U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE
STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE
Persuasive Writing Guide
The strategic leader who can’t communicate is akin to
a weapon without ammunition . . . mostly useless.
U.S. Army War College
Carlisle Barracks, PA
Contents
Constructing Persuasive Arguments: An Overview of Fundamental Principles / 1Principle #1:
Meet audiences on their own ground and in the appropriate format.
Principle #2:
Support persuasive arguments with high quality evidence.
Principle #3:
Organize messages to lead the audience toward a desired conclusion.
Principle #4:
Employ language and demeanor that is effective and efficient.
Principle #5:
Embrace ethical responsibility for your persuasive arguments.
Concepts and Terminology / 5
Argument
Evidence
Organization and Outline
Paraphrase and Quotation
Plagiarism
Point of View
Research
Reference Citations
Source Documentation
Thesis
Voice (Active and Passive)
The 1500 Word Article: An Example / 15
U.S.-China Relations: No Need to Fight
Constructing Persuasive Arguments:
An Overview of Fundamental Principles
Principle #1:
Meet audiences on their own ground and in the appropriate format.
The effective persuader, regardless of the communication modality (writing or speaking), must negotiate two anchoring questions: (1) what end state or goal am I trying to accomplish? and (2) how can I best accommodate my audience such that the prospect for success is maximized? Speakers and writers who undertake persuasive initiatives commonly seek to craft "near perfect" messages, but frequently do so with very modest, if any, attention to audience considerations. Successful efforts to influence the attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions of others require persuaders to adapt their messages to the audience. To do so, one must have detailed knowledge about and understanding of the audience. What are the audience's expectations, potential leanings, biases, interests, and, in the case of elected officials, past records and public positions on salient issues? Persuasive writers and speakers advance arguments sustained by evidence, usually wrapped in compelling language, ably delivered. The audience, however, always controls the outcome. For written documents, the editor and reviewers serve as the gatekeepers to the larger readership. For oral presentations the audience is frequently present be it a direct face-to-face exchange or a mediated event.
In the world of persuasive discourse, perfection and success almost always lie with the judgment and decisions of others (personal goals and self-assessments notwithstanding). In a disciplined and uniformed world, subordinates can be counted on to carry out orders. When the context is apt and the message compelling orders will be embraced, not merely carried out. Written and recorded arguments (e.g., video records), tend to endure and are likely to be circulated among assorted constituencies. Even a well-crafted and ably presented persuasive case will lose impact and possibly fail if the message is not adapted to and aligned with the interests, beliefs, and values of the target audience. Balancing message with audience expectations and needs can be challenging. Doing so effectively is, unfortunately, never an absolute assurance of success. Failure to design messages to accomplish specific ends with particular audiences, however, undercuts one's ability to engage audiences on their own ground. Persuasion is largely an offensive maneuver, not a defensive ploy: a crafted effort to facilitate change, exert influence, and win acceptance. As Aristotle acknowledged over 2300 years ago, the persuasive task is to "state your case and . . . prove it"[1] Implicit within that ancient admonition is recognition that one must "prove it" to the satisfaction of the audience.
In many instances the format for a paper or presentation is dictated by the agency, organization, or occasion for which it is produced. Meeting those expectations, be it time allotted, word length permitted, formatting specifications, font size, documentation style, etc. is an opportunity to exert a secondary persuasive move on the audience. To align your efforts and intent with extant guidance signals respect, preempts unnecessary bias, and balances the stage such that your arguments are more apt to receive thoughtful consideration. Format irregularities, especially those that violate audience expectations not only work against a persuasive effort, but are likely to prompt gatekeepers and others to dismiss the arguments before they are presented.
Principle #2:
Support persuasive arguments with high quality evidence.
