273

CHAPTER 4 Writing Argument Analysis

Part Two will discuss how to write your own arguments,
including how to write arguments to fulfill course
assignments. Before we move on to discuss the writing of
arguments, consider in what academic contexts you might be
called upon to write an analysis of someone else’s argument.

The ability to write argument analysis is considered so

predictive of success in college that if you took the SAT
after March 2016, the optional essay assigned was argument
analysis. The prompt would appear in the format below,
followed by a short passage to analyze:

As you read the passage below, consider how [the author] uses
evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

Evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

Reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and
evidence.
Stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or
appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Write an essay in which you explain how [the author] builds an

argument to persuade [his/her] audience that [author’s claim].
In your essay, analyze how [the author] uses one or more of the
features listed above (or features of your own choice) to
strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of [his/her] argument.
Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant
features of the passage. Your essay should not explain whether

274
 you agree with [the author’s] claims, but rather explain how
the author builds an argument to persuade [his/her] audience. 1

This is how the College Board explains what the essay

measures:

Reading: A successful essay shows that you understood the

passage, including the interplay of central ideas and
important details. It also shows an effective use of
textual evidence.
Analysis: A successful essay shows your understanding of
how the author builds an argument by:

Examining the author’s use of evidence, reasoning,

and other stylistic and persuasive techniques

Supporting and developing claims with well-chosen

evidence from the passage

Writing: A successful essay is focused, organized, and

precise, with an appropriate style and tone that varies
sentence structure and follows the conventions of standard
written English. 2

In your classes, any time you are asked to write on similar

topics, you will be writing argument analysis. You will also
be writing argument analysis any time you read a similar
passage and are asked to evaluate its argument. Sometimes the
source to be analyzed will be longer than the short passages
provided on the SAT. At other times, the arguments may not be
written, but may be oral, like a political speech, or visual,
like an art work.

275
If you take the GMAT exam in preparation for pursuing an MBA
or similar degree, this is the type of essay required on the
exam:

In the Analysis of an Argument section you will discuss how

well reasoned you find a given argument. To do so, you will
analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the
argument. . . . Your ideas will need to be organized and fully
developed. 3

It should be more than clear by now how seriously educational

institutions take the ability to analyze arguments. In your
classes, you may be required to write formal analysis essays,
or you may write impromptu essay responses on tests or exams.
In theory, there are two parts of argument analysis: content
analysis and rhetorical analysis. In practice, the two are
virtually inseparable. Content analysis is the study of
ideas, of what an author says. Rhetorical analysis is the
study of strategy, of how the author presents the argument.
Writing an analysis of an argument almost inevitably requires
considering rhetorical strategies in the context of the ideas
being discussed.

Argument Analysis
ARGUMENT ESSENTIALS

Argument analysis can take different forms, depending on the

genre of the argument and the purpose of your assignment. You

276
will be writing an analysis of an argument any time you are
asked

to read a statement or a longer passage taking a stand on

any issue and explain the author’s strategies
to read or listen to a political speech and explain the
author’s strategies
to examine a multimodal argument and explain the author’s
strategies
to examine an argument and evaluate its effectiveness

277
Writing the Thesis (Main
Claim)
When you write an analysis of an argument that you have read,
listened to, or seen, you have two major options for your
thesis, the main claim of your argument. You may choose to
make a factual, nonjudgmental statement about the argument,
or you may choose to evaluate it. If you examined the most
recent McDonald’s commercial and wrote an essay explaining
what tactics were used to try to persuade consumers to eat at
McDonald’s or to try McDonald’s newest sandwich, you would
be supporting a factual claim, or a claim of fact. In
contrast, if you evaluated the ad’s effectiveness in
attracting adult consumers, you would be supporting an
evaluative claim, or a claim of value. It’s the difference
between explaining Geico’s use of a talking gecko in its ads
and praising that marketing decision. What this means, of
course, is that an analysis of a commercial or any other type
of argument that you see or read will itself have a claim of
fact or a claim of value as its thesis.

What about a claim of policy, the third type of claim

introduced in Chapter 1? In analyzing an argument, it would
be rare to have a thesis that expressed what should or should
not be done. Claims of policy are future oriented. They do

278
not look back and express what should have been done in the
past, but instead look forward to what should be done in the
future. You might write an essay about what McDonald’s
should do in its future ads, but you would not really be
writing an analysis.

Writing the Claim for Analysis

ARGUMENT ESSENTIALS

CLAIM OF FACT CLAIM OF VALUE

Analyzing one Analyze it Evaluate it.
argument objectively.

Analyzing two Compare and Evaluate them in

or more contrast relation to each
arguments objectively. other.

Think how claims of fact and claims of value might serve as

thesis statements for essays about arguments. For our
examples, we have drawn on two famous historical arguments.
Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is the subject of an
essay by Charles Adams, “Lincoln’s Logic,” which supports
a claim of value:

Lincoln’s address did not fit the world of his day. It

reflected his logic, which was based on a number of errors and

279
 falsehoods.

An objective analysis of the speech, based on a claim of

fact, might explain the oration in the context of its time or
Lincoln’s use of poetic language.

Consider how your thesis looks different when you are making
a statement about a document than when you are making a
judgment:
Claims of The Declaration of Independence bases its claim on two
fact: kinds of support: factual evidence and appeals to the
values of its audience.
(statement) As a logical pattern of argument, the Declaration of
Independence is largely deductive.

Claims of Jefferson’s clear, elegant, formal prose remains a

value: masterpiece of English prose and persuades us that we
are reading an important document.
(judgment) The document’s impact is lessened for modern readers
because several significant terms are not defined.

In these examples based on the Gettysburg Address and the

Declaration of Independence, we have been looking at one
document at a time and thus at a single argument. At times,
you will want to compare two (or more) arguments,
synthesizing their ideas. Again, there are two basic types of
thesis that you might choose to support: those that
objectively analyze the points of comparison or contrast
between the two, and those that evaluate the two in

280
relationship to each other. If you wrote claims about how the
two pieces compare, they might look like these:

Claims Where Jefferson based his argument primarily on logical

of appeal, Lincoln depended primarily on emotional appeal.
Because Lincoln’s purpose was to dedicate a cemetery, he
fact: left implicit most of his references to the political
situation that was on the minds of his listeners. Because
Jefferson knew he was justifying rebellion for King George
III but also for the future, he spelled out explicitly why
the colonies were breaking with England.

Claims Lincoln’s address is a period piece that recalls a dark

of chapter in American history, but Jefferson’s Declaration has
had a much greater impact as an inspiration for other reform
value: movements worldwide.
Different as the two historical documents are, both the
Gettysburg Address and the Declaration of Independence were
effective in achieving their respective purposes.

281
Planning the Structure
When your purpose in writing argument analysis is to support
a factual claim, you will most likely use a very simple and
direct form of organization called defending the main idea.
In all forms of organization, you need to defend your main
idea, or claim, with support; in this case, the support will
come from the argument or arguments you are writing about.

At times, your claim may set up the organization of your

essay, as was the case with the first example about the
Declaration of Independence:

The Declaration of Independence bases its claim on two kinds of

support: factual evidence and appeals to the values of its
audience.

The body of an essay with this thesis would most likely have
two main divisions: one about factual evidence, providing
examples, and the other about appeals to values, also
providing examples. The subject and the length of the essay
would determine how many paragraphs there would be in each of
the main divisions.

Example: Claim Announces Organization

282
 Description
The first textbox reads, "Introduction with Thesis (Main
Idea).” The second textbox reads, “Support from the text
(Declaration of Independence). Factual evidence and
examples.” The third textbox reads, “Support from the text
(Declaration of Independence). Appeals to values.” The
fourth textbox reads, “Conclusion.”

The other thesis about the Declaration of Independence does

not suggest such an obvious structure. An essay based on that
thesis would need to explain how the Declaration is an
example of deductive reasoning, most likely by first

283
establishing what generalization the document is based on and
then what specifics Jefferson uses to prove that the
colonists’ situation fits that generalization.

Remember that when you compare or contrast two arguments,

there will be two basic patterns to choose from for
structuring the essay. One, often called point-by-point
comparison, discusses the first point about Subject A and
Subject B together before moving on to the second point,
where again both subjects are discussed:

Example: Point-by-Point Comparison

284
Description
The first textbox reads, “Introduction with Thesis (Main
Idea).” The second textbox reads, “Context. Jefferson.
Lincoln.” The third textbox reads,
“Implicitness/explicitness. Jefferson. Lincoln.” The
fourth textbox reads, “Language. Jefferson. Lincoln.” The
fifth textbox reads, “Conclusion.”

285
The second, often called parallel order comparison, focuses
roughly half the essay on Subject A and then the other half
on Subject B. The points made in each half should be parallel
and should be presented in the same order:

Example: Parallel Order Comparison

Description
The first textbox reads, “Introduction with Thesis (Main
Idea).” The second textbox reads, “Jefferson. Context.
Implicitness/explicitness. Language.” The third textbox

286
 reads, “Lincoln. Context. Implicitness/explicitness.
Language.” The fourth textbox reads, “Conclusion.”

Remember that the subject and length of the essay will

determine how many paragraphs each part of the outline will
take.

Planning the Structure

ARGUMENT ESSENTIALS

Analyzing one argument: Organize essay according to

supporting points.
Analyzing two or more arguments: Organize essay
according to a point-by-point comparison pattern or to a
parallel order comparison pattern.

287
Providing Support
In analyzing any argument, you will need to understand the
argument and to make it clear to your readers that you do.
You cannot write a clear explanation or a fair evaluation if
you do not have a clear understanding of your subject. You
will need to look closely at the piece to recall what
specific words or ideas led you to the thesis statement that
you have chosen to support.

Your support for your thesis will come from the text or texts
you are writing about in the form of summary, paraphrase, or
quotations. The ability to summarize, paraphrase, and quote
material from your source is necessary in writing about
arguments, but it is also essential in writing your own
arguments, especially those that require research.

Summarizing
A summary involves shortening the original passage as well as
putting it into your own words. It gives the gist of the
passage, including the important points, while leaving out
details. What makes summarizing difficult is that it requires
you to capture often long and complex texts in just a few
lines or a short paragraph. To summarize well, you need to

288
imagine yourself as the author of the piece you are
summarizing and be true to the ideas the author is
expressing, even when those ideas conflict with your personal
point of view. You must then move smoothly from being a
careful reader to being a writer who, in your own words, re-
creates another’s thoughts.

