quality of argumentative essay

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

We define an argumentative essay as a type of essay that presents arguments about both sides of an issue. The purpose is to convince the reader to accept a particular viewpoint or action. In an argumentative essay, the writer takes a stance on a controversial or debatable topic and supports their position with evidence, reasoning, and examples. The essay should also address counterarguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic.

Table of Contents

• What is an argumentative essay?  
• Argumentative essay structure 
• Argumentative essay outline 
• Types of argument claims 

How to write an argumentative essay?

• Argumentative essay writing tips 
• Good argumentative essay example 

How to write a good thesis

• How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an argumentative essay.

An argumentative essay is a type of writing that presents a coherent and logical analysis of a specific topic. 1 The goal is to convince the reader to accept the writer’s point of view or opinion on a particular issue. Here are the key elements of an argumentative essay: 

• Thesis Statement : The central claim or argument that the essay aims to prove. 
• Introduction : Provides background information and introduces the thesis statement. 
• Body Paragraphs : Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, presents evidence, and may include counter arguments. 

Articulate your thesis statement better with Paperpal. Start writing now!

• Evidence : Supports the main argument with relevant facts, examples, statistics, or expert opinions. 
• Counterarguments : Anticipates and addresses opposing viewpoints to strengthen the overall argument. 
• Conclusion : Summarizes the main points, reinforces the thesis, and may suggest implications or actions. 

Argumentative essay structure

Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin are three distinct approaches to argumentative essay structures, each with its principles and methods. 2 The choice depends on the purpose and nature of the topic. Here’s an overview of each type of argumentative essay format.

Have a looming deadline for your argumentative essay? Write 2x faster with Paperpal – Start now!  

Argumentative essay outline

An argumentative essay presents a specific claim or argument and supports it with evidence and reasoning. Here’s an outline for an argumentative essay, along with examples for each section: 3  

1.  Introduction : 

• Hook : Start with a compelling statement, question, or anecdote to grab the reader’s attention. 

Example: “Did you know that plastic pollution is threatening marine life at an alarming rate?” 

• Background information : Provide brief context about the issue. 

Example: “Plastic pollution has become a global environmental concern, with millions of tons of plastic waste entering our oceans yearly.” 

• Thesis statement : Clearly state your main argument or position. 

Example: “We must take immediate action to reduce plastic usage and implement more sustainable alternatives to protect our marine ecosystem.” 

2.  Body Paragraphs : 

• Topic sentence : Introduce the main idea of each paragraph. 

Example: “The first step towards addressing the plastic pollution crisis is reducing single-use plastic consumption.” 

• Evidence/Support : Provide evidence, facts, statistics, or examples that support your argument. 

Example: “Research shows that plastic straws alone contribute to millions of tons of plastic waste annually, and many marine animals suffer from ingestion or entanglement.” 

• Counterargument/Refutation : Acknowledge and refute opposing viewpoints. 

Example: “Some argue that banning plastic straws is inconvenient for consumers, but the long-term environmental benefits far outweigh the temporary inconvenience.” 

• Transition : Connect each paragraph to the next. 

Example: “Having addressed the issue of single-use plastics, the focus must now shift to promoting sustainable alternatives.” 

3.  Counterargument Paragraph : 

• Acknowledgement of opposing views : Recognize alternative perspectives on the issue. 

Example: “While some may argue that individual actions cannot significantly impact global plastic pollution, the cumulative effect of collective efforts must be considered.” 

• Counterargument and rebuttal : Present and refute the main counterargument. 

Example: “However, individual actions, when multiplied across millions of people, can substantially reduce plastic waste. Small changes in behavior, such as using reusable bags and containers, can have a significant positive impact.” 

4.  Conclusion : 

• Restatement of thesis : Summarize your main argument. 

Example: “In conclusion, adopting sustainable practices and reducing single-use plastic is crucial for preserving our oceans and marine life.” 

• Call to action : Encourage the reader to take specific steps or consider the argument’s implications. 

Example: “It is our responsibility to make environmentally conscious choices and advocate for policies that prioritize the health of our planet. By collectively embracing sustainable alternatives, we can contribute to a cleaner and healthier future.” 

Types of argument claims

A claim is a statement or proposition a writer puts forward with evidence to persuade the reader. 4 Here are some common types of argument claims, along with examples: 

• Fact Claims : These claims assert that something is true or false and can often be verified through evidence.  Example: “Water boils at 100°C at sea level.”
• Value Claims : Value claims express judgments about the worth or morality of something, often based on personal beliefs or societal values. Example: “Organic farming is more ethical than conventional farming.” 
• Policy Claims : Policy claims propose a course of action or argue for a specific policy, law, or regulation change.  Example: “Schools should adopt a year-round education system to improve student learning outcomes.” 
• Cause and Effect Claims : These claims argue that one event or condition leads to another, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Example: “Excessive use of social media is a leading cause of increased feelings of loneliness among young adults.” 
• Definition Claims : Definition claims assert the meaning or classification of a concept or term.  Example: “Artificial intelligence can be defined as machines exhibiting human-like cognitive functions.” 
• Comparative Claims : Comparative claims assert that one thing is better or worse than another in certain respects.  Example: “Online education is more cost-effective than traditional classroom learning.” 
• Evaluation Claims : Evaluation claims assess the quality, significance, or effectiveness of something based on specific criteria.  Example: “The new healthcare policy is more effective in providing affordable healthcare to all citizens.” 

Understanding these argument claims can help writers construct more persuasive and well-supported arguments tailored to the specific nature of the claim.  

If you’re wondering how to start an argumentative essay, here’s a step-by-step guide to help you with the argumentative essay format and writing process.

• Choose a Topic: Select a topic that you are passionate about or interested in. Ensure that the topic is debatable and has two or more sides.
• Define Your Position: Clearly state your stance on the issue. Consider opposing viewpoints and be ready to counter them.
• Conduct Research: Gather relevant information from credible sources, such as books, articles, and academic journals. Take notes on key points and supporting evidence.
• Create a Thesis Statement: Develop a concise and clear thesis statement that outlines your main argument. Convey your position on the issue and provide a roadmap for the essay.
• Outline Your Argumentative Essay: Organize your ideas logically by creating an outline. Include an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each body paragraph should focus on a single point that supports your thesis.
• Write the Introduction: Start with a hook to grab the reader’s attention (a quote, a question, a surprising fact). Provide background information on the topic. Present your thesis statement at the end of the introduction.
• Develop Body Paragraphs: Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that relates to the thesis. Support your points with evidence and examples. Address counterarguments and refute them to strengthen your position. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs.
• Address Counterarguments: Acknowledge and respond to opposing viewpoints. Anticipate objections and provide evidence to counter them.
• Write the Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your argumentative essay. Reinforce the significance of your argument. End with a call to action, a prediction, or a thought-provoking statement.
• Revise, Edit, and Share: Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Check for grammatical and spelling errors. Share your essay with peers, friends, or instructors for constructive feedback.
• Finalize Your Argumentative Essay: Make final edits based on feedback received. Ensure that your essay follows the required formatting and citation style.

Struggling to start your argumentative essay? Paperpal can help – try now!   

Argumentative essay writing tips

Here are eight strategies to craft a compelling argumentative essay: 

• Choose a Clear and Controversial Topic : Select a topic that sparks debate and has opposing viewpoints. A clear and controversial issue provides a solid foundation for a strong argument. 
• Conduct Thorough Research : Gather relevant information from reputable sources to support your argument. Use a variety of sources, such as academic journals, books, reputable websites, and expert opinions, to strengthen your position. 
• Create a Strong Thesis Statement : Clearly articulate your main argument in a concise thesis statement. Your thesis should convey your stance on the issue and provide a roadmap for the reader to follow your argument. 
• Develop a Logical Structure : Organize your essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph should focus on a specific point of evidence that contributes to your overall argument. Ensure a logical flow from one point to the next. 
• Provide Strong Evidence : Support your claims with solid evidence. Use facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions to support your arguments. Be sure to cite your sources appropriately to maintain credibility. 
• Address Counterarguments : Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and counterarguments. Addressing and refuting alternative perspectives strengthens your essay and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue. Be mindful of maintaining a respectful tone even when discussing opposing views. 
• Use Persuasive Language : Employ persuasive language to make your points effectively. Avoid emotional appeals without supporting evidence and strive for a respectful and professional tone. 
• Craft a Compelling Conclusion : Summarize your main points, restate your thesis, and leave a lasting impression in your conclusion. Encourage readers to consider the implications of your argument and potentially take action. 

Good argumentative essay example

Let’s consider a sample of argumentative essay on how social media enhances connectivity:

In the digital age, social media has emerged as a powerful tool that transcends geographical boundaries, connecting individuals from diverse backgrounds and providing a platform for an array of voices to be heard. While critics argue that social media fosters division and amplifies negativity, it is essential to recognize the positive aspects of this digital revolution and how it enhances connectivity by providing a platform for diverse voices to flourish. One of the primary benefits of social media is its ability to facilitate instant communication and connection across the globe. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram break down geographical barriers, enabling people to establish and maintain relationships regardless of physical location and fostering a sense of global community. Furthermore, social media has transformed how people stay connected with friends and family. Whether separated by miles or time zones, social media ensures that relationships remain dynamic and relevant, contributing to a more interconnected world. Moreover, social media has played a pivotal role in giving voice to social justice movements and marginalized communities. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #ClimateStrike have gained momentum through social media, allowing individuals to share their stories and advocate for change on a global scale. This digital activism can shape public opinion and hold institutions accountable. Social media platforms provide a dynamic space for open dialogue and discourse. Users can engage in discussions, share information, and challenge each other’s perspectives, fostering a culture of critical thinking. This open exchange of ideas contributes to a more informed and enlightened society where individuals can broaden their horizons and develop a nuanced understanding of complex issues. While criticisms of social media abound, it is crucial to recognize its positive impact on connectivity and the amplification of diverse voices. Social media transcends physical and cultural barriers, connecting people across the globe and providing a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. By fostering open dialogue and facilitating the exchange of ideas, social media contributes to a more interconnected and empowered society. Embracing the positive aspects of social media allows us to harness its potential for positive change and collective growth.

• Clearly Define Your Thesis Statement:   Your thesis statement is the core of your argumentative essay. Clearly articulate your main argument or position on the issue. Avoid vague or general statements.  
• Provide Strong Supporting Evidence:   Back up your thesis with solid evidence from reliable sources and examples. This can include facts, statistics, expert opinions, anecdotes, or real-life examples. Make sure your evidence is relevant to your argument, as it impacts the overall persuasiveness of your thesis.  
• Anticipate Counterarguments and Address Them:   Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints to strengthen credibility. This also shows that you engage critically with the topic rather than presenting a one-sided argument. 

How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal?

Writing a winning argumentative essay not only showcases your ability to critically analyze a topic but also demonstrates your skill in persuasively presenting your stance backed by evidence. Achieving this level of writing excellence can be time-consuming. This is where Paperpal, your AI academic writing assistant, steps in to revolutionize the way you approach argumentative essays. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use Paperpal to write your essay: 

• Sign Up or Log In: Begin by creating an account or logging into paperpal.com .  
• Navigate to Paperpal Copilot: Once logged in, proceed to the Templates section from the side navigation bar.  
• Generate an essay outline: Under Templates, click on the ‘Outline’ tab and choose ‘Essay’ from the options and provide your topic to generate an outline.  
• Develop your essay: Use this structured outline as a guide to flesh out your essay. If you encounter any roadblocks, click on Brainstorm and get subject-specific assistance, ensuring you stay on track. 
• Refine your writing: To elevate the academic tone of your essay, select a paragraph and use the ‘Make Academic’ feature under the ‘Rewrite’ tab, ensuring your argumentative essay resonates with an academic audience. 
• Final Touches: Make your argumentative essay submission ready with Paperpal’s language, grammar, consistency and plagiarism checks, and improve your chances of acceptance.  

Paperpal not only simplifies the essay writing process but also ensures your argumentative essay is persuasive, well-structured, and academically rigorous. Sign up today and transform how you write argumentative essays. 