Evidence may assume many forms in support of a persuasive argument. The most common forms include expert testimony, statistically compiled data and verifiable facts, examples (hypothetical or real), personal experience, analogies (where similarities between distinct elements are emphasized in an effort to suggest that the two elements are indeed similar in some additional respect), and anecdotal offerings (usually interesting, but seldom verifiable claims or reports derived from someone's experience). Such materials are gathered, assessed for quality (accuracy, reliability, veracity, independence), and then selectively employed to support a persuasive argument. Always use compelling evidence to build your argument. If your proposition is that we are “winning a war” or “advancing U.S. National Security interests,” what evidence can you offer? How is progress or success in either case defined and what evidence can be mustered in support of the proposition? People in general are remarkably picky, if not downright peculiar, with respect to what constitutes acceptable evidence. A critical task for building a persuasive case is to have two information pools at hand: (1) all the available high quality evidence that might be used to support a proposition, and (2) an informed and acute sensitivity to identifying the available elements that are most likely to favorably impact the audience and gain acceptance. In a nutshell, evidence is what is offered as a basis for belief or action. Evidence that is somehow magically transformed in the human mind acquires the power of "proof" as the evidence is accepted. Once embraced, the issue is resolved and the argument won.
Principle #3:
Organize messages to lead the audience toward a desired conclusion.
The world of persuasive discourse, be it compelling written exposition or persuasive harangue, requires an organizational scheme. Organizational scheme has to do with how the elements of the paper or presentation are prioritized, assembled, and arranged by the message designer. Sometimes a topic or issue entails an apt sequencing pattern that almost naturally accommodates the subject matter while concurrently eliciting considerable audience appeal. If a particular sequence of events, for example, tends to drive the material forward, as is common in historical treatments, then opting for a chronological pattern is both easy and apt, especially if the target audience arrives with historical sensibilities. If the writing involves recounting, detailing, or possibly gaining approval for a campaign plan or proposed course of action, then a spatial pattern might be apt. Thoughtful efforts to consider message structure in light of desired end state and audience expectations will help to tighten, economize, and focus a persuasive effort. A variety of stock organizational formats are available including the problem-solution sequence, ascending and descending order (order of increasing or decreasing importance), and topical sequencing where ideas are thoughtfully ordered to help facilitate the desired effect, i.e., change minds, win approval. One might elect for example, to structure a paper or speech in accord with the Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic aspects of an issue while concurrently re-ordering the DIME topics in an ascending order consistent with priorities and/or audience preference. Sometimes the format will be dictated by an agency or the occasion, but even then the persuasive communicator will organize the ideas and evidence within the missive so as to lead the audience to a sensible and reasonable conclusion. When in doubt, opt for the five section format of introduction, main points (always supported by evidence) and conclusion. Always consider the character and composition of the audience as well as the mission and resource material when structuring persuasive arguments.
Principle #4:
Employ language and demeanor that is effective and efficient.
Preparing a written persuasive appeal and delivering an oral presentation before an audience differ somewhat. In the former case, the writer has an opportunity to carefully make word choices, fix, repair, and revise the text. Because written documents are frequently shared, sometimes quoted, and often circulated, the author should employ language that not only advances the theme to the immediate audience, but is well postured with the prospect of a favorable reception by individuals beyond the target audience. Effective oral presentations require both careful development and thoughtful audience adaptations. Able extemporaneous speakers normally begin with a well-considered introduction, apt transitions, mental clarity on the major points of contention, comprehensive and specific recall of supporting materials, as well as sensitivity to time, and an apt conclusion at the ready. In addition, effective speakers monitor audiences for nonverbal behaviors and signs suggesting just how closely the audience is following. If an oral presentation is fully scripted, i.e., the speaker is delivering a written text, then preparation will usually require greater familiarity with the text than is the case in an extemporaneous style where major features of the presentation are clearly in mind, but the precise words are largely elements of the moment.