We summarize for many reasons: to let our boss know the

basics of what we have been doing or to tell a friend why she
should or should not see a movie. In your classes, you are
often asked to summarize articles or books, and even when
this is not an explicit part of an assignment, the ability to
summarize is usually expected. That is, when you are
instructed to analyze an essay or to compare and contrast two
novels, central to this work is the ability to carefully
comprehend and re-create authors’ ideas. If you summarized
the Declaration of Independence, one of the works used in the
examples in this chapter, your summary might look like this:

The stated purpose of the Declaration of Independence is to

explain why the colonists felt it necessary to reject
government by England and establish a new government. The
document’s list of the “repeated injuries and usurpations”
by the King of England comprises the majority of the document.
The colonists’ petitions for redress have been answered by
additional injuries. Unanswered appeals to the colonists’
“British brethren” have forced them to separate from them and
declare them “Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” The document

289
 closes with the declaration that the colonies are “Free and
Independent States” owing no allegiance to the British crown.

See “Summarizing” (p. 31) in Chapter 2 for a more detailed

treatment of summary.

Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing involves restating the content of an original
source in your own words. It differs from summarizing in that
a paraphrase is roughly the same length as the passage it
paraphrases instead of a condensation of a longer passage.
You can use paraphrasing when you want to capture the idea
but there is nothing about the wording that makes repeating
it necessary. You may also use it when the idea can be made
clearer by rephrasing it or when the style is markedly
different from your own. Here is an example:

Randolph Warren, a victim of the thalidomide disaster himself

and founder and executive director of the Thalidomide Victims
Association of Canada, reports that it is estimated 10,000 to
12,000 deformed babies were born to mothers who took
thalidomide. (40)

There is no single sentence on page 40 of the Warren article

that both provides the estimate of the number of affected
babies and identifies Warren as one of them. Both the ideas
were important, but neither of them was worded in such a

290
unique way that a direct quote was needed. Therefore, a
paraphrase was the logical choice. In this case, the writer
correctly documents the paraphrase using Modern Language
Association (MLA) style.

Providing Support
ARGUMENT ESSENTIALS

Support your claim with information from your source(s) in the

form of

Summary — a shortened version of the original, in your

own words
Paraphrase — a version of the original in your own words
that is about the same length as the original
Quotation — exact words from the original, placed in
quotation marks

Provide documentation , usually the author and page number,

whenever you use someone else’s words or ideas.

Quoting
You may want to quote passages or phrases from your sources
if they express an idea in words more effective than your
own. In reading a source, you may come across a statement
that provides succinct, irrefutable evidence for an issue you
wish to support. If the author of this statement is a
professional in his or her field, someone with a great deal

291
of authority on the subject, it would be appropriate to quote
that author. Suppose, during the course of a student’s
research for her paper, she found several sources that agree
that women in the military who are denied combat experience
are, as a result, essentially being denied a chance at
promotion to the highest ranks. Others argue that such
considerations should not be a deciding factor in assigning
women to combat. To represent the latter of these two
positions, the student might choose to use a quotation from
an authority in the field, using APA style:

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military

Readiness, wrote, “Equal opportunity is important, but the
armed forces exist to defend the country. If there is a
conflict between career opportunities and military necessity,
the needs of the military must come first” (as qtd. in “Women
in the Military,” 2000).

It is especially important in argumentative writing to

establish a source’s authority on the subject under
discussion. The most common way of doing this is to use that
person’s name and position of authority to introduce the
quotation, as in the previous example. It is correct in both
MLA and APA styles to provide the author’s name in
parentheses at the end of the quoted material, but that type
of documentation precludes lending to the quote the weight of
its having come from an authority. Most readers will not know
who Donnelly is just by seeing her name in parentheses. Your

292
writing will always have more power if you establish the
authority of each author from whose work you quote,
paraphrase, or summarize. To establish authority, you may
refer to the person’s position, institutional affiliation,
publications, or some other similar “claim to fame.”

Here is another example, using MLA style:

According to Alicia Oglesby, assistant director of school and

college counseling at Bishop McNamara High School in Maryland
and co-author of Interrupting Racism: Equity and Social Justice
in School Counseling, “Students who feel supported by
diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are more likely to
feel safe. But because the majority often takes safety for
granted, these efforts must be intentional, systemic, and
honest” (49).

Notice that once the name of the author being cited has been
mentioned in the writer’s own text, it does not have to be
repeated in the parentheses.

Incorporating Quotations into

RESEARCH SKILL

Your Text
There are three primary means of linking a supporting quotation
to your own text. Remember that in each case, the full citation
for the source will be listed alphabetically by the author’s
name in the list of works cited at the end of the paper, or by

293
title if no author is given. The number in parentheses is the
page of that source on which the quotation appears. The details
of what appears in parentheses are covered in Chapter 15 in the
discussion of APA (American Psychological Association) and MLA
(Modern Language Association) documentation styles.

Make a brief quotation a grammatical part of your own

sentence. In this case, you do not separate the quotation
from your sentence with a comma, unless there is another
reason for the comma, and you do not capitalize the first
word of the quotation, unless there is another reason for
doing so. There may be times when you have to change the
tense of a verb, in brackets, to make the quotation fit
smoothly into your text or when you need to make other
small changes, always in brackets.

Examples:

APA style
James Rachels (1976), University Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of several books
on moral philosophy, explained that animals’ right to liberty
derives from “a more basic right not to have one’s interests
needlessly harmed” (p. 210).

MLA style
James Rachels, University Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of several books
on moral philosophy, explains that animals’ right to liberty
derives from “a more basic right not to have one’s interests
needlessly harmed” (210).

Use a traditional speech tag such as “he says” or

“she wrote.” This is the most common way of introducing

294
 a quotation. Be sure to put a comma after the tag and to
begin the quotation with a capital letter. At the end of
the quotation, close the quotation, add the page number and
any other necessary information in parentheses, and then
add the period.

Students are sometimes at a loss as to what sorts of verbs

to use in these tag statements. Try using active,
descriptive verbs, such as terms from this list or others
like them. Remember that in writing about a printed or
electronic text, it is customary in APA style to use past
or present perfect tense; in MLA style, write in present
tense unless there is a compelling reason to use past
tense.

argue implore

ask insist

assert proclaim

conclude question

continue reply

counter respond

declare state

explain suggest

Examples:

APA style

295
James Rachels (1976), University Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of several books
on moral philosophy, wrote, “The right to liberty — the right
to be free of external constraints on one’s actions — may
then be seen as derived from a more basic right not to have
one’s interests needlessly harmed” (p. 210).

MLA style
James Rachels, University Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and author of several books
on moral philosophy, writes, “The right to liberty — the
right to be free of external constraints on one’s actions —
may then be seen as derived from a more basic right not to have
one’s interests needlessly harmed” (210).

Use a colon to separate the quotation from a complete

sentence that introduces it. This can help add variety
to your sentences.

Examples:

APA style
For example, the Zurich Zoo’s Dr. Heini Hediger (1985)
protested that it is absurd to attribute human qualities to
animals at all, but he nevertheless resorted to a human
analogy: “Wild animals in the zoo rather resemble estate
owners. Far from desiring to escape and regain their freedom,
they are only bent on defending the space they inhabit and
keeping it safe from invasion” (p. 9).

MLA style
The late Ulysses S. Seal III, founder of the Conservation
Breeding Specialist Group and of a “computer dating service”

296
for mateless animals, acknowledges the subordinate position
species preservation plays in budgeting decisions: “Zoos have
been established primarily as recreational institutions and are
only secondarily developing programs in conservation,
education, and research” (74).

297
Integrating Your Sources
Chapter 15 will provide additional information about
documenting sources, but you should start now documenting
your use of others’ work, even when the only sources you use
are essays from this textbook. The single most important
thing to remember is why you need to inform your reader about
your use of sources. Once it is clear from your writing that
an idea or some language came from a source and thus is not
your own original thought or language, full documentation
provides the reader with a means of identifying and, if
necessary, locating your source. If you do not indicate your
source, your reader will naturally assume that the ideas and
the language are yours. It is careless to forget to give
credit to your sources. It is dishonest to intentionally take
credit for what is not your own intellectual property. Note,
though, that the convention is for authors of magazine
articles and websites not to provide page numbers for their
sources in the way that you will be expected to do.

The following Strategies for Summary, Paraphrase, and

Quotation box provides the general guidelines for documenting
your use of sources.

Strategies for Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation

298
1. Give credit for any ideas you get from others , not
only for wording you get from them.
2. Identify the author and the location of ideas that
you summarize. A summary is the condensing of a longer
passage into a shorter one, using your own words.
3. Identify the author and the location of ideas that
you paraphrase. A paraphrase is a rewording of another
author’s idea into your own words. A paraphrased passage
is roughly the same length as the original.
4. Identify the author and the location of language that
you quote. A quotation is the copying of the exact wording
of your source and is placed in quotation marks. You cannot
change anything inside quotation marks, with these
exceptions:
If there is a portion of the quotation that is not
relevant to the point that you are making and that can
be omitted without distorting the author’s meaning, you
may indicate an omission of a portion of the quotation
with an ellipsis (. . .). If there is a sentence break
within the portion you are omitting, add a fourth period
to the ellipsis to so indicate.
If you need to make a very slight change in the quote to
make the quote fit grammatically into your own text or
to avoid confusion, and if the change does not distort
the author’s meaning, you may make that slight change
and place the changed portion in square brackets ([ ]).
This method is used primarily to change the tense of a
quoted passage to match that of your text or to identify
a person identified in the quotation only by a pronoun.
5. Make use of in-text or parenthetical documentation.
While a complete bibliographical listing for each work
summarized, paraphrased, or quoted in your text is included
in a Works Cited or References list at the end of your
paper, each is also identified exactly at the point in the
text where you use the source. If you are using the MLA
system of documentation, the system most commonly used in

299
 the humanities, immediately following the sentence in which
you use material from a source, you need to add in
parentheses the author’s name and the page number on which
the material you are using appeared in the original source.
However, since the credibility of your sources is critical
in argumentative writing, it is even better to name the
source in your own sentence and to identify the position or
experience that makes that person a reliable source for the
subject being discussed. In that case, you do not need to
repeat the author’s name in the parentheses. In fact,
anytime the author’s name is clear from the context, you
do not need to repeat it in the parentheses.

Acceptable: The mall has been called “a common experience

for the majority of American youth” (Kowinski 3).