The length of an argumentative essay can vary, but it typically falls within the range of 1,000 to 2,500 words. However, the specific requirements may depend on the guidelines provided.

You might write an argumentative essay when:  1. You want to convince others of the validity of your position.  2. There is a controversial or debatable issue that requires discussion.  3. You need to present evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims.  4. You want to explore and critically analyze different perspectives on a topic. 

Argumentative Essay:  Purpose : An argumentative essay aims to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a specific point of view or argument.  Structure : It follows a clear structure with an introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs presenting arguments and evidence, counterarguments and refutations, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is formal and relies on logical reasoning, evidence, and critical analysis.    Narrative/Descriptive Essay:  Purpose : These aim to tell a story or describe an experience, while a descriptive essay focuses on creating a vivid picture of a person, place, or thing.  Structure : They may have a more flexible structure. They often include an engaging introduction, a well-developed body that builds the story or description, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is more personal and expressive to evoke emotions or provide sensory details. 

• Gladd, J. (2020). Tips for Writing Academic Persuasive Essays.  Write What Matters . 
• Nimehchisalem, V. (2018). Pyramid of argumentation: Towards an integrated model for teaching and assessing ESL writing.  Language & Communication ,  5 (2), 185-200. 
• Press, B. (2022).  Argumentative Essays: A Step-by-Step Guide . Broadview Press. 
• Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2005).  Argumentation and critical decision making . Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences

Make Your Research Paper Error-Free with Paperpal’s Online Spell Checker 

The do’s & don’ts of using generative ai tools ethically in academia, you may also like, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples .

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

4-minute read

• 30th April 2022

An argumentative essay is a structured, compelling piece of writing where an author clearly defines their stance on a specific topic. This is a very popular style of writing assigned to students at schools, colleges, and universities. Learn the steps to researching, structuring, and writing an effective argumentative essay below.

Requirements of an Argumentative Essay

To effectively achieve its purpose, an argumentative essay must contain:

●  A concise thesis statement that introduces readers to the central argument of the essay

●  A clear, logical, argument that engages readers

●  Ample research and evidence that supports your argument

Approaches to Use in Your Argumentative Essay

1.   classical.

●  Clearly present the central argument.

●  Outline your opinion.

●  Provide enough evidence to support your theory.

2.   Toulmin

●  State your claim.

●  Supply the evidence for your stance.

●  Explain how these findings support the argument.

●  Include and discuss any limitations of your belief.

3.   Rogerian

●  Explain the opposing stance of your argument.

●  Discuss the problems with adopting this viewpoint.

●  Offer your position on the matter.

●  Provide reasons for why yours is the more beneficial stance.

●  Include a potential compromise for the topic at hand.

Tips for Writing a Well-Written Argumentative Essay

●  Introduce your topic in a bold, direct, and engaging manner to captivate your readers and encourage them to keep reading.

●  Provide sufficient evidence to justify your argument and convince readers to adopt this point of view.

●  Consider, include, and fairly present all sides of the topic.

●  Structure your argument in a clear, logical manner that helps your readers to understand your thought process.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  Discuss any counterarguments that might be posed.

●  Use persuasive writing that’s appropriate for your target audience and motivates them to agree with you.

Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay

Follow these basic steps to write a powerful and meaningful argumentative essay :

Step 1: Choose a topic that you’re passionate about

If you’ve already been given a topic to write about, pick a stance that resonates deeply with you. This will shine through in your writing, make the research process easier, and positively influence the outcome of your argument.

Step 2: Conduct ample research to prove the validity of your argument

To write an emotive argumentative essay , finding enough research to support your theory is a must. You’ll need solid evidence to convince readers to agree with your take on the matter. You’ll also need to logically organize the research so that it naturally convinces readers of your viewpoint and leaves no room for questioning.

Step 3: Follow a simple, easy-to-follow structure and compile your essay

A good structure to ensure a well-written and effective argumentative essay includes:

Introduction

●  Introduce your topic.

●  Offer background information on the claim.

●  Discuss the evidence you’ll present to support your argument.

●  State your thesis statement, a one-to-two sentence summary of your claim.

●  This is the section where you’ll develop and expand on your argument.

●  It should be split into three or four coherent paragraphs, with each one presenting its own idea.

●  Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that indicates why readers should adopt your belief or stance.

●  Include your research, statistics, citations, and other supporting evidence.

●  Discuss opposing viewpoints and why they’re invalid.

●  This part typically consists of one paragraph.

●  Summarize your research and the findings that were presented.

●  Emphasize your initial thesis statement.

●  Persuade readers to agree with your stance.

We certainly hope that you feel inspired to use these tips when writing your next argumentative essay . And, if you’re currently elbow-deep in writing one, consider submitting a free sample to us once it’s completed. Our expert team of editors can help ensure that it’s concise, error-free, and effective!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

The Beginner's Blueprint for Writing an Effective Argumentative Essay

Are you ready to learn how to write an argumentative essay that packs a punch? Buckle up, because we're about to embark on a journey that will transform you into a master of persuasive writing! Whether you're a student, writer, or just someone who loves a good debate, mastering the art of crafting a compelling argumentative essay is a skill that will serve you well.

In this article, we'll walk you through the essential steps to writing an argumentative essay that effectively supports your stance with solid evidence and convincing reasoning. From understanding the basics to structuring your essay for maximum impact, we've got you covered. So, let's dive in and discover how to write an argumentative essay that will leave your readers convinced and impressed!

Understanding the Basics of an Argumentative Essay

Before diving into the nitty-gritty of crafting an argumentative essay, it's crucial to grasp the fundamentals. An argumentative essay is all about presenting a well-researched and logical argument to persuade your readers to see things from your perspective. It's not just about stating your opinion; it's about backing it up with solid evidence and reasoning.

The Building Blocks of an Argumentative Essay

• Introduction: This is where you set the stage for your argument. Start with a hook to grab your readers' attention, provide some background information, and clearly state your thesis .
• Body Paragraphs: This is the meat of your essay, where you present your arguments and evidence. Each paragraph should focus on one main point and provide supporting evidence.
• Conclusion: Wrap up your essay by restating your thesis and summarizing your main points. Leave your readers with something to think about.

Types of Argumentative Essays

The writing process.

• Brainstorm and research your topic
• Prepare an outline
• Draft your essay
• Revise and refine
• Proofread and edit

Remember, an argumentative essay is all about presenting a confident and assertive stance while maintaining a logical and organized structure. With these basics in mind, you're well on your way to writing a compelling argumentative essay!

Choosing a Strong Topic

Alright, let's dive into the exciting world of choosing a strong topic for your argumentative essay! The key is to find a subject that sparks your interest and gets your audience fired up.

What Makes a Topic Arguable?

To ensure your topic is arguable, ask yourself these questions:

• Is it debatable? Can people have different opinions on the subject?
• Is it relevant to your audience? Will they find it interesting and engaging?
• Is it not too broad or too narrow? You want a topic that's just right!

Techniques for Generating Topic Ideas

Narrowing down your topic.

Once you have a list of potential topics, it's time to narrow it down:

• Consider your goals and purpose for the essay. What do you want to achieve?
• Ensure there is sufficient evidence available to support your argument.
• Test the topic by putting it in a general argument format, such as "Is...effective?" or "...should be allowed for..."

Remember, a strong argumentative essay topic should be debatable, relevant to your audience, and not too broad or too narrow. By following these guidelines and techniques, you'll be well on your way to choosing a topic that will make your essay shine!

Structuring Your Essay Effectively

Alright, let's talk about how to structure your argumentative essay like a pro! A well-organized essay is like a roadmap that guides your readers through your argument, making it easy for them to follow along and see things from your perspective.

The Building Blocks of a Winning Structure

Crafting a compelling argument.

• Present your perspective: Explain your stance on the topic clearly and concisely.
• Address the opposition: Acknowledge and refute counterarguments with solid evidence.
• Provide evidence: Back up your claims with facts, statistics, and expert opinions.
• Find common ground: Consider both sides of the issue and propose a middle ground, if possible.
• Conclude with conviction: Reinforce your thesis and summarize your main points, leaving a lasting impression.

Logical Flow and Organization

To ensure your essay is easy to follow, pay attention to:

• Clear transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion
• Body paragraphs that provide evidential support and explain how it connects to your thesis
• Consideration and explanation of differing viewpoints
• A conclusion that ties everything together and reinforces your argument

By structuring your essay effectively, you'll create a compelling and persuasive argument that leaves your readers convinced and impressed. So, go forth and organize your thoughts like a master debater!

Gathering and Evaluating Evidence

Alright, let's talk about gathering and evaluating evidence like a pro! This is where the real fun begins, as you dive into the world of research and uncover the juicy bits that will make your argumentative essay shine.

The Evidence Hunt

Using evidence effectively.

• Introduce the evidence and explain its significance.
• Show how the evidence supports your argument.
• Use quotations, paraphrasing, and summary to present the evidence.
• Always cite your sources properly.

Evaluating Evidence for Credibility

When assessing the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of your evidence, consider:

• The source: Is it primary or secondary? Is it reputable?
• Comparison with other sources: Does it align with or contradict other findings?
• Currency: Is the information up-to-date and relevant?
• Relevance: Does it directly support your claim and argument?

Evidence for Different Essay Types

• Literary Analysis Essays: Use quotes from the work itself or literary criticism.
• Research-Based Papers: Gather information from reliable sources, such as academic databases, libraries, and trusted websites.
• Document-Based Papers: Develop an argument based on provided documents, synthesizing material from at least three sources.

Putting It All Together

• Provide logical and persuasive evidence.
• Ensure your proof is appropriately documented.
• Consider your audience and present clear and convincing evidence.
• Explain the significance of each piece of evidence.
• Build evidence into your text strategically to prove your points.

Remember, well-researched, accurate, detailed, and current information is key to supporting your thesis statement. By gathering and evaluating evidence like a pro, you'll be well on your way to crafting an argumentative essay that packs a punch!

Crafting a Persuasive Thesis Statement

Alright, let's dive into the art of crafting a persuasive thesis statement that will make your argumentative essay shine like a beacon of brilliance!

The Power of a Strong Thesis Statement

A thesis statement is like the heart of your essay - it pumps life into your argument and keeps everything flowing smoothly. Here's what makes a thesis statement truly persuasive:

• It takes a stand: Your thesis should make a clear, debatable claim that people could reasonably have differing opinions on.
• It's specific: Narrow down your focus to make your argument more effective and easier to support with evidence.
• It's supportable: Make sure you can back up your claim with solid facts and reasoning.
• It's not just an announcement: Your thesis should do more than just state your topic - it should make an argument about it.

Crafting Your Persuasive Thesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

Examples of persuasive thesis statements.

• "The surge in plastic products during the 21st century has had a notable impact on climate change due to increased greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its lifecycle, from production to disposal."
• "While social media provides rapid access to information, it has inadvertently become a conduit for misinformation, causing significant societal implications that call for more robust regulations."
• "While zoos have been popular attractions for centuries, they often cause more harm than good to the animals, making their closure imperative for animal welfare."

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Being too vague or broad
• Stating a fact instead of an argument
• Lacking focus or clarity
• Writing the thesis statement last

Remember, a persuasive thesis statement is the foundation of your argumentative essay. By crafting a clear, specific, and debatable claim that directly addresses your prompt, you'll set yourself up for success in convincing your readers to see things from your perspective. So go forth and argue with confidence!

Revising and Editing Your Essay

Alright, let's dive into the nitty-gritty of revising and editing your argumentative essay like a pro! This is where the magic happens, as you transform your rough draft into a polished masterpiece that will knock your readers' socks off.

The Revision Process: Making Your Essay Shine

Revising your essay involves taking a step back and looking at the big picture. It's all about making changes to the content, organization, and source material to ensure your argument is clear, well-supported, and logically structured.

• Check the clarity and support of your argument
• Evaluate the organization and logical flow of your essay
• Ensure proper integration and citation of sources

The Editing Process: Polishing Your Prose

Once you've revised your essay, it's time to put on your editing hat and focus on the sentence-level details. This is where you'll hunt down those pesky grammatical, punctuation, and typographical errors that can detract from your brilliant argument.