Major language considerations for both writers and speakers revolve around matters of writing economy, clarity, and precision. Strunk has long urged writers to "omit needless words" and to actively find ways to maximize economy. "Vigorous writing is concise . . . [and] contain[s] no unnecessary words . . . no unnecessary sentences."[2] Why write or say "due to the fact that" when "because" will work? Be alert to incorporating an excessive number of prepositional phrases into a text. Edit and revise to reduce verbiage. Write primarily in the active voice to enhance clarity. Quotations, especially lengthy ones, should be used infrequently. Paraphrase sources as much as possible while providing an endnote to the source. Enhance precision by making strong and apt word choices, employ transitions between paragraphs and major points, and seek to avoid beginning sentences with "useless fluff." Avoid first (“I”) and second (“you”) person writing. Pursue a professional style which is the conventional writing style for publication. Opt for the third person (“he,” “she,” or “it”) as doing so better accommodates reader expectations and has the effect of lightly distancing the writer from the text while privileging premise and support. Be attentive to sentence length. While it is possible to expand a sentence such that it includes 50 or more words, the reality is that most minds collapse once they reach about twenty-five. Lengthy sentences lose readers and usually can be edited or possibly re-cast into two sentences. Finally, written text should be edited and revised multiple times. Oral presentations should be practiced until they are fully under the speaker's control.
Principle #5:
Embrace ethical responsibility for your persuasive arguments.
Writers and speakers, especially those holding elevated leadership positions, are ethically responsible for all documents and materials, speeches and presentations that they approve and/or that represent them or their agency. Very few senior leaders, however, have the time to fully prepare every document and persuasive argument for which they bear responsibility. Most, fortunately, enjoy some degree of staff support. The senior leader nevertheless actually authors, signs, approves, and presents materials in response to or in support of a variety of issues. In the digital era where huge volumes of materials and resources are readily available and cut and paste options exist, many people (including individuals one would least expect) opt for short cuts that undermine integrity. Senior leaders carry an inordinate ethical responsibility to locate, employ, and acknowledge source materials in all work, but especially that destined for publication and wide-scale distribution through the media. Failure to adhere to standards is always problematic and can sometimes be devastating. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenburg, for example, a popular, promising, and highly effective member of Angela Merkel’s Cabinet, was pressured to resign as German Defense Minister in 2011 after it became known that he had plagiarized portions of his 2006 doctoral dissertation.[3] U.S. Senator John Walsh “was forced to abandon his re-election bid” and his Army War College degree was rescinded following revelations that his major research paper was plagiarized[4]. Staff personnel who assist senior leaders in the preparation of written arguments and public presentations must employ the highest professional standards in all matters. Unfortunately, this expectation is not always fully understood, is sometimes blatantly ignored, and should be explicated up front.
1
Concepts and Terminology[5]
Argument
All good papers advance a defensible position or “argument” that must be supported by well documented and articulated evidence or “good arguments” (see Martha Cooper, Analyzing Public Discourse, Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 1989). The term “argument” in a professional context, therefore, is much different than the term “argument” in a relationship context (i.e., a verbal disagreement or fight). Thinking of professional writing in terms of well-reasoned arguments facilitates discourse in the marketplace of ideas by elevating expectations for communication. Authors should (a) clearly articulate the arguments advanced, (b) identify the intellectual roots of their work, (c) ground declarative statements in appropriate evidence, (d) organize arguments in a fashion conducive to deductive reasoning and enhanced reader understanding, and, in the process (e) acknowledge and address counter arguments.
Evidence
A well written paper advances an argument firmly grounded in evidence—facts, examples, data, and literature that can be used in support of a claim or argument. All main points and their supporting evidence should be directed toward the development the paper’s overall thesis. Evidence must be connected to arguments, counter-arguments, and claims through interpretation. Usually, evidence will have more than one possible interpretation. Each author develops the rationale for the interpretation of evidence in support of his or her thesis. That does not suggest bending the facts to fit the case. Instead, one should advocate a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and clearly articulate reasons why that evidence is appropriately interpreted as suggested.
Each main point in a paper must be supported by evidence. The strength of a paper is directly dependent upon the strength of the evidence used to support its arguments. Always use the most credible sources available to develop each main point. Generally speaking, the most credible publications are verifiable, well documented, grounded in current and historical research, and refereed by prestigious individuals and institutions (e.g., University Press books, scholarly journal articles). Many internet sources (e.g., Wikipedia) do not satisfy rigorous criteria and, while they may be useful in the initial phases of research, are not appropriate evidence for high level professional writing.