Better: According to William Severini Kowinski, author of The

Malling of America, “The mall is a common experience for the
majority of American youth” (3).

In the APA system, the system most commonly used in the

social sciences, in-text or parenthetical documentation is
handled a bit differently because the citation includes the
year of publication. The most basic forms are these:

The mall has been called “a common experience for the

majority of American youth” (Kowinski, 1985, p. 3).

Kowinski (1985) writes, “The mall is a common experience for

the majority of American youth” (p. 3).

6. These examples show only the most basic forms for

documenting your sources. Some works will have more than
one author. Sometimes you will be using more than one work
by the same author. Usually websites do not have page
numbers. Long quotations need to be handled differently
than short ones. For all questions about documenting your
use of sources not covered here, see Chapter 15.

300
Note: Unless your instructor indicates otherwise, use the
page numbers on which your source appears in this textbook
when summarizing, paraphrasing, or quoting from it instead of
going back to the page numbers of the original. Also, unless
your instructor indicates otherwise, use this model for
listing in your Works Cited page a work reprinted here:

Ingram, James W., III. “Electoral College Is Best Way to

Choose U.S. President.” Elements of Argument: A Text and
Reader, 13th ed., edited by Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna
Haisty Winchell, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2021, pp. 101–3.

301
Reading and Practicing
Argument Analysis
READING ARGUMENT

Examining a Written Argument

Use the annotations and the questions at the end to analyze

the following essay.

302
Electoral College Is Best Way to Choose U.S.
President
JAMES W. INGRAM III
James Ingram teaches political science at San Diego State
University and helped reform the mayoral systems of Los Angeles and
San Diego. His article appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune on
January 13, 2017.

The Electoral College is once again under siege. Critics

arguing that it is obsolete and undemocratic have greatly
overestimated the benefits of electing presidents by popular
vote plurality. [1]
[1] Ingram’s statement of his main claim.

One key reason the founders of the United States of America

created the Electoral College was the possibility that once
George Washington retired or died, no other candidate could
garner majority support from such a diverse nation. Their
concern was well-founded. [2]

303
 [2] Ingram’s thesis refers to plurality, but here he refers to
majority.

Of the 49 presidential elections the United States has held

since 1824, when many states began allowing the public to
choose electors, a full 18 contests have not given any
candidate a popular vote majority. [3]
[3] But someone did win the popular vote, just not by a
majority. Majority = more than 50% of the votes.

The electoral vote has only reversed a popular vote majority

once, in 1876, an election called into question by vote
fraud. In 1888, when the person who won the electoral vote
had a smaller share of the popular vote, no candidate won a
popular majority. [4]
[4] But someone who had more popular votes lost to the winner
of the electoral college.

Likewise in 2000 and 2016, the most recent elections in which

critics claim the Electoral College subverted the people’s
will, neither Hillary Clinton nor Al Gore won popular vote
majorities. Clinton won 48 percent compared to Donald
Trump’s 46 percent; Gore won 48.4 percent to George W.

304
Bush’s 47.9 percent. [5] Clinton and Gore outpolled their
opponents, but the majority supported someone else for
president.

[5] What difference does it make if they did not win the
majority? They received more popular votes. Good statistics,
but they work against Ingram’s argument.

The Electoral College usually amplifies the people’s voice,

electing the candidate who wins most states and votes. This
allows the winner to claim a mandate and lead the country.

Had the founders required presidents to gain a majority of

the popular vote rather than of the Electoral College, [6]
over 30 percent of our presidential elections would have been
decided by the U.S. House. In both 2000 and 2016, the
Republican House majorities surely would have chosen the
Republican candidate, the same one who won the electoral
vote.

[6] But there is another option — require the president to

gain a plurality of the popular vote.

The problem with House selection is that this raises

questions of legitimacy. [7] In 1824, no one won an Electoral
College or a popular vote majority. When the House chose John

305
Quincy Adams over plurality winner Andrew Jackson, the latter
denounced the “corrupt bargain,” undermining Adams’
presidency.

[7] The House should not decide the election.

Every presidential election which lacked a popular majority

featured significant third party candidates. Gary Johnson in
2016, Ralph Nader in 2000, and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996
are prominent examples.

Third-party candidates highlight neglected issues, but

increase the probability nobody wins a majority. The problem
with electing the candidate who achieves only a popular vote
plurality is that someone supported by a small minority of
people and states could win, provided everyone else has even
fewer votes. [8]
[8] The earlier examples seem to dispute this.

By mandating an Electoral College majority rather than a

popular vote plurality, the Constitution requires a
presidential candidate to win more states. Since over half of
the U.S.’s population lives in the nine largest states,

306
plurality rules would instead allow presidents to win with
only a small minority of states.

But since the nine most populous states have only 240 of the
needed 270 electoral votes, the current system requires
candidates to be competitive in more states. [9] Clinton won
almost 3 million more votes than Trump, but she won merely
19.75 states and D.C., while Trump won 30.25 states (they
split Maine).

[9] What’s more important, how many states vote for the winner
or how many people?

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in

Federalist Paper No. 68, stating it was intended to ensure
presidents would have “the esteem and confidence of the
whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would
be necessary.” Hamilton called it “unsafe to permit less
than a majority” of the states’ electors to select the
president. [10]
[10] Hamilton is referring to the majority of electors, not
voters.

307
Our present system has only elected the candidate who won
fewer states thrice, in 1824, 1960 and 1976. The two main
candidates tied in the number of states won in 1848 and 1880,
but both times the contestant with more popular support won
the electoral vote. In every other presidential plebiscite,
the winner carried a majority of states.

If presidents only needed plurality support, the victor might

regularly be the candidate who won fewer states. This would
weaken presidential leadership.

The Electoral College prevents smaller states from being

ignored in presidential elections. The states’ diversity
should be just as fully represented as other dimensions of
diversity in our multicultural republic.

Electing presidents by popular vote is a bad idea. The only

big countries using this method are France, Mexico and
Russia. Russia selected Vladimir Putin through popular vote
majority. [11] Are these three countries really better
governed than America?

[11] Raises the question: Are Russian elections really

legitimate elections?

308
If our Electoral College mechanism for choosing presidents is
imperfect, it is because human beings have never devised a
perfect system. But in 11 score and 7 years we have chosen 45
presidents to lead our country. What isn’t broken doesn’t
need fixing. [12]
[12] That begs the question whether we chose the best
presidents. And Ingram hasn’t proven that the system isn’t
broken.

Reading, Writing, and Discussion Questions

1. What is the difference between a plurality and a

majority? Why are the definitions of those two terms
critical to James Ingram’s argument?
2. Reread the second sentence of the essay. What is the
benefit of electing the President by popular vote
plurality? Why does Ingram contend that that the
plurality suggestion is highly overrated?
3. Where does Ingram most effectively make use of
statistics to make his point?
4. In paragraph 5, Ingram states that in the 2000 and
2016 elections, “Clinton and Gore outpolled their
opponents, but the majority supported someone else
for president.” Is that statement true or false?
Explain.

309
 5. In paragraph 7, Ingram writes, “Had the founders
required presidents to gain a majority of the popular
vote rather than of the Electoral College, over 30
percent of our presidential elections would have been
decided by the U.S. House.” Why is this an either/or
fallacy? In other words, are there only two options?
(See Chapter 12 for help identifying fallacies.)
6. What is Ingram’s reason for believing that it is
best that the president be elected by a majority of
the states?
7. Do Ingram’s statistics support his contention that a
small minority could decide the election if popular
vote were the deciding factor? Explain.
8. Do you agree with Ingram’s belief that “[e]lecting
presidents by popular vote is a bad idea”? Why or
why not? Does it matter in your reasoning that the
only large countries doing so are France, Mexico, and
Russia?
9. Write an essay explaining how Ingram builds his
argument in his essay.
10. Write an essay in which you explain why you agree or
disagree with Ingram’s argument.

Practice: Analyzing a Multimodal Argument

Read the captioned graphics on pages 104–5, and answer the

questions that appear at the end.

310
The Science Facts about Autism and Vaccines
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

311
312
Description
The infographic is divided into two sections. The first
section is titled “What started the rumors?” In 1998:
Lancet published a paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a dramatic
study that found a connection between autism and vaccines.
The Study Had Some Problems. It was not based on statistics:
no control group; it relied on people’s memories; made
vague conclusions that weren’t statistically valid. The
second section is titled “No link was found.” So people
started investigating his claims. Following Dr. Wakefield’s
study, here’s what other more rigorous studies found. In
1999, a study of 500 children was conducted: no connection
was found. In 2001, a study of 10,000 children was
conducted: still found no connection. In 2002, a study from
Denmark of 537,000 children found no connection and a study
from Finland of 535,000 children once again found no
connection. In 2004, Lancet released a statement refuting
the original findings. “They had conducted invasive
investigations on the children without obtaining the
necessary ethical clearances (ellipsis) picked and chose
data that suited their case; they falsified facts.” In
2005, a review of 31 studies covering more than 10 million
children, also found no connection. In 2012, a review of 27
cohort studies, 17 case control studies, 6 self-controlled
case series studies, 5 time series trials, 2 ecological
studies, 1 case cross-over trial covering over 14.7 million
children were conducted. No link to autism was found in any
case, in all of the studies.

313
314
Description
The continuation shows the third, fourth and fifth sections
of the infographic. The third section is titled “Vaccine
Vilification Survives.”

One-fourth of U.S. parents believe some vaccines cause

autism in healthy children. 1.8 percent of parents opt out
of vaccines for religious or philosophical reasons. There
have been 0 credible studies linking vaccines to autism.
Recently an anti-vaccine religious community has seen
measles outbreaks. Although declared Eradicated in 2000
(ellipsis) France reported a massive measles outbreak with
nearly 15,000 cases in 2011. The U.K. reported more than
2,000 measles cases in 2012. Before Widespread Vaccinations
of Babies: In 1980, 2.6 million deaths from measles; In
2000, 562,400 deaths, and 72 percent of babies vaccinated;
In 2012, 122,000 deaths, and 84 percent of babies
vaccinated. In the United States, Whooping Cough Shot Up in
2012 to Nearly 50,000 cases. A graph shows the following
data: 1960s – 150,000 cases of whooping cough; 1960s –
Widespread vaccinations introduced; 1970s – 5,000 cases of
whooping cough; 1980s – 2,900 cases of whooping cough; 1998
– Dr. Wakefield’s paper published; 2004 – 26,000 cases of
whooping cough; 2012 – 50,000 cases of whooping cough. A
new study concluded that vaccine refusals were largely to
blame for a 2010 outbreak of whooping cough in California.