Tips and Tricks for Effective Revision and Editing

• Allow time between writing and revising for a fresh perspective 
• Read your essay aloud to identify awkward phrasing or unclear points 
• Get feedback from others and consider their suggestions
• Use the ARMS strategy for revision: Add, Remove, Move, and Substitute 
• After revising, write a clean draft for publication, taking all revisions into account 

Remember, the revision and editing process is crucial to transforming your argumentative essay from good to amazing. By carefully evaluating your essay and making necessary changes, you'll ensure that your argument is clear, well-supported, and persuasive.

So, roll up your sleeves, grab your red pen, and get ready to revise and edit your way to argumentative essay success!

Writing an effective argumentative essay is a skill that can be mastered with practice and dedication. By understanding the basics, choosing a strong topic, structuring your essay effectively, gathering and evaluating evidence, crafting a persuasive thesis statement, and revising and editing your work, you'll be well-equipped to create compelling arguments that leave a lasting impact on your readers.

As you embark on your argumentative essay writing journey, remember to approach each step with enthusiasm and an open mind. Embrace the power of persuasion, and let your unique voice shine through your writing. With these tools and techniques at your disposal, you're ready to tackle any argumentative essay that comes your way and make your mark in the world of persuasive writing.

What is an effective way to begin an argumentative essay? 

To effectively initiate an argumentative essay, start with an engaging hook or a sentence that grabs attention. Provide a brief summary of the texts involved, clearly state your claim by restating the essay prompt, and include a topic sentence that reaffirms your claim and your reasoning.

How should I structure the opening of my argumentative essay? 

The opening of an argumentative essay should establish the context by offering a general overview of the topic. The author should then highlight the significance of the topic or why it should matter to the readers. Concluding the introduction, the thesis statement should be presented, clearly outlining the main argument of the essay.

What is the initial step in crafting an argumentative essay? 

The first step in writing an argumentative essay is selecting a topic and formulating a strong thesis statement. Your thesis should state your claim, your position on the claim, and outline the primary points that will bolster your stance within the context of the chosen topic. This statement will guide the development of the essay's body paragraphs.

Sign up for more like this.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.3: The Argumentative Essay

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58378
• Lumen Learning

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you argue that something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the causes of the decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean and make a case for your cause.

Evaluation Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your education class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you must propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a proposal that would increase retention rates at your college.

Narrative Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/20277

Essay Examples

• Click here to read an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

Contributors and Attributions

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

8 Effective Strategies to Write Argumentative Essays

In a bustling university town, there lived a student named Alex. Popular for creativity and wit, one challenge seemed insurmountable for Alex– the dreaded argumentative essay!

One gloomy afternoon, as the rain tapped against the window pane, Alex sat at his cluttered desk, staring at a blank document on the computer screen. The assignment loomed large: a 350-600-word argumentative essay on a topic of their choice . With a sigh, he decided to seek help of mentor, Professor Mitchell, who was known for his passion for writing.

Entering Professor Mitchell’s office was like stepping into a treasure of knowledge. Bookshelves lined every wall, faint aroma of old manuscripts in the air and sticky notes over the wall. Alex took a deep breath and knocked on his door.

“Ah, Alex,” Professor Mitchell greeted with a warm smile. “What brings you here today?”

Alex confessed his struggles with the argumentative essay. After hearing his concerns, Professor Mitchell said, “Ah, the argumentative essay! Don’t worry, Let’s take a look at it together.” As he guided Alex to the corner shelf, Alex asked,

Table of Contents

“What is an Argumentative Essay?”

The professor replied, “An argumentative essay is a type of academic writing that presents a clear argument or a firm position on a contentious issue. Unlike other forms of essays, such as descriptive or narrative essays, these essays require you to take a stance, present evidence, and convince your audience of the validity of your viewpoint with supporting evidence. A well-crafted argumentative essay relies on concrete facts and supporting evidence rather than merely expressing the author’s personal opinions . Furthermore, these essays demand comprehensive research on the chosen topic and typically follows a structured format consisting of three primary sections: an introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph.”

He continued, “Argumentative essays are written in a wide range of subject areas, reflecting their applicability across disciplines. They are written in different subject areas like literature and philosophy, history, science and technology, political science, psychology, economics and so on.

Alex asked,

“When is an Argumentative Essay Written?”

The professor answered, “Argumentative essays are often assigned in academic settings, but they can also be written for various other purposes, such as editorials, opinion pieces, or blog posts. Some situations to write argumentative essays include:

1. Academic assignments

In school or college, teachers may assign argumentative essays as part of coursework. It help students to develop critical thinking and persuasive writing skills .

2. Debates and discussions

Argumentative essays can serve as the basis for debates or discussions in academic or competitive settings. Moreover, they provide a structured way to present and defend your viewpoint.

3. Opinion pieces

Newspapers, magazines, and online publications often feature opinion pieces that present an argument on a current issue or topic to influence public opinion.

4. Policy proposals

In government and policy-related fields, argumentative essays are used to propose and defend specific policy changes or solutions to societal problems.

5. Persuasive speeches

Before delivering a persuasive speech, it’s common to prepare an argumentative essay as a foundation for your presentation.

Regardless of the context, an argumentative essay should present a clear thesis statement , provide evidence and reasoning to support your position, address counterarguments, and conclude with a compelling summary of your main points. The goal is to persuade readers or listeners to accept your viewpoint or at least consider it seriously.”

Handing over a book, the professor continued, “Take a look on the elements or structure of an argumentative essay.”

Elements of an Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay comprises five essential components:

Claim in argumentative writing is the central argument or viewpoint that the writer aims to establish and defend throughout the essay. A claim must assert your position on an issue and must be arguable. It can guide the entire argument.

2. Evidence

Evidence must consist of factual information, data, examples, or expert opinions that support the claim. Also, it lends credibility by strengthening the writer’s position.

3. Counterarguments

Presenting a counterclaim demonstrates fairness and awareness of alternative perspectives.

4. Rebuttal

After presenting the counterclaim, the writer refutes it by offering counterarguments or providing evidence that weakens the opposing viewpoint. It shows that the writer has considered multiple perspectives and is prepared to defend their position.

The format of an argumentative essay typically follows the structure to ensure clarity and effectiveness in presenting an argument.

How to Write An Argumentative Essay

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an argumentative essay:

1. Introduction

• Begin with a compelling sentence or question to grab the reader’s attention.
• Provide context for the issue, including relevant facts, statistics, or historical background.
• Provide a concise thesis statement to present your position on the topic.

2. Body Paragraphs (usually three or more)

• Start each paragraph with a clear and focused topic sentence that relates to your thesis statement.
• Furthermore, provide evidence and explain the facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and quotations from credible sources that supports your thesis.
• Use transition sentences to smoothly move from one point to the next.

3. Counterargument and Rebuttal

• Acknowledge opposing viewpoints or potential objections to your argument.
• Also, address these counterarguments with evidence and explain why they do not weaken your position.

4. Conclusion

• Restate your thesis statement and summarize the key points you’ve made in the body of the essay.
• Leave the reader with a final thought, call to action, or broader implication related to the topic.

5. Citations and References

• Properly cite all the sources you use in your essay using a consistent citation style.
• Also, include a bibliography or works cited at the end of your essay.

6. Formatting and Style

• Follow any specific formatting guidelines provided by your instructor or institution.
• Use a professional and academic tone in your writing and edit your essay to avoid content, spelling and grammar mistakes .

Remember that the specific requirements for formatting an argumentative essay may vary depending on your instructor’s guidelines or the citation style you’re using (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Always check the assignment instructions or style guide for any additional requirements or variations in formatting.

Did you understand what Prof. Mitchell explained Alex? Check it now!

Fill the Details to Check Your Score

Prof. Mitchell continued, “An argumentative essay can adopt various approaches when dealing with opposing perspectives. It may offer a balanced presentation of both sides, providing equal weight to each, or it may advocate more strongly for one side while still acknowledging the existence of opposing views.” As Alex listened carefully to the Professor’s thoughts, his eyes fell on a page with examples of argumentative essay.

Example of an Argumentative Essay

Alex picked the book and read the example. It helped him to understand the concept. Furthermore, he could now connect better to the elements and steps of the essay which Prof. Mitchell had mentioned earlier. Aren’t you keen to know how an argumentative essay should be like? Here is an example of a well-crafted argumentative essay , which was read by Alex. After Alex finished reading the example, the professor turned the page and continued, “Check this page to know the importance of writing an argumentative essay in developing skills of an individual.”

Importance of an Argumentative Essay

After understanding the benefits, Alex was convinced by the ability of the argumentative essays in advocating one’s beliefs and favor the author’s position. Alex asked,

“How are argumentative essays different from the other types?”

Prof. Mitchell answered, “Argumentative essays differ from other types of essays primarily in their purpose, structure, and approach in presenting information. Unlike expository essays, argumentative essays persuade the reader to adopt a particular point of view or take a specific action on a controversial issue. Furthermore, they differ from descriptive essays by not focusing vividly on describing a topic. Also, they are less engaging through storytelling as compared to the narrative essays.

Alex said, “Given the direct and persuasive nature of argumentative essays, can you suggest some strategies to write an effective argumentative essay?

Turning the pages of the book, Prof. Mitchell replied, “Sure! You can check this infographic to get some tips for writing an argumentative essay.”

Effective Strategies to Write an Argumentative Essay

As days turned into weeks, Alex diligently worked on his essay. He researched, gathered evidence, and refined his thesis. It was a long and challenging journey, filled with countless drafts and revisions.

Finally, the day arrived when Alex submitted their essay. As he clicked the “Submit” button, a sense of accomplishment washed over him. He realized that the argumentative essay, while challenging, had improved his critical thinking and transformed him into a more confident writer. Furthermore, Alex received feedback from his professor, a mix of praise and constructive criticism. It was a humbling experience, a reminder that every journey has its obstacles and opportunities for growth.

Frequently Asked Questions

An argumentative essay can be written as follows- 1. Choose a Topic 2. Research and Collect Evidences 3. Develop a Clear Thesis Statement 4. Outline Your Essay- Introduction, Body Paragraphs and Conclusion 5. Revise and Edit 6. Format and Cite Sources 7. Final Review

One must choose a clear, concise and specific statement as a claim. It must be debatable and establish your position. Avoid using ambiguous or unclear while making a claim. To strengthen your claim, address potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints. Additionally, use persuasive language and rhetoric to make your claim more compelling

Starting an argument essay effectively is crucial to engage your readers and establish the context for your argument. Here’s how you can start an argument essay are: 1. Begin With an Engaging Hook 2. Provide Background Information 3. Present Your Thesis Statement 4. Briefly Outline Your Main 5. Establish Your Credibility

The key features of an argumentative essay are: 1. Clear and Specific Thesis Statement 2. Credible Evidence 3. Counterarguments 4. Structured Body Paragraph 5. Logical Flow 6. Use of Persuasive Techniques 7. Formal Language

An argumentative essay typically consists of the following main parts or sections: 1. Introduction 2. Body Paragraphs 3. Counterargument and Rebuttal 4. Conclusion 5. References (if applicable)

The main purpose of an argumentative essay is to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a particular viewpoint or position on a controversial or debatable topic. In other words, the primary goal of an argumentative essay is to convince the audience that the author's argument or thesis statement is valid, logical, and well-supported by evidence and reasoning.

Great article! The topic is simplified well! Keep up the good work

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Industry News

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

• Reporting Research

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Praxis Core Writing

Course: praxis core writing   >   unit 1, argumentative essay | quick guide.

