Write a discipline-specific argument with a thorough thesis, sequenced claims and counterclaims, fairly developed evidence, cohesive links, a formal style and a conclusion that follows

Learning goal: Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content: establish a clear and thorough thesis to present a complex argument; introduce precise, knowledgeable claims, establish their significance, distinguish them from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claims, counterclaims, reasons and evidence; develop claims and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant data and evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both, in a discipline-appropriate form that anticipates the audience's knowledge level, concerns, values and possible biases; use words, phrases, clauses and varied syntax to link major sections, create cohesion and clarify relationships; establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone that attends to the norms and conventions of the discipline; and provide a concluding section that follows from and supports the argument.

What makes an argument discipline-specific. An argument in science, history or a technical subject is not an opinion essay with facts added. Each discipline has norms for what counts as a claim and as evidence. In science, a claim is limited to what the data and their conditions support; numbers carry units; uncertainty is stated, not hidden; and a model's estimate is labeled as a model's. In history, a claim is an interpretation of the past supported by sources whose origin and date are identified; historians acknowledge other interpretations by name; and they separate what sources show from what they infer. In a technical field, an argument often recommends a design or practice and weighs costs, reliability and conditions of use. The skills below are the same in every discipline; their form changes.

A thesis for a complex argument. A complex argument has more than one moving part: a finding, a qualification, and a recommendation or judgment. A clear and thorough thesis states all of them. Weak: "Buffers are good for streams." That claim is imprecise (good how? which streams?) and cannot be argued against evidence. Thorough: "The Pell Creek evidence shows that a riparian buffer sharply lowers nitrate in the water that passes through it, but because most spring water in these tile-drained fields bypasses the buffer, the watershed group should pair buffers with practices that route or treat tile water rather than rely on buffers alone." It contains a finding, a condition and a recommendation.

Precise, knowledgeable claims and their significance. Precise claims name quantities, places and conditions. Knowledgeable claims use the discipline's terms correctly: "nitrate-nitrogen in shallow groundwater," not "chemicals in the dirt." Establishing significance answers "why should this audience care?" Here, 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen is the federal drinking-water limit for nitrate in public water systems, and five of the six field-edge samples exceeded it.

Distinguishing claims from alternate and opposing claims. An alternate claim offers a different answer (for example, "reduce fertilizer rates instead"); an opposing claim contradicts yours ("buffers are sufficient"). Name each precisely so that the reader sees where your argument differs.

Organization and cohesion. A logical sequence for a complex argument is: context and thesis; claims in the order that builds (what the buffer does; what the water does; what the creek shows); counterclaims with their evidence; response; conclusion. Cohesion comes from words, phrases and clauses that make relationships explicit: "because," "even so," "this estimate, however," "taken together." Varied syntax helps: a short sentence can state a finding; a longer sentence with a subordinate clause can hold a qualification.

Formal style, objective tone and fairness. Formal style avoids slang and first-person opinion markers ("I feel"); objective tone reports opponents' positions in terms they would accept. Developing a counterclaim fairly means giving it its best evidence, not a weak version. Anticipating the audience means knowing who reads: a watershed group of farmers and agency staff knows drainage well, cares about cost and yield, values practical results, and may be biased toward practices already paid for.

A complete model argument (science; uses the invented Pell Creek sources).

Buffers Are Not Enough: Treating Tile Water at Pell Creek

Nitrate lost from farm fields is a cost twice over: to the farmer, as fertilizer that did not feed a crop, and to everyone downstream. At Pell Creek, five of six spring samples from the field-edge well exceeded 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen, the federal drinking-water limit. The evidence gathered this spring shows that the 25-meter riparian buffer sharply lowers nitrate in the water that passes through it; however, because most spring water in these tile-drained fields bypasses the buffer, the watershed group should pair buffers with practices that route or treat tile water rather than rely on buffers alone.

The buffer does what the science predicts for the water that reaches it. On all six sampling dates, nitrate-nitrogen was lower at the stream-edge well than at the field-edge well, by 60 to 80 percent. Recalculated from the reported values, the mean fell from 11.93 to 3.30 mg/L, a reduction of 72.3 percent. The study's own summary gave 75 percent, an arithmetic error that does not change the finding.