The second section is titled “Common Vaccine Myths.”

Vaccines are ridden with toxic chemicals that can harm
children: Thimerosal, the chemical being referenced, does
contain mercury. However, thimerosal has been removed from
scheduled vaccines and only resides in the seasonal flu
vaccine. The decision to not vaccinate my child only affects

315
 my child: Un-vaccinated children who contract a disease can
infect infants yet to be inoculated, the small percentage of
people whose vaccines did not take, and people with
compromised immune systems. Receiving too many vaccines at
once can override a baby’s immune system: Baby’s immune
systems are strong enough to defend from the day to day
viruses and bacteria with which they come in contact; they
can also handle the vaccines. Remember, vaccines use
deactivated viruses in their ingredients. Drug companies
just do it to make profits: According to the WHO, estimated
2013 global revenues for all vaccines is around 24 billion
dollars, which only accounts for approximately 2 to 3
percent of the total pharmaceuticals market.

The third section is titled “Vaccines Work!” Positive

effects of vaccines: Helped eradicate Smallpox; Save about 8
million lives every year; significantly reduce disease in
the world; New and underutilized vaccines could avert nearly
4 million deaths of children under the age 5 by 2015.

Reading, Writing, and Discussion Questions

1. What were the problems with the research reported in

Lancet by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 1998?
2. Follow the timeline from 1999 to 2012. What have
subsequent studies found? Does the graphic build a
convincing argument for those findings? Explain.
3. What are some of the consequences of the belief that
some people have that vaccines cause autism? What
specific support for the existence of those

316
 consequences does the graphic offer? How do the
visuals reinforce the text about these consequences?
4. Do you find the arguments against the vaccine myths
convincing? Why or why not?
5. Do you find the overall argument being made in this
infographic convincing? Why or why not?
6. Write a paragraph in which you support one conclusion
you can draw based on the evidence presented in the
infographic and use specifics from it to support your
topic sentence.
7. Write an essay in which you analyze the argument that
is being made in the infographic.
8. Write an essay in which you evaluate the
effectiveness of the infographic in making its
argument.

READING ARGUMENT

Examining an Argument Analysis

The following article is an example of argument analysis in

simple form. In it, Stefan Andreasson, who teaches
comparative politics, analyzes one proposed solution to the
negative impact fossil fuels have on the environment.
Investors are encouraged to sell off investments in fossil
fuel companies in order to lower the demand for fossil fuels.
Andreasson, however, argues that such divestment will not

317
reduce greenhouse gas emissions but may actually cause them
to rise.

Notice that Andreasson uses extensive and carefully

documented expert opinion, much of it in the form of
statistical support, to back up his claim that divestment
will not solve the problem. Andreasson cited his support as
hyperlinks in the original publication, which is common for
the genre. (We have converted the sources to endnotes here.)
In the last four paragraphs, Andreasson proposes a solution.

318
Fossil Fuel Divestment Will Increase Carbon
Emissions, Not Lower Them
STEFAN ANDREASSON
Stefan Andreasson is a senior lecturer in comparative politics at
Queen's University in Belfast. He has published widely in journals
such as Political Studies, Political Geography, Business & Society,
Third World Quarterly, Democratization, and Commonwealth &
Comparative Politics. This article appeared in The Conversation on
November 25, 2019.

A global campaign encouraging individuals, organizations and

institutional investors to sell off investments in fossil
fuel companies is gathering pace. According to 350.org,
eleven trillion dollars (U.S.) has already been divested
worldwide.1

But, while it may seem a logical strategy, divestment will

not lower demand for fossil fuels, which is the key to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it may even cause
emissions to rise.

At first sight, the argument for divestment seems

straightforward. Fossil fuel companies are the main

319
contributors to the majority of CO₂ emissions causing global
warming.2 Twenty fossil fuel companies alone have contributed
thirty-five percent of all energy-related carbon dioxide and
methane emissions since 1965.3

The argument goes that squeezing the flow of investment into

fossil fuel companies will either bring their demise, or
force them to drastically transform their business models. It
makes sense for investors, too, as they avoid the risk of
holding “stranded assets” — fossil fuel reserves that will
become worthless as they can no longer be exploited.

For companies heavily invested in coal — the most polluting

fossil fuel — this rings true. Although new coal plants are
still being constructed in countries such as China, India,
and Indonesia, predictions by major energy agencies and
industry alike indicate a steep decline in its contribution
to the global energy supply.4 With cleaner alternatives
readily available, coal is no longer considered a safe long-
term investment — and widespread divestment will only add to
this sentiment.

When it comes to oil and natural gas, however, the picture

looks quite different. Oil is used for a much wider range of
products5 and processes than is coal, while the cleaner
reputation of natural gas gives it significant appeal as a
“bridge fuel” to a zero carbon economy, whether rightly or

320
not.6 As a result, the push for oil and gas divestment is
likely to have unintended consequences.

Divestment Troubles

The primary targets of the divestment movement are

international oil companies (IOCs) — private corporations
that are headquartered in Western countries and listed on
public stock exchanges. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch
Shell, BP, and Total are among the private oil
“supermajors.”

Recent research suggests that divestment can reduce the flow

of investment into these companies.7 But even if the
divestment movement were successful in reducing the economic
power of these companies, IOCs currently only produce about
ten percent of the world’s oil.8

The rest is mostly produced by national oil companies (NOCs)

— state-owned behemoths such as Saudi Aramco, National
Iranian Oil Company, China National Petroleum Corporation and
Petroleos de Venezuela, located mostly in low and middle
income countries.

Given that NOCs are less transparent about their operations

than are IOCs,9 and that many of them are also headquartered
in authoritarian countries, they are less exposed to pressure

321
from civil society. As a result, they are “dangerously
under-scrutinized,” according to the Natural Resource
Governance Institute.10

As they are state-owned, they are also not directly exposed

to pressure from shareholders. Even the imminent public
listing of Saudi Aramco will only offer one and half percent
of the company,11 and this will mainly come from domestic and
emerging markets, which tend to impose much less pressure to
value environmental issues. Environmental groups have urged
Western multinational banks not to invest in the Saudi
company.12

This means that while global demand for natural gas13 and
oil14 is still rising, and investments are insufficient to
meet future demand,15 divestment pressures are unlikely to
impact the business plans of NOCs. As a result, instead of
reducing global fossil fuel production, the divestment
movement will simply force IOCs to cede market share to NOCs.

If anything, this would cause CO₂ emissions to rise. The

carbon footprints of NOCs per unit of fuel produced are on
average bigger than those of IOCs.16

IOCs are also generally better placed and more willing than
are NOCs to reduce the carbon intensity of their products and
support the transition to renewable energy. They have, for

322
example, led the way among oil companies in research into
capturing and storing carbon, even if results have so far
proven elusive.

In a nutshell, the divestment movement will not reduce demand

for oil and gas. It will transfer the supply of fossil fuel
to companies that are more polluting, less transparent, less
sensitive to societal pressures, and less committed to
addressing the climate crisis.18

Missing the Mark

The divestment movement is understandably enjoying widespread

appeal in a time of climate emergency. But by targeting the
low-hanging fruit that are IOCs, the movement misses the more
complex question of how to actually reduce the global demand
for fossil fuels.

To achieve that goal, we’d be better off creating a

regulatory environment that forces both IOCs and NOCs to
redirect their energies. For example, eliminating fossil fuel
subsidies19 and putting a price on carbon20 would make
heavily investing in renewables — already cheaper to produce
than fossil fuels21 — more attractive for all energy
companies.

323
Such changes could also generate nearly three trillion
dollars (U.S.) by 2030 for governments worldwide.22 These
funds could be used to massively scale up renewables,23
prioritize the development of energy storage to address the
intermittent nature of such power, and improve energy
efficiency in industry, transport[ation], and housing —
which will make fossil fuels increasingly redundant.

While IOCs now produce much less fossil fuel than they used
to, they still have a huge amount of expertise24 that could
be applied to the energy transition.25 In my view, rather
than transferring power to less environmentally conscious
NOCs, we should make use of them.

As for those with shares in fossil fuel companies: exercise

your powers as a shareholder to pressure them to support the
energy transition as constructively and ethically as
possible. Your influence matters.

Notes

1. Monica Tyler-Davies, “A New Fossil Free Milestone: $11

Trillion Has Been Committed to Divest from Fossil Fuels,”
350.org, September 8, 2019, http://350.org/11-trillion-
divested/.

324
2. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming,”
Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, NASA, last
modified January 28, 2020,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

3. Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts, “Revealed: The 20

Firms behind a Third of All Carbon Emissions,” The Guardian,
October 9, 2019,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-
20-firms-third-carbon-emissions.

4. McKinsey, Global Energy Perspective 2019: Reference Case,

January 2019,
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Oil%20an
d%20Gas/Our%20Insights/Global%20Energy%20Perspective%202019/M
cKinsey-Energy-Insights-Global-Energy-Perspective-
2019_Reference-Case-Summary.ashx.

5. “What Are Petroleum Products, and What Is Petroleum Used

For?,” Independent Statistics and Analysis, U. S. Energy
Information Administration, last modified May 31, 2019,
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=41&t=6.

6. Aled Jones, “The EU Wants to Fight Climate Change — So

Why Is It Spending Billions on a Gas Pipeline?,” The
Conversation, February 9, 2018,
https://theconversation.com/the-eu-wants-to-fight-climate-

325
change-so-why-is-it-spending-billions-on-a-gas-pipeline-
91442.

7. Theodor Cojoianu et al., “Does the Fossil Fuel Divestment

Movement Impact New Oil & Gas Fundraising?” SSRN, April 22,
2019, https://papersssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id3376183.

8. Paul Stevens, “International Oil Companies: The Death of

the Old Business Model,” Chatham House, May 5, 2016,
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/international-oil-
companies-death-old-business-model.

9. Fiona Harvey, “Secretive National Oil Companies Hold Our

Climate in Their Hands,” The Guardian, October 9, 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/secretive
-national-oil-companies-climate.

10. National Resource Governance Institute, “National Oil

Companies, with $3.1 Trillion in Assets, Are Dangerously
Under-scrutinized,” press release, April 25, 2019,
https://resourcegovernance.org/news/national-oil-companies-
31-trillion-assets-are-dangerously-under-scrutinized.

