of evidence that would support his opinion.

Refutation is the next pillar of argumentative writing. This pillar can be the make you or

break you of an argumentative piece. How the writer responds to facts and figures given by the

opposing argument lets the readers know how well informed this author is. Daniel L. Davis does

give some refutation in his article. However, he only truly addresses one piece of evidence that

most people who support banning the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy take. The point Davis

addresses is a poll taken called the Zogby poll. This poll was taken by many members of the

military and gives support that there is a large percent of homosexuals who are already serving in

the military. Along with the fact that many service members are changing their opinions and

becoming more open towards homosexuals serving. Davis changed many of those percentages

into numbers to show that it is truly not a large amount of the military that would support this

ban. The Zogby poll is the only figures that Davis refers to in his article. There are numerous

points, facts and figures given to support homosexual persons serving openly in the military that

Davis does not even touch on. His refutation is lacking and not up to par for such a controversial

subject. With this poor presentation, Davis has no chance of convincing anyone to change their

opinion or stance on this issue.

The last pillar of argument is that of the concluding statement. To have an effective

argument, not only is a thesis statement a must, a concluding statement is what reinforces your


3/5

3

stance and leaves the readers remembering what your opinion is and why theirs should be the

same. The concluding statement that Davis gives is obvious. It is the last sentence of his article

and has its own paragraph. It does reinforce his thesis statement. However, because his thesis

was so unclear as to the position Davis takes, the concluding statement leaves the reader unclear

as to whether or not he supports the ban of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. The thesis and concluding

statement in an argument should be the most precise and strong statements made. Throughout

Davis article he is giving arguments to oppose homosexuals being allowed to serve openly in

the military. At the end however, he says that repealing this policy should not be a product of

social or political trickery, but that the good of the military and the country wont be

compromised. Nowhere is this last sentence does Davis give the reader his clear position of what

he is trying to make them understand and believe. Failure to do so leaves the reader unsure and

possibly even confused as to what Davis believes himself.

The pillars of an argumentative writing are clear and concise. They allow a writer to

achieve the most success in persuading the readers. After reading the article, Homosexuals in

the Military: Combat Readiness or Social Engineering by Daniel L. Davis, written in the

Washington Times, and knowing the pillars of argument, it is clear the article made a below

average attempt at convincing the reader to believe or support his stance. Not only does Davis

lack evidence and refutation, his thesis and concluding statements are poorly written and fall

very short of expectations for a well informed and persuasive piece. My opinion differs from his

greatly and he not only didnt change my opinion, he reinforced it. An opinion, and an ill-

informed one at that, doesnt belong in an argumentative piece, unless you are able to support

those with facts, figures and data. Based on the four pillars of argument, Davis didnt give a well

thought out argument to reinforce or alter anyones opinion.


4/5

4

Works Cited


5/5

5

Davis, Daniel L. Homosexuals in the Military: Combat Readiness or Social Engineering?

Practical Argument. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martins, 2011. 614-615. Print.

Documents

Essay One Eng 101