The course has a principal thesis that caters for origin and description of argumentation. Students need to learn the purpose and style of writing an argumentative essay. With the help of amplification of opinions, a good professional argument demonstrates effectiveness and purpose.
The school argumentative essay must follow key features of a good writing style. These are emphasis from the collage or school tutoring systems. In comparison to professional argumentation in the work force, Chryssafidou (n.d, 2), indicates that it is challenging and often difficult to write an argumentative essay especially within an applicable area such as the workplace.
One has to see ideas in a systematic format in support of one position of the argument and disproval of the other. Essential skills taught in school covers components, schemes or patterns that are essential for easy and academically related essays. Professional style of writing proposes the dialectic form of essay, which utilizes computer supportive setting to support the position of the argument.
This assists in captivating an argument as a procedure to solve differences of opinions by supporting opinions with arguments, while anticipating counterarguments, instead of critical analysis of specific characteristics of an argument Chryssafidou (n.d, 2). One has to find ways of refuting the counter-arguments to strengthen personal opinion.
According to Chryssafidou (n.d, 4), computer systems support opinions through provision of illustrative arguments. They also assist in engaging professional in formulation of illustrations and encourage dialogue through exchange of comments. This procedure assists in entangling difficult situations.
The formal education on essay writing lacks the opportunity to build up experiences as a critical aspect of solving challenges. Students often forget to substantiate their side of the argument at the beginning of the essay. They either lack enough understanding or ignore requirements to have a stand of opinion, to build up a logical debate within the essay.
The evident difference between professional and academic argumentative essay is that students will engage in an argument to refute a certain point-of-view and reject the opinion without proper justification. In line with Chryssafidou’s article (n.d, 5); proper formalism of an argumentation is imminent in a computer system.
The system is a procedure that consists of various elements and connectors to construct the argument. The elements are “claims, data, warrant, backing, issues, position and arguments” (Chryssafidou, n.d, 5). Various suggestive efforts of the software tool relate to formulation of arguments and assists in identification of a relationship between claims and supportive evidence.
The article assists students on matters concern with formulation of professional arguments. It helps one in choosing an opinion when initiating an argument, formulating clear disagreements through clarified structures, enhancing procedures for planning and writing the essay. The article also offers the option of writing an essay in a virtual context through online tutorials and provides guidance over formulation of collaborative appraisals as opposed to cumulative assessment of a situation.
By analysis of this text, I have learnt that one should not assume familiarity of argumentation skills and schemes when that knowledge lacks developed experience and substantive support. Strong arguments have well-built support such as the dialectic essays that are computer aided.
The academic essay may have strong support from various resources but lack the required characteristics to synthesis them into a coherent scene. There is a difference between developing an opinion followed by a reason for the choice, and developing an argument together with high-levelled standards in support of the position.
This article raises various concerns over significance of argumentative analysis. The author presents a different perspective to the academic guidance of written argumentative essay, which is the use of computer-aided models. The main question is whether the arguer has the ability to determine the critical aspects of an argument and state the presumptions or principals of an argument. These features often face implicit omission in school writing and guidance.
Which aspects of an argument lead to deeper and consultative disagreements that can provide better understanding of the argument? According to Chryssafidou’s article (n.d, 9), it is possible to present different parts of a large argumentative transcript and merge the results to a unified structure. Is it possible to present basic elements of a contrasting argument? Is it feasible to have an illustration of interdependence between common or otherwise conflicting conclusions?
Other concerns raised by the article points out on existence of errors connected to assumptions that arguments consist of single datum. While the structural representation of arguments in a computer system brings out details clearly, the legitimacy of an opinion depends on the structure of argument.
The computer-aided system however lacks policies and governing procedures. Does lack of policies compromise viability? The extra support of structuring problems and revealing possible solutions or options of designing and recording decisions is an excellent way of availing proposals to a problem for future reference.
The main weaknesses connected to the computer-aided designs for projecting a problem lies on details pertaining components of the argument, since there is compromise on overall goals and argumentative text. Other limitations concern reconstruction procedures. Formalism indicates that critic’s assist is reinvention of better arguments (Chryssafidou, n.d, 11).
Chryssafidou, Evi. “DIALECTIC: Enhancing essay writing skills with computer supported formulation of argumentation.” Kodak/Royal Academy Educational Technology Group Journal, School of Elec. & Elec. Engineering, University of Birmingham. (n.d).
http://22.214.171.124/scholar?q=cache:cQUkkP-Tq1cJ:scholar.google.com/+argumentative+essay+in+the+workplace&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 (accessed October 24, 2010).