11. Mark Shackleton, “Saudi Aramco’s $1.5 Trillion IPO

Flies in the Face of Climate Reality,” The Conversation,
November 8, 2019, https://theconversation.com/saudi-aramcos-
1-5-trillion-ipo-flies-in-the-face-of-climate-reality-126544.

326
12. Jillian Ambrose, “Banks Warned over Saudi Aramco by
Environmental Groups,” The Guardian, October 17, 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/17/banks-
warned-over-saudi-aramco-by-environmental-groups.

13. International Energy Agency, Gas 2019, June 2019,

https://www.iea.org/gas2019/.

14. International Energy Agency, Oil 2019, March 2019,

https://www.iea.org/oil2019/.

15. International Energy Agency, “Global Energy Investment

Stabilised above USD 1.8 Trillion in 2018, but Security and
Sustainability Concerns are Growing,” May 14, 2019,
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/may/global-energy-
investment-stabilised-above-usd-18-trillion-in-2018-but-
security-.html.

16. Beyond the Cycle: Which Oil and Gas

Luke Fletcher et al.,
Companies Are Ready for the Low-Carbon Transition?, CDP,
November 2018, https://www.cdp.net/en/investor/sector-
research/oil-and-gas-report.

17. Ensieh Shojaeddini et al., “Oil and Gas Company

Strategies Regarding the Energy Transition,” Progress in
Energy 1, no.1 (July 2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-
1083/ab2503.

327
18. Naghmeh Nasiritousi, “Fossil Fuel Emitters and Climate
Change: Unpacking the Governance Activities of Large Oil and
Gas Companies,” Environmental Politics 26, no. 4 (2017):
621–647, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1320832.

19. Jan Corfee-Morlot, Michael I. Westphal, and Rachel

Spiegel, “4 Ways to Shift from Fossil Fuels to Clean
Energy,” World Resources Institute, January 15, 2019,
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/01/4-ways-shift-fossil-fuels-
clean-energy.

20. “What Is Carbon Pricing?,” S&P Global, 2019,

https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/what-
is-carbon-pricing.

21. James Ellsmoor, “Renewable Energy Is Now the Cheapest

Option — Even Without Subsidies,” Forbes, June 15, 2019,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewab
le-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-
subsidies/#3ba480995a6b.

22. Jan Corfee-Morlot, Michael I. Westphal, and Rachel

Spiegel, “4 Ways to Shift from Fossil Fuels to Clean
Energy,” World Resources Institute, January 15, 2019,
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/01/4-ways-shift-fossil-fuels-
clean-energy.

328
23. Sgouris Sgouridis et al, “Comparative Net Energy
Analysis of Renewable Electricity and Carbon Capture and
Storage,” Nature Energy 4, (2019): 456–465,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0365-7.

24. Kamel Bennaceur, “How the Oil and Gas Industry Is

Contributing to Sustainability,” Journal of Petroleum
Technology 71, no. 3 (2019), https://pubs.spe.org/en/jpt/jpt-
article-detail/?art=5152.

25. Matthew Bach, “The Oil and Gas Sector: From Climate
Laggard to Climate Leader?,” Environmental Politics, 28.1
(November 2019): 87–103,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1521911.

Practice: Analyzing an Argument Analysis

The following article analyzes the argument that banning

plastic bags is good for the environment. The analysis is
more complex because the argument is more complex. As author
Ben Adler points out, the solution is just not that simple.
Use the questions that follow the article to analyze Adler’s
analysis.

329
Are Plastic-Bag Bans Good for the Climate?
BEN ADLER
Ben Adler is a senior editor at City & State NY and was previously
an editor at Newsweek and Reuters . As a reporter, he covered
environmental policy and politics for Politico , The Nation , and
Grist, where this article appeared on June 2, 2016.

Like cigarettes, plastic bags have recently gone from a

tolerated nuisance to a widely despised and discouraged vice.
In May 2016, the New York City Council passed a 5-cent-per-
bag fee on single-use bags handed out by most retailers. Two
weeks ago, the Massachusetts State Senate passed a measure
that would ban plastic bags from being dispensed by many
retail businesses and require a charge of 10 cents or more
for a recycled paper or reusable bag. The Massachusetts
proposal may not become law this year, but it’s the latest
sign that the plastic bag industry is losing this war.
Already in Massachusetts, 32 towns and cities have passed bag
bans or fees. So have at least 88 localities in California,
including the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, plus
cities and towns in more than a dozen other states and more
than a dozen other countries.

330
The adverse impacts of plastic bags are undeniable: When
they’re not piling up in landfills, they’re blocking storm
drains, littering streets, getting stuck in trees, and
contaminating oceans, where fish, seabirds, and other marine
animals eat them or get tangled up in them. As longtime
plastic bag adversary Ian Frazier recently reported in The
New Yorker, “In 2014, plastic grocery bags were the seventh
most common item collected during the Ocean Conservancy’s
International Coastal Cleanup, behind smaller debris such as
cigarette butts, plastic straws, and bottle caps.” The New
York City Sanitation Department collects more than 1,700 tons
of single-use carry-out bags every week, and has to spend
$12.5 million a year to dispose of them.

Bag bans cut this litter off at the source: In San Jose,
California, a plastic bag ban led to an 89 percent reduction
in the number of plastic bags winding up in the city’s storm
drains. Fees have a smaller, but still significant, effect.
Washington, DC’s government estimates that its 5-cent bag
tax has led to a 60 percent reduction in the number of these
bags being used, although that figure is contested by other
sources.

Is Plastic Really Worse Than Paper?

But advocates of these laws and journalists who cover the

issue often neglect to ask what will replace plastic bags and

331
what the environmental impact of that replacement will be.
People still need bags to bring home their groceries. And the
most common substitute, paper bags, may be just as bad or
worse, depending on the environmental problem you’re most
concerned about.

That’s leading to a split in the anti-bag movement. Some

bills, like in Massachusetts, try to reduce the use of paper
bags as well as plastic, but still favor paper. Others, like
in New York City, treat all single-use bags equally. Even
then, the question remains as to whether single-use bags are
necessarily always worse than reusable ones.

Studies of bags’ environmental impacts over their life cycle

have reached widely varying conclusions. Some are funded by
plastic industry groups, like the ironically named American
Progressive Bag Alliance. Even studies conducted with the
purest of intentions depend on any number of assumptions. How
many plastic bags are replaced by one cotton tote bag? If a
plastic bag is reused in the home as the garbage bag in a
bathroom waste bin, does that reduce its footprint by
eliminating the need for another small plastic garbage bag?

If your chief concern is climate change, things get even

muddier. One of the most comprehensive research papers on the
environmental impact of bags, published in 2007 by an
Australian state government agency, found that paper bags

332
have a higher carbon footprint than plastic. That’s
primarily because more energy is required to produce and
transport paper bags.

“People look at [paper] and say it’s degradable, therefore

it’s much better for the environment, but it’s not in terms
of climate change impact,” says David Tyler, a professor of
chemistry at the University of Oregon who has examined the
research on the environmental impact of bag use. The reasons
for paper’s higher carbon footprint are complex, but can
mostly be understood as stemming from the fact that paper
bags are much thicker than plastic bags. “Very broadly,
carbon footprints are proportional to mass of an object,”
says Tyler. For example, because paper bags take up so much
more space, more trucks are needed to ship paper bags to a
store than to ship plastic bags.

Looking Beyond Climate Change

Still, many environmentalists argue that plastic is worse

than paper. Climate change, they say, isn’t the only form of
environmental degradation to worry about. “Paper does have
its own environmental consequences in terms of how much
energy it takes to generate,” acknowledges Emily Norton,
director of the Massachusetts Sierra Club. “The big
difference is that paper does biodegrade eventually. Plastic

333
is a toxin that stays in the environment, marine animals
ingest it, and it enters their bodies and then ours.”

Some social justice activists who work in low-income urban

neighborhoods or communities of color also argue that plastic
bags are a particular scourge. “A lot of the waste ends up
in our communities,” says Elizabeth Yeampierre, executive
director of UPROSE, an environmental and social justice–
oriented community organization in Brooklyn. “Plastic bags
not only destroy the physical infrastructure,” she says,
referring to the way they clog up storm drains and other
systems, “they contribute to emissions.” And she points out
that marine plastic pollution is a threat to low-income
people who fish for their dinner: “So many frontline
communities depend on food coming from the ocean.” That’s
why her group supported New York City’s bag fee even though
it’s more of a burden on lower-income citizens. A single
mom, or someone working two jobs, is more likely to have to
do her shopping in a rush on the way home from work than to
go out specifically with a tote bag in hand. But for UPROSE,
that concern is outweighed by the negative impacts of plastic
bags on disadvantaged communities.

Increasingly, environmentalists are pushing for laws that

include fees for all single-use bags, and that require paper
bags to be made with recycled content, which could lower
their carbon footprint. The measure now under consideration

334
in Massachusetts, for example, would mandate that single-use
paper bags contain at least 40 percent recycled fiber.
That’s the percentage the Massachusetts Sierra Club has
advocated for at the state level and when lobbying for
municipal bag rules.

It’s Complicated

But what if reusable bags aren’t good either? As the

Australian study noted, a cotton bag has major environmental
impacts of its own. Only 2.4 percent of the world’s cropland
is planted with cotton, yet it accounts for 24 percent of the
global market for insecticides and 11 percent for pesticides,
the World Wildlife Fund reports. A pound of cotton requires
more than 5,000 gallons of water on average, a thirst far
greater than that of any vegetable and even most meats. And
cotton, unlike paper, is not currently recycled in most
places.

The Australian study concluded that the best option appears

to be a reusable bag, but one made from recycled plastic, not
cotton. “A substantial shift to more durable bags would
deliver environmental gains through reductions in greenhouse
gases, energy and water use, resource depletion and litter,”
the study concluded. “The shift from one single-use bag to
another single-use bag may improve one environmental outcome,
but be offset by another environmental impact.”

335
But studies conducted in Australia or Europe have limited
applicability in the US, particularly when you’re
considering climate impact, because every country has a
different energy mix. In fact, every region of the US has a
different energy mix.