• Source-based essay | Quick guide
• Revision in context | Quick guide
• Within-sentence punctuation | Quick guide
• Subordination and coordination | Quick guide
• Independent and dependent Clauses | Video lesson
• Parallel structure | Quick guide
• Modifier placement | Quick guide
• Shifts in verb tense | Quick guide
• Pronoun clarity | Quick guide
• Pronoun agreement | Quick guide
• Subject-verb agreement | Quick guide
• Noun agreement | Quick guide
• Frequently confused words | Quick guide
• Conventional expressions | Quick guide
• Logical comparison | Quick guide
• Concision | Quick guide
• Adjective/adverb confusion | Quick guide
• Negation | Quick guide
• Capitalization | Quick guide
• Apostrophe use | Quick guide
• Research skills | Quick guide

Argumentative essay (30 minutes)

• states or clearly implies the writer’s position or thesis
• organizes and develops ideas logically, making insightful connections between them
• clearly explains key ideas, supporting them with well-chosen reasons, examples, or details
• displays effective sentence variety
• clearly displays facility in the use of language
• is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
• organizes and develops ideas clearly, making connections between them
• explains key ideas, supporting them with relevant reasons, examples, or details
• displays some sentence variety
• displays facility in the use of language
• states or implies the writer’s position or thesis
• shows control in the organization and development of ideas
• explains some key ideas, supporting them with adequate reasons, examples, or details
• displays adequate use of language
• shows control of grammar, usage, and mechanics, but may display errors
• limited in stating or implying a position or thesis
• limited control in the organization and development of ideas
• inadequate reasons, examples, or details to explain key ideas
• an accumulation of errors in the use of language
• an accumulation of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
• no clear position or thesis
• weak organization or very little development
• few or no relevant reasons, examples, or details
• frequent serious errors in the use of language
• frequent serious errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
• contains serious and persistent writing errors or
• is incoherent or
• is undeveloped or
• is off-topic

How should I build a thesis?

• (Choice A)   Kids should find role models that are worthier than celebrities because celebrities may be famous for reasons that aren't admirable. A Kids should find role models that are worthier than celebrities because celebrities may be famous for reasons that aren't admirable.
• (Choice B)   Because they profit from the admiration of youths, celebrities have a moral responsibility for the reactions their behaviors provoke in fans. B Because they profit from the admiration of youths, celebrities have a moral responsibility for the reactions their behaviors provoke in fans.
• (Choice C)   Celebrities may have more imitators than most people, but they hold no more responsibility over the example they set than the average person. C Celebrities may have more imitators than most people, but they hold no more responsibility over the example they set than the average person.
• (Choice D)   Notoriety is not always a choice, and some celebrities may not want to be role models. D Notoriety is not always a choice, and some celebrities may not want to be role models.
• (Choice E)   Parents have a moral responsibility to serve as immediate role models for their children. E Parents have a moral responsibility to serve as immediate role models for their children.

How should I support my thesis?

• (Choice A)   As basketball star Charles Barkley stated in a famous advertising campaign for Nike, he was paid to dominate on the basketball court, not to raise your kids. A As basketball star Charles Barkley stated in a famous advertising campaign for Nike, he was paid to dominate on the basketball court, not to raise your kids.
• (Choice B)   Many celebrities do consider themselves responsible for setting a good example and create non-profit organizations through which they can benefit youths. B Many celebrities do consider themselves responsible for setting a good example and create non-profit organizations through which they can benefit youths.
• (Choice C)   Many celebrities, like Kylie Jenner with her billion-dollar cosmetics company, profit directly from being imitated by fans who purchase sponsored products. C Many celebrities, like Kylie Jenner with her billion-dollar cosmetics company, profit directly from being imitated by fans who purchase sponsored products.
• (Choice D)   My ten-year-old nephew may love Drake's music, but his behaviors are more similar to those of the adults he interacts with on a daily basis, like his parents and teachers. D My ten-year-old nephew may love Drake's music, but his behaviors are more similar to those of the adults he interacts with on a daily basis, like his parents and teachers.
• (Choice E)   It's very common for young people to wear fashions similar to those of their favorite celebrities. E It's very common for young people to wear fashions similar to those of their favorite celebrities.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Argumentative Essay Examples to Inspire You (+ Free Formula)

Table of contents

Meredith Sell

Have you ever been asked to explain your opinion on a controversial issue? 

• Maybe your family got into a discussion about chemical pesticides
• Someone at work argues against investing resources into your project
• Your partner thinks intermittent fasting is the best way to lose weight and you disagree

Proving your point in an argumentative essay can be challenging, unless you are using a proven formula.

Argumentative essay formula & example

In the image below, you can see a recommended structure for argumentative essays. It starts with the topic sentence, which establishes the main idea of the essay. Next, this hypothesis is developed in the development stage. Then, the rebuttal, or the refutal of the main counter argument or arguments. Then, again, development of the rebuttal. This is followed by an example, and ends with a summary. This is a very basic structure, but it gives you a bird-eye-view of how a proper argumentative essay can be built.

Writing an argumentative essay (for a class, a news outlet, or just for fun) can help you improve your understanding of an issue and sharpen your thinking on the matter. Using researched facts and data, you can explain why you or others think the way you do, even while other reasonable people disagree.

Free AI argumentative essay generator > Free AI argumentative essay generator >

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an explanatory essay that takes a side.

Instead of appealing to emotion and personal experience to change the reader’s mind, an argumentative essay uses logic and well-researched factual information to explain why the thesis in question is the most reasonable opinion on the matter.  

Over several paragraphs or pages, the author systematically walks through:

• The opposition (and supporting evidence)
• The chosen thesis (and its supporting evidence)

At the end, the author leaves the decision up to the reader, trusting that the case they’ve made will do the work of changing the reader’s mind. Even if the reader’s opinion doesn’t change, they come away from the essay with a greater understanding of the perspective presented — and perhaps a better understanding of their original opinion.

All of that might make it seem like writing an argumentative essay is way harder than an emotionally-driven persuasive essay — but if you’re like me and much more comfortable spouting facts and figures than making impassioned pleas, you may find that an argumentative essay is easier to write. 

Plus, the process of researching an argumentative essay means you can check your assumptions and develop an opinion that’s more based in reality than what you originally thought. I know for sure that my opinions need to be fact checked — don’t yours?

So how exactly do we write the argumentative essay?

How do you start an argumentative essay

First, gain a clear understanding of what exactly an argumentative essay is. To formulate a proper topic sentence, you have to be clear on your topic, and to explore it through research.

Students have difficulty starting an essay because the whole task seems intimidating, and they are afraid of spending too much time on the topic sentence. Experienced writers, however, know that there is no set time to spend on figuring out your topic. It's a real exploration that is based to a large extent on intuition.

6 Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay (Persuasion Formula)

Use this checklist to tackle your essay one step at a time:

1. Research an issue with an arguable question

To start, you need to identify an issue that well-informed people have varying opinions on. Here, it’s helpful to think of one core topic and how it intersects with another (or several other) issues. That intersection is where hot takes and reasonable (or unreasonable) opinions abound. 

I find it helpful to stage the issue as a question.

For example: 

Is it better to legislate the minimum size of chicken enclosures or to outlaw the sale of eggs from chickens who don’t have enough space?

Should snow removal policies focus more on effectively keeping roads clear for traffic or the environmental impacts of snow removal methods?

Once you have your arguable question ready, start researching the basic facts and specific opinions and arguments on the issue. Do your best to stay focused on gathering information that is directly relevant to your topic. Depending on what your essay is for, you may reference academic studies, government reports, or newspaper articles.

‍ Research your opposition and the facts that support their viewpoint as much as you research your own position . You’ll need to address your opposition in your essay, so you’ll want to know their argument from the inside out.

2. Choose a side based on your research

You likely started with an inclination toward one side or the other, but your research should ultimately shape your perspective. So once you’ve completed the research, nail down your opinion and start articulating the what and why of your take. 

What: I think it’s better to outlaw selling eggs from chickens whose enclosures are too small.

Why: Because if you regulate the enclosure size directly, egg producers outside of the government’s jurisdiction could ship eggs into your territory and put nearby egg producers out of business by offering better prices because they don’t have the added cost of larger enclosures.

This is an early form of your thesis and the basic logic of your argument. You’ll want to iterate on this a few times and develop a one-sentence statement that sums up the thesis of your essay.

Thesis: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with cramped living spaces is better for business than regulating the size of chicken enclosures.

Now that you’ve articulated your thesis , spell out the counterargument(s) as well. Putting your opposition’s take into words will help you throughout the rest of the essay-writing process. (You can start by choosing the counter argument option with Wordtune Spices .)

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers, making the low-cost protein source harder to afford — especially for low-income consumers.

There may be one main counterargument to articulate, or several. Write them all out and start thinking about how you’ll use evidence to address each of them or show why your argument is still the best option.

3. Organize the evidence — for your side and the opposition

You did all of that research for a reason. Now’s the time to use it. 

Hopefully, you kept detailed notes in a document, complete with links and titles of all your source material. Go through your research document and copy the evidence for your argument and your opposition’s into another document.

List the main points of your argument. Then, below each point, paste the evidence that backs them up.

If you’re writing about chicken enclosures, maybe you found evidence that shows the spread of disease among birds kept in close quarters is worse than among birds who have more space. Or maybe you found information that says eggs from free-range chickens are more flavorful or nutritious. Put that information next to the appropriate part of your argument. 

Repeat the process with your opposition’s argument: What information did you find that supports your opposition? Paste it beside your opposition’s argument.

You could also put information here that refutes your opposition, but organize it in a way that clearly tells you — at a glance — that the information disproves their point.

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers.

BUT: Sicknesses like avian flu spread more easily through small enclosures and could cause a shortage that would drive up egg prices naturally, so ensuring larger enclosures is still a better policy for consumers over the long term.

As you organize your research and see the evidence all together, start thinking through the best way to order your points.  

Will it be better to present your argument all at once or to break it up with opposition claims you can quickly refute? Would some points set up other points well? Does a more complicated point require that the reader understands a simpler point first?

Play around and rearrange your notes to see how your essay might flow one way or another.

4. Freewrite or outline to think through your argument

Is your brain buzzing yet? At this point in the process, it can be helpful to take out a notebook or open a fresh document and dump whatever you’re thinking on the page.

Where should your essay start? What ground-level information do you need to provide your readers before you can dive into the issue?

Use your organized evidence document from step 3 to think through your argument from beginning to end, and determine the structure of your essay.

There are three typical structures for argumentative essays:

• Make your argument and tackle opposition claims one by one, as they come up in relation to the points of your argument - In this approach, the whole essay — from beginning to end — focuses on your argument, but as you make each point, you address the relevant opposition claims individually. This approach works well if your opposition’s views can be quickly explained and refuted and if they directly relate to specific points in your argument.
• Make the bulk of your argument, and then address the opposition all at once in a paragraph (or a few) - This approach puts the opposition in its own section, separate from your main argument. After you’ve made your case, with ample evidence to convince your readers, you write about the opposition, explaining their viewpoint and supporting evidence — and showing readers why the opposition’s argument is unconvincing. Once you’ve addressed the opposition, you write a conclusion that sums up why your argument is the better one.
• Open your essay by talking about the opposition and where it falls short. Build your entire argument to show how it is superior to that opposition - With this structure, you’re showing your readers “a better way” to address the issue. After opening your piece by showing how your opposition’s approaches fail, you launch into your argument, providing readers with ample evidence that backs you up.

As you think through your argument and examine your evidence document, consider which structure will serve your argument best. Sketch out an outline to give yourself a map to follow in the writing process. You could also rearrange your evidence document again to match your outline, so it will be easy to find what you need when you start writing.

5. Write your first draft

You have an outline and an organized document with all your points and evidence lined up and ready. Now you just have to write your essay.

In your first draft, focus on getting your ideas on the page. Your wording may not be perfect (whose is?), but you know what you’re trying to say — so even if you’re overly wordy and taking too much space to say what you need to say, put those words on the page.

Follow your outline, and draw from that evidence document to flesh out each point of your argument. Explain what the evidence means for your argument and your opposition. Connect the dots for your readers so they can follow you, point by point, and understand what you’re trying to say.

As you write, be sure to include:

1. Any background information your reader needs in order to understand the issue in question.

2. Evidence for both your argument and the counterargument(s). This shows that you’ve done your homework and builds trust with your reader, while also setting you up to make a more convincing argument. (If you find gaps in your research while you’re writing, Wordtune Spices can source statistics or historical facts on the fly!)

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

3. A conclusion that sums up your overall argument and evidence — and leaves the reader with an understanding of the issue and its significance. This sort of conclusion brings your essay to a strong ending that doesn’t waste readers’ time, but actually adds value to your case.

