An introduction Identification of the issue Statement of the position The body

Background information Supporting evidence or facts A discussion of both sides

of the issue A conclusion Suggested courses of action Possible solutions

In Favor of the Gobbledygook:

A Position Paper on Steven Pinkers Why Academics Stink at
Writing
Does it really stink?
No, why?
Is academic writing really that bad? In his article, Why Academics
Stink at Writing, Steven Pinker seems to think so. And he goes on citing
reasons to fuel and reveal that there are supporting facts to the stereotype
of academese being a bamboozling, gobbledygook mind-job for any outsider
who might be put to the task of digesting such contents.
However, I do not think academic writing stinks. Difficult may be a
more apt word to describe it. I believe it is meant to be difficult, because one
cannot be expected to break down sophisticated arenas of knowledge
subjects and convey the information into elementary concepts which can be
easily regurgitated by the brain as easily as one chows down a bowl of
cereal. Academic writing may be complicated and at first undecipherable to
the unprepared mind, but it does not reek of agonizing stench.
Klein (2015), in her online blog, defined academic writing as,
Academese that slow nuanced ponderous way of seeing the world we
are told, is a symptom of academias pretensions. But I think its one of our
only saving graces. She goes on to say that, With academic writing, is that
its core the creation of careful, accurate ideas about the world are born
of research and revision and, most important of all, time. Time is needed. But
our world is increasingly regulated by the ethic of the instant. We are losing
our patience. We need content that comes quickly and often, content that
can be read during a short morning commute or a long dump (sorry for the
vulgarity, Ma), content that can be tweeted and retweeted and Tumblred and
bit-lyed. And that content is great. Its filled with interesting and dynamic
ideas. But this content cannot replace the deep structures of thought that
come from research and revision and time.

How to Organize Position Essays

Making an Outline
I. Intro: Describe the problem and make it vivid for the reader. Your introduction should:

make the reader interested in this issue/problem

convince them that it is important

Introduction Ideas: unusual fact or statistic, intriguing statement, anecdote, example, question,
historical background, story, typical scenario, conversation, interesting quotation, vivid description, a
list, explaining a process, an analogy, frame story (part of story in the intro and the rest of the story in
the conclusion).
Claim Sentence: Generally, the introduction will end with your claim or thesis (sometimes this will be
the opening sentence, or you may put a question which is not fully answered until the conclusion).
You may phrase this as a question or a statement.
II. Body: The body will focus on one particular sort of claim: fact, definition, value, cause or policy.
Your claim is what you want your audience to believe and it should be stated in one sentence. The
claim can be placed in different points in the paper but is usually at the end of the intro or the first
sentence of the body.
1. Subclaims: Your subclaims should be three or more reasons why the reader should believe your
claim. They should be supported using your sources. Be sure to use author tags and parenthetical
citation in MLA form. Different types of position papers require different organization and support.
See my other hubs on specific sorts of essays.
2. Warrants/Backing (evidence to support warrants): Warrants are why you believe this claim to be
true. Telling your warrants and backing them up is optional. The reason you would do so is to draw
your reader into common ground with you. It is especially useful to do if you are appealing to a
reader who holds a very different position from you on this issue, particularly on policy claims.
(Examples: on the issue of abortion, both sides agree that reducing the number of abortions is
desirable; on the issue of war, everyone agrees that the goal is to allow citizens to raise their families
in peace). A discussion of warrants can be put in the intro, before or after the subclaims or as part of
the appeal in the conclusion.
3. Rebuttal: The rebuttal is a discussion of other positions on this issue and explaining why your
position is better. Again, you may use sources to support your position and you may also use
qualifiers (sometimes, if, most of the time) to narrow your claim and encourage the audience to
agree with you.

III. Conclusion: Conclusions can use some of the same techniques that you use in your
introduction. Be sure your conclusion is linked to your introduction. Do not just repeat the claim, but
draw a conclusion which urges the reader to believe it or do something about it. Ways to conclude:

Make a final appeal to the reader and tell them what you want them to think or do.

Depending on your topic, you may want to make an appeal to logic, emotion or authority

Return to the intro and finish the frame story, or revise the story or description or
conversation to show how things would be better if your proposal/claim is adopted.

If you havent done so in the body, you can sometimes use a countering of other positions in
the conclusion. Explain why your position is better.

If you started with a question, you may save your final claim thesis for the end.