“There’s no easy answer,” says Eric Goldstein, New York

City environment director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, which backed NYC’s bag fee. “There are so very
many variables. Here’s just one tiny example: Does the paper
for paper bags come from a recycled paper mill on Staten
Island or a virgin forest in northern Canada? As far as I
know, nobody has done the definitive analysis, which would
necessarily need to have a large number of caveats and
qualifications. Also, this question is something like asking,
‘Would you prefer to get a parking ticket or a tax
assessment?’ It depends on the specifics, but it’s better
to avoid both wherever possible.” Goldstein is confident
that if people switch to reusable bags, even cotton ones, and
use them consistently, that will ultimately be better for the
environment.

The ideal city bag policy would probably involve charging for
paper and plastic single-use bags, as New York City has
decided to do, while giving out reusable recycled-plastic
bags to those who need them, especially to low-income

336
communities and seniors. (The crunchy rich should already
have more than enough tote bags from PBS and Whole Foods.)

The larger takeaway is that no bag is free of environmental

impact, whether that’s contributing to climate change, ocean
pollution, water scarcity, or pesticide use. The instinct to
favor reusable bags springs from an understandable urge to
reduce our chronic overconsumption, but the bags we use are
not the big problem.

“Eat one less meat dish a week — that’s what will have a
real impact on the environment,” says Tyler. “It’s what we
put in the bag at the grocery store that really matters.”

Reading, Writing, and Discussion Questions

1. Before discussing possible solutions to a problem, it

is important to establish that a problem exists. What
are some of the most convincing details that Ben
Adler presents to establish how big a problem plastic
bags are?
2. What are some of the alternatives that cities have
come up with? Do you feel that Adler does a good job
of explaining the difficulty of choosing the best
alternative to plastic bags? Explain.
3. What evidence does Adler offer that plastic bags are
a problem that needs to be dealt with?

337
 4. Adler follows the convention of newspaper articles in
that he does not use parenthetical documentation to
indicate where he got his information. Still, it is
clear that he has researched his subject. How,
exactly, can you tell?
5. How does Adler identify his sources and establish
them as authorities on the subject? Where do such
claims to authority lead into direct quotations?
Where does Adler summarize or paraphrase from a
source, rather than quote?
6. Why is there no simple solution to the problem of
what people use to carry their groceries home?
7. Do you feel that Adler does a good job of analyzing
the complexity of the situation? Explain.
8. Write an essay analyzing Adler’s essay. Support
either a claim of fact or a claim of value.
9. Locate another article on the issue of banning
plastic bags and write an analysis of it.

READING ARGUMENT

Examining an Argument and an Analysis of It

Lesley Wexler and Jennifer K. Robbennolt’s essay is followed

by a student analysis of their argument.

338
#MeToo and Restorative Justice: Realizing
Restoration for Victims and Offenders
LESLEY WEXLER AND JENNIFER K. ROBBENNOLT
Lesley Wexler and Jennifer K. Robbennolt are both professors of law
at University of Illinois College of Law, and Robbennolt is also a
professor of psychology there. This article is an adaptation of an
article, “#MeToo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice,” written by
these two authors and Colleen Murphy, that appeared in the Illinois
Law Review.

The #MeToo movement has hastened a modern-day reckoning with

sexual assault and sex discrimination. Claims of sexual
misconduct have surfaced in all walks of life and disrupted
business as usual in settings as disparate as Hollywood board
rooms and Supreme Court confirmation hearing chambers. Some
high-level and high-profile individuals who have been accused
of wrongdoing have been fired or suspended, and many have
resigned. Others have remained in their jobs or even ascended
to positions of greater power.

When civil rights activist Tarana Burke founded Just Be Inc.

and crafted the related Me Too concept more than a decade
ago, before the days of pervasive social media and hashtag

339
designations, she did not plan a worldwide campaign that
would change the way individuals and companies deal with
sexual misconduct in the workplace. Instead Burke, who worked
with mostly poor women and girls of color who had suffered
sexual violence, intended to create a nonprofit organization
to provide resources for victims of sexual harassment and
assault. It would, she hoped, offer opportunities for radical
healing. In a 2017 interview, Burke described her
multilayered vision of healing: victims use “Me Too” as a
way of creating connections and sharing empathy; the
community recognizes victims and their needs; perpetrators
move toward discussions of accountability, transparency, and
vulnerability; and everyone considers how “collectively, to
start dismantling these systems that uphold and make space
for sexual violence.”1

Amid the discussion of how to address #MeToo claims, there

have been calls — most publicly in actress Laura Dern’s
Golden Globes acceptance speech — for the use of
“restorative justice” to address the needs of both victims
and harassers. But these calls have not been explicit about
what sort of restoration is contemplated. Exactly what
restorative justice might look like in Hollywood or any other
setting remains unclear.

One possible interpretation of the phrase speaks exclusively

to the “restoration,” the return as best as possible to the

340
rightful, pre-incident state, of those who have experienced
sexual harassment and assault. But a broader understanding of
restorative justice focuses on not only the restoration and
reintegration of victims but of wrongdoers — and also
addresses the implications of the wrongdoing for the
community as a whole.

Restorative justice processes share a number of core

commitments, including participation of offenders and victims
in the process; narration of the wrongful behavior and its
effects; acknowledgement of the offense and acceptance of
responsibility for it by the offender; joint efforts to find
appropriate ways to repair the harm done; and reintegration
of the offender into the broader community.2 How might these
key components of restorative justice — including
acknowledgement, responsibility-taking, harm repair, non-
repetition, and reintegration — play out in the context of
#MeToo? In this article, we begin to explore some of the
insights of restorative justice in this context.

Acknowledgement

Those who are injured by someone, including those injured by

sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence, often
want acknowledgment of their experiences, the specifics of
the wrongful behavior, and how they were affected.
Acknowledgement affirms the victim’s experience, can convey

341
that the victim was not overreacting or to blame, and signals
community support for the victim.

Failure to acknowledge the wrongful behavior is not only

insulting but can result in further offense. Consider, for
example, snowboarder Shaun White’s initial response to
questions about a settled sexual harassment lawsuit,
including a disparaging characterization of the event as
“gossip.” His statement that “I am who I am, and I’m
proud of who I am. And my friends . . . love me and vouch for
me. And I think that stands on its own,” did not acknowledge
either the harm or the victim.3

In similar ways, apologies that are conditional (“if I . .

.”), cast doubt on the consequences (“if anyone was
offended”), or refer only generally to “actions” or
“behavior” do not acknowledge the specific harmful behavior
in question or demonstrate an understanding of its
wrongfulness or effects. Actor Jeffrey Tambor, for example,
responded to accusations of misconduct with the following
statement: “I am deeply sorry if any action of mine was ever
misinterpreted by anyone as being sexually aggressive or if I
ever offended or hurt anyone.”4 This sort of vague apology,
in addition to failing to clearly acknowledge the behavior or
the harm, can also appear to fault the person who was harmed
for being overly sensitive or misinterpreting what
transpired.

342
Responsibility-taking

Many victims want offenders to go beyond acknowledgement, to

accept responsibility for having caused harm. Responsibility-
taking can be difficult even under the best of circumstances,
with concerns for self-image, reputation, future employment,
vulnerability, and potential legal consequences looming
large.

But responsibility-taking is a central feature of restorative

justice. Indeed, most restorative justice programs are
specifically designed to be available only in cases in which
the offender has acknowledged having engaged in the wrongful
acts at issue. Responsibility-taking is also the central
feature of apologies and is central to their potential.

As we have seen many times, some offenders accused of sexual

misconduct are very quick to deny any wrongdoing — and many
are even more reluctant to acknowledge exactly what they did.
Take, for example, actor Kevin Spacey’s apology, which first
denied any memory of sexual misconduct, then expressed
remorse for deeply inappropriate behavior if it happened, and
then seemingly deflected any responsibility by discussing the
challenges of living as an openly gay man. While Chef Mario
Batali claimed to accept responsibility, his fleeting and
vague reference to his “many mistakes” was hardly better,
though it was accompanied by a tasty cinnamon roll recipe.5

343
Contrast this with the apology given by television show
writer Dan Harmon, which included a very specific
acknowledgement of the variety of ways in which he had
created a toxic work environment for his victim, including
gaslighting and retaliation, and the ways in which it had
affected her.6 If someone accused of sexual assault or sexual
harassment cannot or will not acknowledge and take
responsibility for his or her active, voluntary role in
perpetrating abuse, restorative justice simply will not
follow.

Harm repair

Restorative justice incorporates the notion that the offender

should repair the harm caused by the wrongful behavior and
contemplates dialogue and joint decision-making about how
best to accomplish that repair. The notion of joint decision-
making is complicated in the context of sexual assault and
harassment. Take, for instance, agent Adam Venit’s request
to actor and former NFL player Terry Crews, the man he
assaulted, that “they talk in person to come together . . .
and be an amazing force for positivity and change in our
culture.” Crews was not comfortable with this proposal or
even accepting Venit’s apology until six months later, when
Venit took the additional step of resigning from his high-
level position.7 While some victims may be comfortable with
direct communication with their assaulter, others will not.

344
Thus, when victims and perpetrators are willing to discuss
repair, representatives and neutrals may be particularly
valuable in facilitating mutual understanding.

One aspect of this repair is often financial compensation.

Victims might look for money damages as concrete compensation
for tangible economic losses, as acknowledgement of their
experience, as evidence of responsibility-taking, or as
reaffirmation of their self-worth.

Some victims of sexual misconduct might be hesitant to seek

individual compensation, viewing money as incommensurate with
the harm they have suffered. Others might be hesitant to
claim compensation because of concerns about how they will be
viewed — and critiqued — by others. Take for example, the
pre #MeToo criticisms of Andrea Constand, the former director
of operations for the woman’s basketball team at Temple
University, as a gold digger for seeking civil damages from
comedian Bill Cosby or the widespread praise of musician
Taylor Swift for seeking only symbolic and not monetary
damages from her assaulter.8 Communities ought to be
cognizant of these social pressures on victims. Expecting the
self-sacrifice of victims, and in particular that of lower-
status victims, and demanding that their interests extend
only to protecting each other and not to seeking financial
redress for their harm is part of the stereotyping and denial

345
of their interests that fosters harassment and assault in the
first place.

Other forms of repair are also appropriate. Apologies, for

instance, can serve to repair some aspects of the harm. And
community service, particularly if it relates to the
underlying harm, can be a valuable effort toward repair.

Non-Repetition

Part of affirming the dignity and status of the harmed

individual is taking steps to avoid perpetuating similar
wrongdoing in the future. Victims are often motivated to take
action against offenders, to seek restorative or other forms
of “justice,” in the hope of preventing others from
experiencing similar harm. Important, too, are efforts by
those who enabled the wrongful conduct to take responsibility
for their part in supporting or failing to prevent or stop
the wrongful behavior and to forge systemic change.