6. Revise (with Wordtune)

The hard work is done: you have a first draft. Now, let’s fine tune your writing.

I like to step away from what I’ve written for a day (or at least a night of sleep) before attempting to revise. It helps me approach clunky phrases and rough transitions with fresh eyes. If you don’t have that luxury, just get away from your computer for a few minutes — use the bathroom, do some jumping jacks, eat an apple — and then come back and read through your piece.

As you revise, make sure you …

• Get the facts right. An argument with false evidence falls apart pretty quickly, so check your facts to make yours rock solid.
• Don’t misrepresent the opposition or their evidence. If someone who holds the opposing view reads your essay, they should affirm how you explain their side — even if they disagree with your rebuttal.
• Present a case that builds over the course of your essay, makes sense, and ends on a strong note. One point should naturally lead to the next. Your readers shouldn’t feel like you’re constantly changing subjects. You’re making a variety of points, but your argument should feel like a cohesive whole.
• Paraphrase sources and cite them appropriately. Did you skip citations when writing your first draft? No worries — you can add them now. And check that you don’t overly rely on quotations. (Need help paraphrasing? Wordtune can help. Simply highlight the sentence or phrase you want to adjust and sort through Wordtune’s suggestions.)
• Tighten up overly wordy explanations and sharpen any convoluted ideas. Wordtune makes a great sidekick for this too 😉

Words to start an argumentative essay

The best way to introduce a convincing argument is to provide a strong thesis statement . These are the words I usually use to start an argumentative essay:

• It is indisputable that the world today is facing a multitude of issues
• With the rise of ____, the potential to make a positive difference has never been more accessible
• It is essential that we take action now and tackle these issues head-on
• it is critical to understand the underlying causes of the problems standing before us
• Opponents of this idea claim
• Those who are against these ideas may say
• Some people may disagree with this idea
• Some people may say that ____, however

When refuting an opposing concept, use:

• These researchers have a point in thinking
• To a certain extent they are right
• After seeing this evidence, there is no way one can agree with this idea
• This argument is irrelevant to the topic

Are you convinced by your own argument yet? Ready to brave the next get-together where everyone’s talking like they know something about intermittent fasting , chicken enclosures , or snow removal policies? 

Now if someone asks you to explain your evidence-based but controversial opinion, you can hand them your essay and ask them to report back after they’ve read it.

Share This Article:

How to Craft Your Ideal Thesis Research Topic

How to Craft an Engaging Elevator Pitch that Gets Results

Eight Steps to Craft an Irresistible LinkedIn Profile

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

Argumentative Essay Examples & Analysis

July 20, 2023

Writing successful argumentative or persuasive essays is a sort of academic rite of passage: every student, at some point in their academic career, will have to do it. And not without reason—writing a good argumentative essay requires the ability to organize one’s thoughts, reason logically, and present evidence in support of claims. They even require empathy, as authors are forced to inhabit and then respond to viewpoints that run counter to their own. Here, we’ll look at some argumentative essay examples and analyze their strengths and weaknesses.

What is an argumentative essay?

Before we turn to those argumentative essay examples, let’s get precise about what an argumentative essay is. An argumentative essay is an essay that advances a central point, thesis, or claim using evidence and facts. In other words, argumentative essays are essays that argue on behalf of a particular viewpoint. The goal of an argumentative essay is to convince the reader that the essay’s core idea is correct.

Good argumentative essays rely on facts and evidence. Personal anecdotes, appeals to emotion , and opinions that aren’t grounded in evidence just won’t fly. Let’s say I wanted to write an essay arguing that cats are the best pets. It wouldn’t be enough to say that I love having a cat as a pet. That’s just my opinion. Nor would it be enough to cite my downstairs neighbor Claudia, who also has a cat and who also prefers cats to dogs. That’s just an anecdote.

For the essay to have a chance at succeeding, I’d have to use evidence to support my argument. Maybe there are studies that compare the cost of cat ownership to dog ownership and conclude that cat ownership is less expensive. Perhaps there’s medical data that shows that more people are allergic to dogs than they are to cats. And maybe there are surveys that show that cat owners are more satisfied with their pets than are dog owners. I have no idea if any of that is true. The point is that successful argumentative essays use evidence from credible sources to back up their points.

Argumentative essay structure

Important to note before we examine a few argumentative essay examples: most argumentative essays will follow a standard 5-paragraph format. This format entails an introductory paragraph that lays out the essay’s central claim. Next, there are three body paragraphs that each advance sub-claims and evidence to support the central claim. Lastly, there is a conclusion that summarizes the points made. That’s not to say that every good argumentative essay will adhere strictly to the 5-paragraph format. And there is plenty of room for flexibility and creativity within the 5-paragraph format. For example, a good argumentative essay that follows the 5-paragraph template will also generally include counterarguments and rebuttals.

Introduction Example

Now let’s move on to those argumentative essay examples, and examine in particular a couple of introductions. The first takes on a common argumentative essay topic —capital punishment.

The death penalty has long been a divisive issue in the United States. 24 states allow the death penalty, while the other 26 have either banned the death penalty outright or issued moratoriums halting the practice. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it’s an effective deterrent against crime. Time and time again, however, this argument has been shown to be false. Capital punishment does not deter crime. But not only that—the death penalty is irreversible, which allows our imperfect justice system no room for error. Finally, the application of the death penalty is racially biased—the population of death row is over 41% Black , despite Black Americans making up just 13% of the U.S. population. For all these reasons, the death penalty should be outlawed across the board in the United States.

Why this introduction works: First, it’s clear. It lays out the essay’s thesis: that the death penalty should be outlawed in the United States. It also names the sub-arguments the author is going to use to support the thesis: (1), capital punishment does not deter crime, (2), it’s irreversible, and (3), it’s a racially biased practice. In laying out these three points, the author is also laying out the structure of the essay to follow. Each of the body paragraphs will take on one of the three sub-arguments presented in the introduction.

Argumentative Essay Examples (Continued)

Something else I like about this introduction is that it acknowledges and then refutes a common counterargument—the idea that the death penalty is a crime deterrent. Notice also the flow of the first two sentences. The first flags the essay’s topic. But it also makes a claim—that the issue of capital punishment is politically divisive. The following sentence backs this claim up. Essentially half of the country allows the practice; the other half has banned it. This is a feature not just of solid introductions but of good argumentative essays in general—all the essay’s claims will be backed up with evidence.

How it could be improved: Okay, I know I just got through singing the praises of the first pair of sentences, but if I were really nitpicking, I might take issue with them. Why? The first sentence is a bit of a placeholder. It’s a platitude, a way for the author to get a foothold in the piece. The essay isn’t about how divisive the death penalty is; it’s about why it ought to be abolished. When it comes to writing an argumentative essay, I always like to err on the side of blunt. There’s nothing wrong with starting an argumentative essay with the main idea: Capital punishment is an immoral and ineffective form of punishment, and the practice should be abolished .

Let’s move on to another argumentative essay example. Here’s an introduction that deals with the effects of technology on the brain:

Much of the critical discussion around technology today revolves around social media. Critics argue that social media has cut us off from our fellow citizens, trapping us in “information silos” and contributing to political polarization. Social media also promotes unrealistic and unhealthy beauty standards, which can lead to anxiety and depression. What’s more, the social media apps themselves are designed to addict their users. These are all legitimate critiques of social media, and they ought to be taken seriously. But the problem of technology today goes deeper than social media. The internet itself is the problem. Whether it’s on our phones or our laptops, on a social media app, or doing a Google search, the internet promotes distracted thinking and superficial learning. The internet is, quite literally, rewiring our brains.

Why this introduction works: This introduction hooks the reader by tying a topical debate about social media to the essay’s main subject—the problem of the internet itself. The introduction makes it clear what the essay is going to be about; the sentence, “But the problem of technology…” signals to the reader that the main idea is coming. I like the clarity with which the main idea is stated, and, as in the previous introduction, the main idea sets up the essay to follow.

How it could be improved: I like how direct this introduction is, but it might be improved by being a little more specific. Without getting too technical, the introduction might tell the reader what it means to “promote distracted thinking and superficial learning.” It might also hint as to why these are good arguments. For example, are there neurological or psychological studies that back this claim up? A simple fix might be: Whether it’s on our phones or our laptops, on a social media app, or doing a Google search, countless studies have shown that the internet promotes distracted thinking and superficial learning . The body paragraphs would then elaborate on those points. And the last sentence, while catchy, is a bit vague.

Body Paragraph Example

Let’s stick with our essay on capital punishment and continue on to the first body paragraph.

Proponents of the death penalty have long claimed that the practice is an effective deterrent to crime. It might not be pretty, they say, but its deterrent effects prevent further crime. Therefore, its continued use is justified. The problem is that this is just not borne out in the data. There is simply no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than other forms of punishment, like long prison sentences. States, where the death penalty is still carried out, do not have lower crime rates than states where the practice has been abolished. States that have abandoned the death penalty likewise show no increase in crime or murder rates.

Body Paragraph (Continued)

For example, the state of Louisiana, where the death penalty is legal, has a murder rate of 21.3 per 100,000 residents. In Iowa, where the death penalty was abolished in 1965, the murder rate is 3.2 per 100,000. In Kentucky the death penalty is legal and the murder rate is 9.6; in Michigan where it’s illegal, the murder rate is 8.7. The death penalty simply has no bearing on murder rates. If it did, we’d see markedly lower murder rates in states that maintain the practice. But that’s not the case. Capital punishment does not deter crime. Therefore, it should be abolished.

Why this paragraph works: This body paragraph is successful because it coheres with the main idea set out in the introduction. It supports the essay’s first sub-argument—that capital punishment does not deter crime—and in so doing, it supports the essay’s main idea—that capital punishment should be abolished. How does it do that? By appealing to the data. A nice feature of this paragraph is that it simultaneously debunks a common counterargument and advances the essay’s thesis. It also supplies a few direct examples (murder rates in states like Kentucky, Michigan, etc.) without getting too technical. Importantly, the last few sentences tie the data back to the main idea of the essay. It’s not enough to pepper your essay with statistics. A good argumentative essay will unpack the statistics, tell the reader why the statistics matter, and how they support or confirm the essay’s main idea.

How it could be improved: The author is missing one logical connection at the end of the paragraph. The author shows that capital punishment doesn’t deter crime, but then just jumps to their conclusion. They needed to establish a logical bridge to get from the sub-argument to the conclusion. That bridge might be: if the deterrent effect is being used as a justification to maintain the practice, but the deterrent effect doesn’t really exist, then , in the absence of some other justification, the death penalty should be abolished. The author almost got there, but just needed to make that one final logical connection.

Conclusion Example

Once we’ve supported each of our sub-arguments with a corresponding body paragraph, it’s time to move on to the conclusion.

It might be nice to think that executing murderers prevents future murders from happening, that our justice system is infallible and no one is ever wrongly put to death, and that the application of the death penalty is free of bias. But as we have seen, each of those thoughts are just comforting fictions. The death penalty does not prevent future crime—if it did, we’d see higher crime rates in states that’ve done away with capital punishment. The death penalty is an irreversible punishment meted out by an imperfect justice system—as a result, wrongful executions are unavoidable. And the death penalty disproportionately affects people of color. The death penalty is an unjustifiable practice—both practically and morally. Therefore, the United States should do away with the practice and join the more than 85 world nations that have already done so.

Why this conclusion works: It concisely summarizes the points made throughout the essay. But notice that it’s not identical to the introduction. The conclusion makes it clear that our understanding of the issue has changed with the essay. It not only revisits the sub-arguments, it expounds upon them. And to put a bow on everything, it restates the thesis—this time, though, with a little more emotional oomph.

How it could be improved: I’d love to see a little more specificity with regard to the sub-arguments. Instead of just rehashing the second sub-argument—that wrongful executions are unavoidable—the author could’ve included a quick statistic to give the argument more weight. For example: The death penalty is an irreversible punishment meted out by an imperfect justice system—as a result, wrongful executions are unavoidable. Since 1973, at least 190 people have been put to death who were later found to be innocent.