That finding, though, applies to one path. The watershed model estimates that about 70 percent of the spring water leaving these fields travels through tile drains, which discharge directly into the creek. If the remaining 30 percent loses 72.3 percent of its nitrate, the buffer removes roughly 22 percent of the nitrate leaving the fields, assuming similar concentrations in both paths. The creek's measured change is consistent with a modest effect: mean nitrate-nitrogen fell from 9.0 to 8.6 mg/L across the buffered reach, about 4.4 percent.

Supporters of the current plan make two serious points. First, buffers do more than remove nitrate: they trap sediment, stabilize banks and provide habitat, benefits this study did not measure. Second, the 70 percent figure comes from a model, not from measured flows, and could be too high. Both points are fair. Yet neither restores the buffer's reach: as an illustrative check rather than a measured bound, even if the true tile share were 55 percent rather than 70, most of the fields' spring water would still bypass the strip, and the buffer would remove about a third of the nitrate (0.45 × 72.3 ≈ 33 percent), well short of the three-quarters the study's summary implied. And the added benefits are reasons to keep buffers, not reasons to rely on them alone.

Practices that treat tile water, such as routing a tile outlet into the buffer, managing the water level in the drains, or passing tile water through a woodchip bed where denitrifying bacteria work, address the path the buffer misses. Their costs and maintenance must be weighed field by field, and the group should measure flows next spring to test the model.

The evidence therefore supports the buffers the group has built and shows their limit. Nitrate that never passes through the strip cannot be removed by it; a plan that treats both paths is the one that follows from the data.

A misconception. Students often think acknowledging a counterclaim weakens an argument. In every discipline, an argument that meets the strongest opposing evidence and states its own limitations is more credible, because readers who hold the opposing view can see that it was taken seriously.

Worked thesis revision: Draft: "Tile drains are the reason buffers don't work." Problems: overstated (buffers do work on water that reaches them), imprecise (which buffers, measured how?), informal ("don't"). Revision: "Although the Pell Creek buffer lowered nitrate-nitrogen in shallow groundwater by about 72 percent, tile drainage carries most spring water past it, so buffers alone cannot achieve large reductions in these fields." The revision states a finding, a mechanism and a limited judgment.

Worked counterclaim developed fairly (history): Question: was the 1893 Lusk lockout chiefly an attack on the union? Counterclaim: the order book shows a real collapse, from $22,100 in April to $8,200 in September. Strength: the figures come from the company's order book, summarized by a historical society, not from either side's propaganda. Limitation: orders explain fewer furnaces, not why men refusing the new list were locked out rather than simply laid off. Response: "The collapse was real and alone would probably have idled the second furnace; the lockout, however, required a choice the orders did not dictate." (The sources are invented for this unit.)

Worked cohesion and tone: Choppy and informal: "The buffer worked. Tiles go around it. So it's kind of useless. People who like buffers are wrong." Revised: "The buffer lowered nitrate in the water that passed through it. Because tile drains carry most spring water around the strip, however, its effect on the fields' total loss is limited. Supporters rightly note benefits this study did not measure; those benefits justify keeping the buffers, not relying on them alone." Changes: transitions that show contrast and cause ("because," "however"), a subordinate clause holding the qualification, the opposing view stated in terms its supporters would accept, and slang removed.

Argument plan (representation): Before drafting, fill in an outline: thesis with finding, condition and judgment; significance for the named audience; two or three claims in the order that builds; the strongest counterclaim, its best evidence, and one strength and one limitation; your response; the conclusion's link back to the thesis. Beside each part, write the transition you will use to connect it to the previous part, and label each piece of evidence with its source, date and, for data, its units and conditions.

Independent performance: Write an argument of 600 to 900 words on a question from your current history, science or technical course, using at least three sources. Success criteria: (1) a thesis that presents a complex argument with a qualification; (2) precise, knowledgeable claims whose significance to a named audience is established; (3) at least one alternate or opposing claim distinguished from yours and developed fairly with its best evidence; (4) strengths and limitations stated for both your claims and the counterclaim; (5) an organization that sequences claims, counterclaims, reasons and evidence logically, with at least five linking words, phrases or clauses that clarify relationships; (6) a formal style and objective tone that follow the discipline's norms (units and uncertainty in science; source origin and date in history); (7) a conclusion that follows from the argument and adds no new claim.