But many of the statements we have seen from public figures

accused of sexual harassment have failed to outline how their
behavior will change in the future. Even those who
acknowledge their past misdeeds seem to have little concrete
to offer on this front. Moreover, vows to stop engaging in
wrongful behavior must be more than promises. One risk is
that offenders will be, in the words of Donna Coker, a

346
professor at the University of Miami’s School of Law who
specializes in domestic violence policy and law, “quick to
apologize, slow to change.” While an apology may happen at a
particular moment in time, the larger project of amends-
making in which it is embedded is often an ongoing endeavor.
Such an endeavor must include both non-repetition of the
offender’s own behavior and evidence of how the offender
will make helpful contributions to changing the structures
and culture that enabled the bad behavior. Our colleague at
the University of Illinois College of Law, Professor Jay
Kesan, for example, has made such promises in the academic
setting, acknowledging to his victims and the larger
community the harms of his past actions, binding himself to
specific norms of appropriate behavior, and promising to make
positive contributions to the #MeToo conversation.9 Only time
will tell the sincerity of such promises. As they say, the
proof is in the pudding.

Redemption and reintegration

Another tenet of restorative justice is the reintegration of

the offender back into the relevant community. The
restorative justice notion of “earned redemption”
anticipates both that offenders will be held accountable for
their behavior and that they will be enabled to “earn their
way back into the trust of the community.”10 Note, however,
that reintegration has been somewhat controversial in the

347
context of sexual violence and retaliation. Concerns for the
reintegration of the victim who might have voluntarily or
involuntarily excluded herself from the workplace or social
community should be seen as particularly pressing. Actress
Hilarie Burton, for instance, described how she “has refused
to audition and refused to work for show runners she does not
already know.” She explained that “[t]he fear of being
forced into another one of these situations was crippling. I
never wanted to be the lead female on any show ever, ever,
ever again.”11 While a car thief or a burglar who is truly
remorseful and truly understands his crime might be able to
return to a job or be restored to a prior position, would we
or should we say the same of those who have raped or
assaulted, given the high personal toll they have exacted
from their victims? While actor Bryan Cranston might speak
for some in his willingness to see Harvey Weinstein restored
if Weinstein were willing to do the work described above,12
others are less sure.

What is required for those called out by #MeToo to rebuild

their moral and social identities may depend, in part, on the
nature of their offense — its severity, intentionality, and
pervasiveness. Attention to these nuances is important in
order to avoid moral flattening, the temptation to conflate
crimes and behaviors that are meaningfully different. But
insufficient attention to building a foundation for
redemption can cause efforts at reintegration or

348
“comebacks” to fall flat. As actress and early Weinstein
accuser Ashley Judd has noted, “There’s an appropriate
sequence. Accountability, introspection, restitution, then
redemption. You don’t get to skip the stages that lead to
redemption.”13

Finally, it is important to consider the role of forgiveness

in reintegration. Neither reintegration nor forgiveness must
mean reinstatement to a former role or position or that a
victim must reconcile with an offender. Despite the common
refrain, “forgive and forget,” forgiveness does not imply
forgetting. Indeed, remembering is crucial, essential so that
offenders can learn and others can protect themselves as
necessary. Finally, pressuring a victim to forgive can
inflict additional harm, which for people who have been
assaulted is particularly troublesome as it magnifies their
original loss of agency. In claiming their autonomy, victims
must be able to choose for themselves whether to forgive.

Of course, restorative justice is not the only approach to

resolving #MeToo claims. Many victims might not seek justice
at all or prefer only traditional retributive justice. We
write not to undermine those choices, but because we believe
the potential of restorative justice has been underexplored
in discussions of #MeToo. It provides one among many valuable
tools for a path forward.

349
1 Daisy Murray, “Empowerment Through Empathy” — We Spoke to
Tarana Burke, the Woman Who Really Started the “Me Too” Movement,
ELLE (Oct. 23, 2017).

2 For a review of restorative justice, see Carrie Menkel-Meadow,

Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?, 3 ANN. REV. L. &

SOC. SCI. 161 (2007).

3 Rich Juzwiak, Shaun White Apologizes After Referring to Sexual

Harassment Allegations Against Him as “Gossip”, JEZEBEL (Feb. 14,
2018).

4 Caitlin Flynn, Jeffrey Tambor’s Response to New Sexual Misconduct

Allegation is So Offensive to Sexual Violence Victims (Nov. 16,
2017), http://www.refinery29.com/2017/11/181477/jeffrey-tambor-
sexual-harassment-response-trace-lysette.

5 Emily Stewart, Mario Batali’s Sexual Misconduct Apology Came with

a Cinnamon Roll Recipe, Vox.com (Dec. 16, 2017)
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/16/16784544/mario-batali-cinnamon-roll-
apology.

6 Harmontown, http://www.harmontown.com/2018/01/episode-dont-let-

him-wipe-or-flush/.

7 Tyler Coates, Terry Crews Shared an Apology Letter from the

Talent Agent who Allegedly Groped Him, GQ (Sept. 14, 2018),
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a23148698/terry-crews-
adam-venit-apology-letter.

8 Lesley Wexler, Ideal Victims and the Damage of a Damage Free

Victory, VERDICT (Sept. 27, 2017),
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/09/29/ideal-victims-damage-damage-
free-victory.

350
9 Donna Coker, Transformative Justice: Anti-Subordination Processes
in Cases of Domestic Violence, in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND FAMILY
VIOLENCE 128, 148 (Heather Strang & John Braithwaite eds., 2002).

10 Gordon Bazemore, Restorative Justice and Earned Redemption:

Communities, Victims, and Offender Reintegration, 41 AM. BEHAV.
SCI. 769, 770 (1998).

11 Daniel Holloway, “One Tree Hill” Cast, Crew Detail Assault,

Harassment Claims Against Mark Schwahn (Nov. 17, 2017),
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/one-tree-hill-mark-schwahn-
harassment-assault-1202617918/.

12 Bryan Cranston: “There May Be a Way Back For Weinstein,” BBC

NEWS (Nov. 13, 2017), http://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-
arts-41973917/bryan-cranston-there-may-be-a-way-back-for-weinstein.

13 Quoted in Anna Silman, 7 Actresses on Whether the Men of #MeToo

Should Get a Path to Redemption, THE CUT, May 1, 2018.

351
Restorative Justice and the #MeToo Movement
DESTINÉE MILLER

Destinée Miller
English 1020
Prof. Barrett
5 November 2019

Restorative Justice and the #MeToo Movement

In January 2018, the Golden Globes ceremony became a

tribute to victims of sexual harassment and sexual
assault, [1] following accusations of sexual misconduct
against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The #MeToo
movement had led hundreds of women in and out of the
entertainment industry to go public with their stories,
prompting a nationwide discussion about how to ensure
justice. Many of the celebrities at the ceremony wore
black in solidarity with the women, and a number of
those presenting the awards and receiving them took time
to highlight the movement in their remarks. One of those
whose words stood out at the ceremony was actress Laura
Dern, who went beyond praising the victims and
condemning the perpetrators to issue a plea for
restorative justice.

[1] An opening anecdote

352
In their article “#MeToo and Restorative Justice:
Realizing Restoration for Victims and Offenders,”
Lesley Wexler and Jennifer K. Robbennolt define
restorative justice in the context of sexual assault or
harassment [2] as a practice that “focuses on not only
the restoration and reintegration of victims but of
wrongdoers — and also addresses the implications of the
wrongdoing for the community as a whole” (115). Wexler
and Robbennolt show that the path to restorative justice
requires certain commitments, and they draw their
summary of the steps in restorative justice from Carrie
Menkel-Meadow’s article “Restorative Justice: What Is
It and Does It Work?”: “participation of offenders and
victims in the process; narration of the wrongful
behavior and its effects; acknowledgment of the offense
and acceptance of responsibility for it by the offender;
joint efforts to find appropriate ways to repair the
harm done; and reintegration of the offender into the
broader community” (115). These steps provide the
authors a framework for analyzing the #MeToo movement in
the context of restorative justice through social
accountability and victim visibility. At the same time,
however, they call into question the effectiveness of
restorative justice within the scope of the
entertainment industry, identifying its shortcomings
under the weight of grossly uneven power dynamics in
Hollywood. [3]

[2] Defines a key term in the context in which the

authors are using it, considering the victim, the
wrongdoer, and the community

353
 [3] Miller’s thesis

Wexler and Robbennolt highlight the benefits of

restorative justice as a two-fold process in ensuring
justice for victims of sexual assault — that unlike
simply receiving justice that will return a victim to
their pre-assault self (as well as possible), this type
of restitution seeks to ensure that the entire community
is set to rights. Victims of sexual violence need to
have what happened to them and how it affected them
acknowledged. Wexler and Robbennolt use examples from
the world of sports and entertainment to distinguish
between sincere acceptance of guilt and insulting
conditional apologies like Jeffrey Tambor’s: “I am
deeply sorry if any action of mine was ever
misinterpreted by anyone as being sexually aggressive or
if I ever offended or hurt anyone” (116). This example
from an actor who plays some well-known comedic
characters shows how widespread the problem is and
appeals to the reader’s desire for accountability from
not only this actor but from society at large, a
condition that restorative justice attempts to satisfy.

However, the authors are very cautious in applying the

core commitments of restorative justice to the #MeToo
movement, acknowledging from the beginning that it is
unclear exactly what restorative justice would look like
in the context of Hollywood. [4] As they work through
the steps in the process of restorative justice, they
address some of the roadblocks to success when the
process is applied to victims of sexual harassment and
assault, such as reluctance to admit to guilt and vague,

354
 empty apologies on behalf of offenders. One such case
involves actor Kevin Spacey, who “expressed remorse for
deeply inappropriate behavior if it happened” (116).
This example reminds readers of the complexity of sexual
harassment issues and the difficulty of holding
offenders accountable, especially on the universal stage
of the entertainment industry. [5] The authors in turn
emphasize that restorative justice is dependent upon
culture and society as key components in encouraging and
upholding accountability.

[4] Miller acknowledges that Wexler and Robbennolt

are cautious because they are not sure how the
process applies to Hollywood.

[5] Strong link between this example and Miller’s

thesis.