An argumentative essay is a powerful way to convey one’s ideas. As an academic exercise, mastering the art of the argumentative essay requires students to hone their skills of critical thinking, rhetoric, and logical reasoning. The best argumentative essays communicate their ideas clearly and back up their claims with evidence.

• College Success
• High School Success

Dane Gebauer

Dane Gebauer is a writer and teacher living in Miami, FL. He received his MFA in fiction from Columbia University, and his writing has appeared in Complex Magazine and Sinking City Review .

• 2-Year Colleges
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Homeschool Resources
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Outdoor Adventure
• Private High School Spotlight
• Research Programs
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

• The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
• The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

• Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
• This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
• For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
• This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
• Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
• Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets.  Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.  

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

• The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
• There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
• The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
• The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.  

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

• Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
• Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
• Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Advertisement

Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2023
• Volume 28 , pages 12757–12784, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Omid Noroozi 1 ,
• Seyyed Kazem Banihashem   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9978-3783 1 , 2 ,
• Harm J. A. Biemans 1 ,
• Mattijs Smits 1 ,
• Mariëtte T.W. Vervoort 1 &
• Caro-Lynn Verbaan 1  

4105 Accesses

14 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We know little to what extent peer feedback strategies can be applied on a large scale in higher education for complex tasks. This study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate an online-supported peer feedback module for large-scale use to enhance higher education students’ argumentative essay writing performance. To do this, 330 students from five different courses at bachelor and master levels followed the online supported peer feedback module. In this module, students were asked to write an argumentative essay about a controversial issue, provide peer feedback for two peers, and revise their original essays based on the received feedback. Three types of data including original essay (pre-test) data, peer feedback data, and revised essay (post-test) data collected. Students also filled out the learning satisfaction questionnaire at the end of the module. The findings showed that the suggested online-supported peer feedback module was effective in improving students’ argumentative essay quality in all courses at the bachelor and master levels. The findings also showed there is a difference in the level of students’ satisfaction with the module among the courses and between the education levels. The findings of this study provide insights into and add value to the scalability of online peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing in different contexts. Based on the findings, recommendations for future studies and educational practice are provided.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Relationship Among Students’ Attitude Towards Peer Feedback, Peer Feedback Performance, and Uptake

Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?

Usefulness of Peer Comments for English Language Writing Through Web-Based Peer Assessment

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Argumentation is a critical skill for scientific practice in higher education (Fan & Chen, 2021 ). Within higher education contexts, educators expect students to be able to critically think about a controversial issue, involve in an argumentation, claim a position, defend their positions with scientific arguments, facts, and evidence, and respond to the counter-arguments (Lazarou et al., 2016 ; Toulmin, 1958 ). Previous studies indicate that argumentation contributes to students’ development of thinking skills and domain knowledge (Mayweg-Paus et al., 2021 ; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Eskin, 2012 ;), learning achievements (Akbas et al., 2019 ), and academic performance (Foutz, 2018 ). Usually, students in higher education practice argumentation skills via wiring essays (Liunokas, 2020 ). However, the scientific evidence shows that writing a good argumentative essay is not an easy task for most higher education students and they usually fail to perform at a satisfactory level due to different reasons such as difficulties to understand the structure of a high-quality argumentative essay (e.g. Butler, 2011 ), lack of domain-knowledge (e.g., Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Valero Haro et al., 2019 ), or challenges in transforming the argumentation knowledge into the application (e.g., Valero Haro et al., 2022 ).

Peer feedback is a promising learning strategy that has been used for improving students’ argumentative essay writing in higher education (Awada & Diab, 2021 ; Baker, 2016 ; Jongsma et al., 2022 ; Latifi et al., 2021 ). Peer feedback is important particularly within online settings, especially where the class size is much bigger and it is challenging for teachers to give effective one-by-one feedback due to immersive high workload and shortage of time (Er et al., 2021 ). In prior studies, peer feedback was typically provided in a supported and structured way as students struggle with delivering high-quality feedback all on their own (Noroozi et al., 2016 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ) because most of the students are not well aware of the features and structure of good peer feedback and how to provide quality peer feedback on their peers’ work (Er et al., 2021 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ; Nelson & Schunn, 2009 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ). This raises a need to provide support and guidance for higher education students in giving feedback on their peers’ work.

A review of the literature shows that using supported peer feedback in online settings to improve students’ argumentative essay writing was effective (e.g., Latifi et al., 2021 ), however, its impacts were influenced by other variables, more specifically, students’ domain knowledge and their prior experiences that can differ between bachelor and master students (e.g., Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Vale Haro et al., 2019 , 2022 ; van Zundert et al., 2012 ). This means that students’ peer feedback performance on essay writing could differ depending on their level of domain knowledge and whether they are experienced in providing peer feedback or not. This creates a problem in terms of the scalability of the supported peer feedback tools in higher education. The available online supported peer feedback tools tend to be context-specific which means they can not be used in different courses for different education levels since students’ domain knowledge and experience vary from one to another context. Therefore, teachers have to either design and develop their own specific peer feedback tool or adjust the available peer feedback tools to use in their courses. For teachers, this means more workload and spending more time and effort on designing peer feedback. Since, teachers already face a huge workload in higher education (Shi, 2019 ), this can result in giving up on the effective use of peer feedback tools. This important issue in the literature raises an urgent need to explore how the use of supported peer feedback tools can be scaled up in online settings. To address this research gap in the scientific literature, in this study, we aimed to design and develop an online supported peer feedback tool that can be used on a large scale for different course domains and different education levels. In addition, we aimed to investigate students’ satisfaction with the designed peer feedback tool and their experiences during the learning process because satisfaction is a key variable in the effective implementation of any learning activity including peer feedback activity and if students do not feel satisfied with the adopted peer feedback activity, they will not successfully uptake it (Mercader et al., 2020 ).

1.1 Online peer feedback

Peer feedback is defined as a process where students generate oral or written feedback on their peers’ work and also receive feedback from peers on their own work (Topping, 1998 ). The purpose of providing feedback is to help peers to know what are the issues in their work and how they can fill the gap between the current level of performance and the desired level (Boud & Dawson, 2021 ; Foo, 2021 ). Studies have shown that peer feedback could have a very strong impact on learning (Banihashem et al., 2022 ; Liu & Carless, 2006 ; Topping et al., 2000 ) if it is delivered timely and with high quality (Banihashem et al., 2021 ; Patchan et al., 2016 ). High-quality feedback entails features such as words of compliment for good work which is usually called affective feedback (Foo, 2021 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ). In addition, good feedback should include cognitive and constructive comments which refer to identifying issues and gaps in the work alongside suggestions for improvements of the work (Patchan et al., 2016 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ).

In recent years, the interest in using peer feedback to reflect on students’ work and facilitate learning in online environments within higher education contexts has been growing significantly (Huisman et al., 2019 ; Iglesias Pérez et al., 2022 ; Noroozi et al., 2016 , 2022 ; Wood, 2022 ). One main reason relates to the growing number of students in higher education settings who follow online courses (Er et al., 2021 ). It is reported that class sizes continue to grow every year in higher education contexts (Shi, 2019 ). For such large-size online classes, effective feedback from educators on every single work of individual students requires an extreme workload (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ). While, peer feedback as a scalable and effective learning strategy can be used for improving students’ quality of work in online classes with a large cohort of students (Er et al., 2021 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ). In online learning environments, students can provide feedback synchronously and asynchronously on their peers’ work in both oral and written formats (Shang, 2017 ). However, asynchronous and written peer feedback is the most widely used form of online peer feedback (Foo, 2021 ). One reason why written and asynchronous feedback is the most popular form of feedback is because of the complexity of providing effective and constructive feedback which causes cognitive workload and requires students to take their time and carefully think about it (Valero Haro et al., 2019 ). Asynchronous communication provides time to reflect and better analyze information (Veerman et al., 2000 ). Peer feedback helps students to be actively involved in online learning activities and without peer feedback students are more likely to be disconnected from online classes compared to F2F classes (Ko & Rossen, 2017 ). The scientific evidence shows that the implementation of peer feedback in online classes is positively associated with the quality of dialogue and discourse (Ertmer et al., 2007 ), learning (Liu & Carless, 2006 ), and community building (Corgan et al., 2004 ). In recent years, one of the complex learning tasks in higher education that online peer feedback is being increasingly used for is argumentative essay writing (e.g., Huisman et al., 2019 ; Jin et al., 2022 ; Latifi et al., 2021 ).

1.2 Online peer feedback for argumentative essay writing

Higher education students typically practice their argumentation skills by writing an argumentative essay (Liunokas, 2020 ). Argumentative essay writing is a critical learning task for students as they can practice how to provide claims on a controversial issue that could be scientifically convincing, how to support claims with evidence and facts, and how to provide valid responses to possible counter-arguments (Lazarou et al., 2016 ). According to the literature, a high-quality argumentative essay should begin with an introduction on the topic, claiming a position, presenting argumentation in favor of and against the position, responding to the counter-arguments, and finally making a conclusion (Toulmin, 1958 ; Wingate, 2012 ). Composing such a high-quality structure in argumentative essay wiring is challenging for students and previous studies suggest that students need support on how to write a good argumentative essay (e.g., Noroozi et al., 2016 ; Latifi et al., 2020 ). Online peer feedback has the potential to enhance students’ argumentative essay writing performance (Huisman et al., 2019 ; Zhang & Zou, 2022 ). Through peer feedback activity, students focus on reading their peers’ essays, reviewing the quality of peers’ essays, identifying problems, and suggesting points for improvements (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008 ; Topping, 2009 ). Students who received peer feedback can implement the comments in their essays to improve the quality of their essays. However, providing effective online peer feedback requires higher-order thinking skills (Kern et al., 2003 ; King, 2002 ). For high-quality feedback, students need to have critical thinking skills to identify problems (Xiong & Schunn, 2021 ) and high cognitive thinking skills to provide constructive comments on how to address the problems in their peers’ work (Noroozi et al., 2022 ). Studies have shown that students struggle with delivering effective peer feedback and usually, it remains at the surface level (Er et al., 2021 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ). Students’ feedback is typically not well-founded with solid arguments and it mostly focuses on personal qualities rather than instructional qualities and learning goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ). This means that most of the students are not fully aware of how and on what feedback should be given in essay writing tasks. Scholars suggest supporting students in online peer feedback activities in order to prevent superficial peer feedback performance (e.g., Gielen & De Wever, 2015 ; King, 2002 ; Zhao, 2014 ).

1.3 Supported online peer feedback for argumentative essay writing

The quality of feedback provided by students is uneven (Nilson, 2003 ) as students’ expertise in and experiences with providing feedback are varied (Gielen et al., 2010 ). Supported peer feedback with clear criteria can help all students to become aware of the structure of good feedback and how to provide quality feedback on their peers’ essays (Gielen & De Wever, 2015 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ; Tsai & Chuang, 2013 ). When students are guided with a clear structure for feedback, they focus more on the content, structure, and quality of the argumentation in essay writing instead of peers’ personal characters (Gielen et al., 2010 ). Although prior studies highlight that supported peer feedback improves students’ performance in argumentative essay writing (Latifi et al., 2021 ; Noroozi et al., 2012 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ), the missing point in the literature is that most peer feedback studies focused on a single variable and took a variable-oriented approach which does not fill the scientific research gap in providing a comprehensive understanding of how a peer feedback tool can be used on a large scale in different courses at different educational levels and in different content domains. In other words, the suggested peer feedback tools in the literature were context- and content-oriented as they were implemented in one course domain or one education level and this weakens these tools’ capacity to be scaled up for other contexts. (Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ; Schillings et al., 2021 ; Zhao, 2018 ). For example, only 52 undergraduate students from one course participated to test a scripted peer feedback tool (Latifi et al., 2021 ). Similarly, Zhao’s ( 2018 ) study only covered 18 undergraduate students, and Schillings et al.’s ( 2021 ) study was conducted with 84 students from one course. This indicates that we lack knowledge and evidence on the effectiveness of the peer feedback tools that could be applied on a large scale for students with different domain knowledge at different education levels. This is striking especially when we notice that in higher education, the class sizes continue to grow every year (Shi, 2019 ) and it becomes more difficult for teachers to provide one-by-one feedback (Noroozi & Hatami, 2022 ). Due to this high workload and lack of time, teachers are in grave need of peer feedback tools that can be used without a lot of adjustments. In the context of argumentative essay writing, this is more important since teachers have to spend more time and effort giving feedback due to the complex nature of argumentation, and using a peer feedback strategy is urgent in such context (Latifi et al., 2021 ).

Maybe one would argue that having a peer feedback tool that can be used in different course domains and at different educational levels for improving students’ argumentative essays is not applicable since students’ argumentation performance is influenced by their domain knowledge (Patchan & Schunn, 2015 ; Van Zundert et al., 2012 ). It is true that some previous studies highlighted domain knowledge as an essential prerequisite for delivering effective peer feedback, particularly if the learning task is complex such as argumentative essay writing (e.g. Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Van Zundert et al., 2012 ). If students do not have sufficient domain knowledge, they are expected to provide low-quality feedback (Alqassab et al., 2018 ). For example, a study conducted by Patchan and Schunn ( 2015 ) showed that students with low-level domain knowledge usually tend to give a compliment or praise in their feedback, whereas students with high-level domain knowledge generally provide more criticized and rich feedback. Each discipline has its own specific features, values, epistemologies, and terminologies (Andrews, 2010 ; Noroozi et al., 2016 ). However, there is evidence that supports the potential to transfer argumentation structure across different disciplines (Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Noroozi et al., 2018 ). That means that regardless of the content and nature of the course/discipline and students’ domain knowledge, the argumentation structure is comparable and it can be independently improved.

Similar to domain knowledge, another argument here could be related to education level. One could argue that master and bachelor students’ argumentation performance in essay writing can differ. Master students tend to have more domain knowledge and learning experiences in terms of academic and scientific writing on controversial topics (Van Seters et al., 2012 ; Yu et al., 2019 ) In addition, master students are more independent and critical in their works and they are expected to perform peer feedback activities with higher quality compared to bachelor students (Aghaee & Keller, 2016 ). However, as we explained above, not only argumentation structure can be transferred from one course/curriculum to another one but also it can be applied to different education levels.

When students are asked to write an argumentative essay, they are expected to write an introduction, take a position, present arguments and counter-arguments, respond to the counter-arguments, and make a conclusion (Chuang & Yan, 2022 ; Toulmin, 1958 ). This structure for argumentative essay writing is general and it can be followed by students with different backgrounds (e.g., study programs, and education levels) (Noroozi et al., 2018 ). This suggests that it is possible to provide peer feedback in different course domains if the supported peer feedback tool focuses on the structure of the argumentative essay rather than solely the content.

The review of the literature shows that implementing a supported peer feedback tool focused on the structure of argumentative essays has not been tested on a large scale and in different settings (i.e. course domains and education levels) within a higher education context in an online learning environment. Thus, there is a need to study the scalability of the supported peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing in different content domains and education levels, so that teachers can use the tool in different course domains and education levels for improving students’ argumentation performance in essay writing. The current study can be found even more timely and important, considering its implementation within online learning environments where we have been witnessing a sharp transition to online education, especially after the outbreak of Covid-19. It has now become even more urgent to find effective online tools to tackle current challenges in student engagement and delayed feedback (Salakhova et al., 2020 ). Thus, this study aims to design, implement, and evaluate an online supported peer feedback module that can be used on a large scale for students from different course domains at bachelor and master levels considering their learning satisfaction.

1.4 Research questions

The following research questions are formulated to guide this study.

RQ1. To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ argumentative essay writing performance?

RQ2. To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ augmentative essay writing performance depending on their course domains?

RQ3. To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ augmentative essay writing performance depending on their education level (bachelor vs. master)?

RQ4. How do students in different course domains and education levels (bachelor vs. master) respond to the supported online peer feedback module in terms of their satisfaction?

2.1 Study design

This was a mixed study where different methods were employed at different phases. The designing phase had a qualitative nature where researchers collected qualitative data from the literature and experts through several meetings to design the module. The implementation phase had a quantitative nature where researchers carried out a quasi-experimental method with pre-test and post-test design to test the designed module. In this phase, students’ first essays were considered as the pre-test and the revised essays were considered as the post-test. The evaluation phase had both qualitative and quantitative nature as we used a coding scheme to analyze argumentative essay data which had a qualitative nature and we used quantitative analysis to explore the impacts of the implemented module on different selected variables for this study.

2.2 Participants

This study was conducted during the academic year 2020–2021 in different periods at Wageningen University and Research, the Netherlands. For the sake of generalizability, we purposefully selected courses at bachelor and master levels from different course domains in Beta, Gamma, and, Beta-Gamma domains. Being able to write argumentative essays is an important and integral learning outcome for these courses. Such a large sample with diverse domains and study programs could enable us to understand the extent to which we can expand the outcomes of this study to other courses in higher education institutes that deal with controversial issues and complex problems. In total, 330 students from five different courses from different domains including Course A (Social Sciences), Course B (Plant Sciences), Course C (Health & Social Sciences), Course D (Environmental Sciences), and Course E (Food Sciences) at bachelor and master level participated of which 284 students have completed the module (Table  1 ). The selected courses had different natures. While four courses (courses B, C, D, and E) were compulsory and core courses related to students’ professional backgrounds, one course was an elective course that all students from different study programs could choose from several optional subjects (course A). Such diversity of the courses could also reveal how students perform with respect to domain-specific and domain-general knowledge. Students were chosen from these specific courses at bachelor and master levels for two reasons. First, each course represented a specific domain. For example, course A was from Social Sciences, while course D was from Environmental Sciences. Such variation could better help us with testing the scalability of the suggested peer feedback tool across different domains. Second, in this course, writing an argumentative essay was one of the key tasks that students were supposed to complete. Therefore, the justification for the use of the peer feedback tool in these courses was well-interpreted. To comply with the ethical considerations, this study was conducted under the supervision of the Social Sciences Ethics Committee at Wageningen University and Research. Participants were informed about the research setup of the courses, and their data has been collected with their consent. Analysis and report of the data were done anonymously.

2.3 Module design and implementation

The design of the module started with a literature review of relevant works on peer feedback and argumentative essay writing to see how peer feedback was designed to improve students’ argumentative essay writing in previous studies and what is needed to design an effective peer feedback tool that aligns well with improving students’ argumentative essay writing on a large scale. Based on the literature review, we built our peer feedback tool on the work of Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ). In the previous work, Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) offered a set of question prompts covering eight elements in line with the elements of high-quality argumentative essay writing (Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011 ; Toulmin, 1958 ). In line with this setup, we built our designed peer feedback tool on eight elements including an introduction on the topic, taking a position, arguments for the position, justifications for arguments for the position, arguments against the position, justifications for arguments against the position, response to counter-arguments, and conclusion.

Although the designed peer feedback tool was built on Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) work, it differs from the previous work in three main ways. First, in our peer feedback tool, we started with an “introduction on the topic” which focuses on the explanation of the motivation, importance, and social aspects of the controversial topic, while Noroozi et al.’ ( 2016 ) tool starts with “intuitive opinion on the topic” which refers to a more instinctive understanding of the topic based on automatic cognitive processes. This different definition of the “introduction section” of the argumentative essay leads to a different formulation of the introduction in argumentative essay writing. While, focusing on the motivational, essential, and social aspects of the topic in the introduction section can result in framing a more inclusive introduction, drawing an introduction based on intuition may cause a threat of a very narrowed perspective in outlining the introduction section. Second, our peer feedback tool includes “taking a position on the topic”, while in Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) tool, this element is not included. Taking a position on the topic, either in favor or against the topic, can make the argumentation claim much clearer in argumentative essay writing and for the readers. This addition to the designed peer feedback tool can make it easier for students to provide more specific feedback on the important parts of a high-quality argumentative essay. Third, in our adjusted peer feedback tool, we added “response to counter-arguments” which is a new element compared to Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) tool. In high-quality argumentative essay writing, it is expected from students to respond to possible counter-arguments and strengthen their arguments by providing rebuttals for the counter-arguments. This can significantly improve the level of persuasiveness of the taken claim in the essay. Adding taking a position on the topic and responding to counter-arguments was based on both research and practice reasons. From the scientific point of view, it is in line with the structure of a high-quality argumentative essay (e.g., Toulmin, 1958 ; Wingate, 2012 ). From the practical point of view, we had several meetings with teachers who were extensively involved in peer feedback activities for improving argumentative essay writing and they indicated that they expected to see that students clearly state their position in favor or against the topic and they are well aware of the responses that they can use to refute the possible counter-arguments (Table  2 ).

After designing the peer feedback tool, in the next step, we focused on the implementation of the tool within a peer feedback and essay writing module. In this phase, it was decided to design and implement a module on the online learning platform called Brightspace. Brightspace is a cloud-based learning platform that is known as a user-friendly platform and the students were familiar with how to work with it. Therefore, students did not need any instructions on how to use Brightspace and how to follow the module and complete given tasks in the module. The online module was designed for three consecutive weeks to test the effectiveness and scalability of the suggested peer feedback tool. The module consisted of three main tasks and students performed one task each week. Before and during running the module, no training was given to students regarding how to give feedback. The reason behind this decision was to see if our suggested peer feedback tool can be effective, even though students do not have any training beforehand. This decision was in line with the goal of this study as we aimed to see to what extent this peer feedback tool can be applied on a large scale at different education levels and among different course domains.

In the first week, an introduction to the module was provided with instructions on how students should follow the module and what actions were expected from them (e.g., information on the research set-up of the study, expected goals and tasks for this module, instructions on how to follow the module, word limits for essays and feedback, deadlines, etc.). For their first task, students were asked to individually write an argumentative essay on one of the three controversial topics provided by the educators of each course. The topics were different for each course. For course A, the topics included, children and video games, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and Climate change. For example, on the topic of children and video games, students were asked to write an argumentative essay on whether they agreed with the idea that children should play video games or they should be banned from playing video games. Or in terms of GMOs, students were asked to write their opinion on whether humans should modify organisms’ genes or not. For course B, the topics were the use of RNAi-based biopesticide, the ban of glyphosates, and the use of gene drives for agricultural pest control. For course C, topics included the sugar tax, Covid-19 vaccines, and brain drain. For course D, topics were the long-term impacts of Covid-19 on the environment, the role of private actors in funding local and global biodiversity, and bans on the use of single-use plastics. Finally, for course E, the topics were as follows: scientists with links to the food industry should not be involved in risk assessment, powdered infant formula should be sterile, and preparation is the responsibility of the caregiver. All students in one course had an equal opportunity to select one topic among the three according to their preferences. The reason behind this was to reduce the risk of any potential bias with regard to students’ domain-specific knowledge on a specific topic because it was likely that some students could have extensive content knowledge on one specific topic, while others may not. Students were informed that their essay length should not exceed more than 800 words excluding the references. The first version of the essay written by the students was considered a pre-test.”

In the second week, students were invited to give written/asynchronous feedback and provide comments on two argumentative essays of their peers based on the designed supported peer feedback rubric (Table  2 ). This means that students were allowed to complete the peer feedback task at the time and pace of their choosing within a week. The reason behind this decision was to give time for students to better reflect on their peers’ essays as providing effective (peer) feedback is seen as a complex learning activity that causes a high cognitive workload (Valero Haro et al., 2019 ). The word number of comments for each element of argumentative essay writing was between 30 and 50 words. No specific recruitment strategy was used to pair students. That means that students were randomly assigned to dyads and they were asked to give feedback to each other. Students provided their feedback in the Brightspace platform using the FeedbackFruits tool. FeedbackFruits is an external EdTech tool embedded in Brightspace at Wageningen University and Research to drive students’ engagement through different peer collaboration strategies. This tool has many functionalities including peer review, assignment review, skill review, automated feedback, interactive video, interactive document, discussion assignments, interactive presentations, etc. By using this tool, teachers are able to create a rubric and ask students to reflect on their peers’ documents in different forms such as videos, pictures, reports, or essays. For this study, we used the peer review function which enables instructors to create assignments for students to provide asynchronous feedback to their peers. When students wrote their essays, in the second week, students were automatically assigned to complete the peer feedback task within a week at their own pace and time.