5 Wexler and Robbennolt go on to emphasize the importance

of acknowledgement to victims of sexual assault —
victims want those who have harmed them not only to
acknowledge their guilt but to take responsibility for
it. However, as the authors explain, “responsibility-
taking can be difficult even under the best of
circumstances, with concerns for self-image, reputation,
future employment, vulnerability, and potential legal
consequences looming large” (116). Here, the authors
present to readers the difficulties of acknowledging
sexual harassment within the very public entertainment
industry [6] — that usually when the restorative justice
process is used with any crime, the process cannot
continue if the perpetrator is not willing to

355
participate. By highlighting both the benefits and
drawbacks of restorative justice, the authors allow
readers to make their own decisions regarding the
potential solution. [7]

[6] One of the difficulties or roadblocks referred

to earlier

[7] Strong analytical statement

The final steps of the restorative justice process

include non-repetition of the offense and the redemption
and reintegration of the offender into the greater
community — steps that highlight restorative justice’s
dual focus on supporting both the victim and the
offender. Through their explanation of these steps,
Wexler and Robbennolt again emphasize how much
restorative justice’s success depends on the actions
and decisions of both parties: “what is required for
those called out by #MeToo to rebuild their moral and
social identities may depend, in part, on the nature of
their offense — its severity, intentionality, and
pervasiveness” (118). The authors conclude with the
same caution with which they began. They offer
restorative justice as one means of resolving #MeToo
claims, one tool among many for readers to consider to
help victims of sexual assault move forward and to hold
their offenders accountable. [8]

[8] Reiterates the authors’ caution in applying

restorative justice to claims of assault and

356
 harassment.

Works Cited

Wexler, Lesley, and Jennifer K. Robbennolt. “#MeToo and

Restorative Justice.” Elements of Argument, 13 th ed.,
edited by Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty
Winchell, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2021, pp. 114–19.

Practice: Examining an Analysis of Two Arguments

The following student essay is an analysis of two essays that

appear in this text: James W. Ingram III’s “Electoral
College Is Best Way to Choose U.S. President” (p. 101) from
earlier in this chapter and John R. Koza’s “States Can
Reform Electoral College — Here’s How to Empower Popular
Vote” (p. 260) in Chapter 9. The essay uses parallel order
to compare the two related arguments.

As you read, annotate the essay to identify the main claim

and the ways the student structures her argument by analyzing
two readings.

357
How to Pick a President: Electoral College vs.
National Popular Vote
SABRA STAPLETON

Sabra Stapleton
English 1020
Prof. Barrett
14 January 2020

How to Pick a President: Electoral College vs. National

Popular Vote

In essay “Electoral College Is Best Way to Choose U.S.

President,” professor of political science James W.
Ingram III defends the Electoral College as the most
appropriate and safest method of choosing the nation’s
president. In “States Can Reform Electoral College —
Here’s How to Empower Popular Vote,” computer
scientist John R. Koza defends the popular vote as the
most democratic and inclusive method of choosing the
president. Each author supports American democracy but
emphasizes the strengths of his preferred system for
electing the President of the United States.

Ingram begins his argument in support of the Electoral

College by emphasizing one of the biggest problems with
the popular vote system of electing the U.S. president:

358
the difficulty with which a candidate wins a popular
vote majority in a two-party system. He uses the past to
emphasize his point, recalling that after George
Washington left office, there was the fear that no
candidate could receive the majority of votes (101).
Ingram writes, “The Electoral College usually amplifies
the people’s voice, electing the candidate who wins
most states and votes. This allows the winner to claim a
mandate and lead the country” (101). The same is not
true if a president is elected by less than half of the
popular votes cast. Electing the president by popular
vote, he argues, would compromise the authority and
effectiveness of the executive branch — that “if
presidents only needed plurality support, the victor
might regularly be the candidate who won fewer states”
(102). Ingram shows his belief in American democracy by
focusing his argument on protecting the executive branch
and on the historical development of the system.

Ingram also argues that in the absence of a popular

vote, the next step in the system would be biased. With
a popular vote, if no candidate won the majority of
popular votes, the president would be elected by the
House of Representatives. Thus the party in control of
the House of Representatives would almost certainly
select the candidate affiliated with that party, gaining
further power and, as Ingram asserts, actually weakening
our democracy (101–2). Ingram chooses to strengthen his
argument for the Electoral College by emphasizing the
possibility of a transfer of power — from the public to
the House — taking advantage of potential reader
anxieties about increased government control. At the
conclusion of his argument, Ingram blames any issues

359
with the Electoral College on its inherently flawed
creators. He writes, “If our Electoral College
mechanism for choosing presidents is imperfect, it is
because human beings have never devised a perfect
system. . . . What isn’t broken doesn’t need fixing”
(103).

By focusing on what he sees as the problem with the

popular vote, Ingram strengthens his argument that the
Electoral College encourages candidates to adopt a more
diverse and inclusive mindset in developing their
campaign strategy. The values of diversity and inclusion
are shared by Koza, but he argues in support of the
popular vote. Koza is concerned with issues of voter
diversity, believing that the Electoral College forces
presidential candidates to focus on the needs and
interests of only a few of the most populous states. To
introduce his argument, Koza criticizes the winner-take-
all laws enforced by most U.S. states, appealing to the
reader’s potential desire for a sense of equality or
diversity. He writes that in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, “candidates concentrated ninety-four percent
of their campaign events in just twelve closely divided
‘battleground’ states, while giving little or no
attention to states with seventy percent of the
nation’s population” (260). Koza emphasizes how the
current system encourages candidates to pursue
individual states rather than individual votes. He
argues instead for a solution that forces candidates to
consider rural issues. Before proposing his solution to
this problem, Koza criticizes the Electoral College for
its long-term practice of encouraging first-term
presidents to grant post-election benefits, “including

360
 grants, disaster declarations, and various exemptions”
(261), to battleground states.

5 Unlike Ingram, who believes the current system is an

acceptable and timeless mechanism of American democracy,
Koza proposes an alternative: the National Popular Vote
interstate compact. The compact would make “every vote,
in every state, politically relevant in every
presidential election” (261). A state could choose to
have all of its electoral votes go to the candidate
winning the national popular vote. With this solution,
the popular vote will have become the means of electing
the president without having to change the Constitution,
since each state already has the power to decide how to
allocate its electoral votes. Koza asserts that the
compact would solve the problem of candidates ignoring
the interests of less populous states, appealing to
voters who value diversity. At the same time, however,
he appeals to the power and legitimacy of the
Constitution; his solution establishes a middle ground.
In so doing, Koza makes the popular vote plurality seem
more feasible to the reader.

Both Ingram and Koza speak to readers’ anxieties about

the lack of diversity and equality in the presidential
election process, with Ingram defending the current
Electoral College system and Koza supporting a new
popular vote plurality system. But while Ingram believes
the current system to be as close to achieving these
goals as possible, Koza offers a more personal and
individual alternative that appeals to the reader’s
desire for actual solutions to the problems that face
voters across the nation.

361
 Works Cited

Ingram, James W., III. “Electoral College Is Best Way

to Choose U.S. President.” Rottenberg and Winchell,
pp. 101–3.
Koza, John R. “States Can Reform Electoral College —
Here’s How to Empower Popular Vote.” Rottenberg and
Winchell, pp. 260–62.
Rottenberg, Annette, and Donna Haisty Winchell, editors.
Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. 13th ed.,
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2021.

362
Assignments for Writing Argument Analysis

Reading and Discussion Questions

1. Choose an editorial from your campus or local newspaper

and evaluate it. How successful an argument does it make?
2. Which essay do you find most effective in this chapter?
Why? Be specific and support your answer with examples
from the text.
3. Think of some television commercials that have caught
your eye. What tactics are used to try to convince you to
buy a product or service?

Writing Suggestions

1. Choose an editorial from your campus or local newspaper,

and write an objective analysis of it. Your thesis
statement will be a claim of fact.
2. Locate two editorials or two articles that take different
stands on the same controversial issue. Write an analysis
in which you objectively compare the two as examples of
argumentation.
3. Locate two editorials or two articles that take different
stands on the same controversial issue. Write an essay in
which you argue which of the two is a more effective
argument and why.

363
 4. In a paragraph, explain the organizational pattern used
by either Destinée Miller in “Restorative Justice and
the #MeToo Movement” (p. 119) or Sabra Stapleton in
“How to Pick a President: Electoral College vs. National
Popular Vote” (p. 122) and evaluate how effective the
organizational choice is — whether it should have been
organized differently and why.
5. Write a paragraph in which you explain what claim you
would support if you were writing about James W. Ingram
III’s “Electoral College Is Best Way to Choose U.S.
President” (p. 101) and John R. Koza’s “States Can
Reform Electoral College — Here’s How to Empower
Popular Vote” (p. 260) together. Would you come to the
same conclusion as Sabra Stapleton in “How to Pick a
President: Electoral College vs. National Popular Vote”
(p. 122)? Would you have argued the same point
differently? Explain what approach you would take.

Incorporating Quotations
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

Read each of the following passages. Then for each, write one
or two sentences that analyze the passage and incorporate a
quotation as evidence. Also incorporate in your sentence(s)
the author’s name and the title of the work. Choose a
different way of incorporating the quote each time so that
all three ways are represented: (1) as a grammatical part of

364
your own sentence, (2) with a speech tag such as “he says”
or “she writes,” and (3) with a complete sentence and a
colon.

Put the page number in parentheses, and punctuate correctly

according to MLA style.

Passage 1

The school district [in Washington, D.C.] Michelle Rhee

inherited in 2007 was in freefall. Not only had student
enrollment plummeted and test scores scraped the bottom of any
national rankings, but also many principals had lost control of
their schools. Rhee’s response to the latter was to eject (or
offer voluntary retirement to) nearly fifty principals who had
tolerated those conditions.

Her yardstick for progress was basic. In the first year, a

principal entering an out-of-control school must succeed in
“locking down” the school: seize control of the hallways,
bathrooms, lunchrooms, and the nearby city blocks during school
dismissal and ensure calm and respect in the classrooms. If
principals succeed with that first-year lockdown but test
scores still look miserable, they generally got a pass. The
second and third years, however, measurable “teaching and
learning” was supposed to kick in. If that didn’t happen, the
principal was “non-reappointed,” the district’s euphemism
for getting fired. Not surprisingly, a lot of principals
stumbled along that path, which means a lot of non-
reappointments — and a lot of interviews for new principals.

365