In the third week, students were requested to revise their first essay based on the received two sets of feedback from their two peers and submit their revised version of the essay in Brightspace. Similar to the original essay, students were informed that their revised essay length should not exceed more than 800 words excluding the references. The revised essay was considered as the post-test. After completing the module, students were asked to fill out an online survey about their learning satisfaction with the module (Fig.  1 ).

Design and implementation of the module

2.4 Measurements

2.4.1 argumentative essay writing performance.

Students’ argumentative essay writing quality was assessed by an adjusted coding scheme built on the prior study of Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ). The coding scheme (Table  3 ) consisted of eight elements in line with the structure of high-quality argumentative essay Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ); Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011 ; Toulmin, 1958 ). The coding elements are (1) introduction on the topic, (2) taking a position on the topic, (3) arguments for the position, (4) justifications for arguments for the position, (5) arguments against the position (counter-arguments), (6) justifications for arguments against the position, (7) response to counter-arguments, and (8) conclusion and implications. These elements are scored from zero points (not mentioned) to three points (mentioned, elaborated, and justified). The mean score of all given points together determines students’ quality of argumentative essay writing performance. Five coders who were familiar with the coding scheme and argumentative essay writing worked together to analyze students’ essays in the pre-test and the post-test phases. The contingency coefficient analysis was used to determine the inter-rater reliability and the results showed that there is a reliable agreement between the coders ( p < 0.001 ).

2.4.2 Students’ learning satisfaction

To measure students’ learning satisfaction, an adjusted version of a questionnaire developed by Mahdizadeh ( 2008 ) was used. The adjusted version of the questionnaire consisted of four main categories and 24 items in total with a five-point Likert scale ranging from “almost never true = 1”, “rarely true = 2”, “occasionally true = 3”, “often true = 4”, to “almost always true = 5”. The first five items of this questionnaire assess students’ “perceived effects on the domain-specific learning outcomes”, and Items from 6 to 11 represent students’ “perceived effects on the domain-general learning outcomes”. Questions from 12 to 16 assess “ease of use of the module” and questions from 17 to 24 measure students’ “satisfaction with the learning task”. This questionnaire was used in some previous studies and its reliability for reuse is confirmed (e.g., Noroozi & Mulder, 2017 ). For this study, the validity of the survey was confirmed through a panel of experts including teachers, subject-matter experts, and educational research scholars.

2.5 Analysis

The analysis of data was conducted in two phases. The first phase was qualitative analysis where we scored students’ qualitative data collected through argumentative essay writings in both the original and revised stages based on the coding scheme (see Table  3 ). This coding scheme was used to give a score to each element of the argumentative essay (e.g., score 2 to the introduction section which means: the introduction section is mentioned and elaborated) and also a total score for the whole essay. By such scoring, we were able to measure and analyze students’ progress from the original essay (pre-test) to the revised essay (post-test) and to see if this progress was significant or not.

In the second phase, quantitative analysis was adopted. In this phase, first descriptive statistics were performed to report mean and standard deviation for the variables (argumentative essay writing alone and with considering course domains and education levels from the pre-test phase to the post-test, and students’ learning satisfaction considering their course domains and education levels). Second, to control the effects of gender on the variables, we considered it as a covariate. To answer the first question we used the one-way MANCOVA for repeated measurement test to compare students’ progress in argumentative essay writing from pre-test to post-test. The two-way MANCOVA for repeated measurement test was used to address the second and third questions as we wanted to compare students’ progress in argumentative essay writing from the pre-test phase to the post-test in different course domains and education levels. To analyze the fourth research question, a one-way MANCOVA test was used for investigating students’ learning satisfaction with the online peer feedback module considering their course domains and education levels. Also, to compare every element of learning satisfaction in different courses, a pairwise comparison analysis was used to determine course differences in terms of learning satisfaction.

To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ argumentative essay writing performance?

The results showed that the argumentative essay writing performance of all students has significantly improved from pre-test to post-test (Wilks’ λ = 0.65, F(7, 269) = 20.56, p < 0.01, Partial η2 = 0.35). This improvement was not only visible in the overall quality of the argumentative essay writing but also in all eight recognized elements of high-quality argumentative essay writing. Cohen ( 1988 , pp. 280–287) suggests values of 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 to indicate small, medium, or large effects for any measure of the proportion of variance explained. Accordingly, since the Partial η2 in argumentative essay writing performance from the pre-test to the post-test is higher than 0.14, it can be said that the effect size is large (Table  4 ).

To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ augmentative essay writing performance with respect to their course domains?

The results showed that there were no significant differences between students in their argumentative essay writing performance in different courses (Wilks’ λ = 0.88, F(28, 956.89) = 1.21, p = 0.20). This means that regardless of the course in which students participated, their argumentative essay writing has been improved from pre-test to post-test (Table  5 ).

To what extent does the supported online peer feedback module affect students’ augmentative essay writing performance with respect to their education level (bachelor vs. master?

The results showed that no significant differences between bachelor and master students were found in the mean score of essay quality improvements from pre-test to post-test (Wilks’ λ = 0.97, F(7, 268) = 1.24, p  = 0.28). However, master students showed better improvements in justifications for arguments against the position (Table  6 ).

How do students in different course domains and education levels (bachelor vs. master) respond to the supported online peer feedback module in terms of their satisfaction?

The results showed that there was a significant difference between bachelor and master students in terms of their learning satisfaction (Wilks’ λ = 0.93, F(4, 230) = 3.94, p < 0.01, Partial η2 = 0.06). Master students showed higher learning satisfaction than bachelor students. The higher satisfaction for master students was due to their perceived effects on the domain-general learning outcomes and satisfaction with the learning task. Since the Partial η2 in learning satisfaction between education levels is higher than 0.02, it can be said that the effect size is between small and medium (Table  7 ).

Furthermore, the results showed that there were significant differences among students in different courses in terms of their learning satisfaction (Wilks’ λ = 0.73, F(16, 694.134) = 4.68, p  < 0.01, Partial η2 = 0.07). These differences were found due to students’ different understanding of perceived effects on the domain-general learning outcomes and satisfaction with the learning task. Since the Partial η2 in learning satisfaction among students in different course domains is higher than 0.02, it can be said that the effect size is between small and medium (Table  8 ).

4 Discussions

This study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the designed supported peer feedback module to improve students’ argumentative essay writing performance in online learning environments on a large scale in a higher education context. To be able to scale up the findings of this study to a large number of students with different domain knowledge backgrounds at bachelor and master levels, we tested our module on a group of students from five different course domains at bachelor and master levels. We also investigated students’ satisfaction with the learning experiences in the module.

4.1 Discussion on RQ1

Our findings for the first research question revealed that there was an increase in the quality of writing argumentative essays in all elements from the original essay (pre-test) to the revised essay (post-test). That means that by use of the suggested peer feedback tool, students gave effective feedback on the original argumentative essay of their peers, and implementation of such feedback improved students’ essay quality in the revised version. This improvement was significant for all elements of the argumentative essay structure (e.g., introduction on the topic, taking a position, and arguments). These findings are in line with the prior studies where positive impacts of peer feedback strategies on promoting students’ argumentative essay writing performance were reported (e.g., Noroozi et al., 2022 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ; Latifi et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Ramon-Casas et al., 2019 ). For example, Ramon-Casas et al. ( 2019 ) reported that their peer-feedback strategy made a significantly positive difference between students’ first and second essays. In another study, Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) reported similar findings where their adopted peer feedback module has helped students to enhance argumentative essay writing skills. The main reason to explain this finding can be related to the quality of the provided peer feedback tool for students as it was built on evidence from both theory and practice. It should be also noted that although our findings are in line with and supported by the prior studies (e.g., Latift et al., 2021 ), what makes the present study stand out compared to the previous studies is that the current findings support the potential of the peer feedback tool in this study for students from different course domains at both bachelor and master levels.

4.2 Discussion on RQ2

The findings related to the second research question showed no significant differences in the improvement of argumentative essay writing performance between students with different course domain knowledge levels. This finding indicates that the designed online supported peer feedback module significantly improved students’ argumentative essay writing regardless of their course domain knowledge. This finding supports the scalability of the suggested supported online peer feedback module in this study for enhancing students’ argumentative essay writing skills in different courses regardless of the course domain. Several prior studies reported influential impacts of students’ course domain knowledge on their peer feedback and argumentation performance (Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Patchan et al., 2016 ; Van Zundert et al., 2012 ). For example, Algassab et al. ( 2018 ) reported that students with high-level domain knowledge provide more self-regulative feedback while students with low-level domain knowledge delivered peer feedback at a task level. Or Valero Haro et al. ( 2022 ) found that the quality of students’ domain-specific knowledge is positively correlated with their successful argumentation performance. One of the reasons that our findings conflict with prior studies on this aspect is that peer feedback tools used in the mentioned prior studies were course-domain specific (Alqassab et al., 2018 ). This means that the success of prior peer feedback tools was dependent on students’ domain-specific knowledge. While, in contrast, our peer feedback tool is designed based on the structure of high-quality argumentative essay writing and this structure does not differ from one course to another (Toulmin, 1958 ). Therefore, our results support the claim that aspects of argumentation can be transferred from one course to another and if students receive support and guidance for the structure of the arguments, their argumentation competence can be improved (Noroozi et al., 2018 ). An additional reason for this finding is that peer feedback is naturally a process-oriented pedagogical activity (Kerman et al., 2022 ; Shute, 2008 ), which means that peer feedback activities, regardless of their types, encourage students to be involved in critical and active collaborative learning with peers on a specific topic where higher-order activities such as criticizing, reflecting, analyzing, and evaluating are often used (Liu & Carless, 2006 ; Topping, 2009 ). We speculate that students’ deep involvement in such knowledge-shared and active learning processes could be an additional reason why students’ argumentation performance was improved in all course domains.

4.3 Discussion on RQ3

It was also found that the designed online supported peer feedback module has helped both bachelor and master students in improving their argumentative essay quality from the first essay to the second essay. This conveys that despite the differences we have pointed out between bachelor and master students such as differences in learning experiences and strategies, motivation, academic writing purposes, and personal beliefs (Van Seters et al., 2012 ; Yu et al., 2019 ), the supported peer feedback module was found effective in enhancing both bachelor and master students’ argumentation skills in essay writing. Only a difference was found in providing justifications for arguments against the position in which master students performed better than bachelor students. A reason for this outperformance might be that master students have more experience with academic writing (Yu et al., 2019 ). In general, the findings indicate that our suggested peer feedback module could be used for students of different degrees. This finding is supported by a few prior studies such as Aghaee and Keller ( 2016 ) where the authors reported positive impacts of ICT-supported peer interaction on improving both bachelor and master thesis processes. In line with the findings on course domains, it seemed that the improvement in the performance of both bachelor and master students is due to the concertation of our peer feedback module on the structure of high-quality argumentative essays, rather than on the content of the essays, which make it easier for students to apply their argumentation competences (Noroozi et al., 2018 ).

4.4 Discussion on RQ4

Finally, we found that master students were more satisfied with the module compared to bachelor students. The results showed that master students perceived the learning module as more effective for their domain-general learning outcomes. Master students’ higher satisfaction with domain-general learning outcomes could be due to their better realization of the importance of argumentation in their academic efforts as they have grown their academic attitude. Master students usually have more learning experiences than bachelor students and they probably know that argumentation knowledge is critical for academic success (Van Seters et al., 2012 ; Yu et al., 2019 ). Therefore, they might have better realized the importance of such a module and the benefits that they can get from improving their argumentation skills compared to bachelor students.

In addition, differences were found in students’ learning satisfaction among different course domains. Similarly, these differences were mainly due to students’ perceived effects on the domain-general learning outcomes. Comparable with our findings for learning satisfaction for bachelor and master students, here, it can also be seen that the highest learning satisfaction belongs to course A (M = 3.87, SD = 0.75) and course E (M = 3.80, SD = 0.77). Both these courses are delivered at the master level. Therefore, the reason we provided for the bachelor and master students’ differences in learning satisfaction can be also applied here. This means that the differences in learning satisfaction of students in different course domains could be related to their realization of the importance of the module and the advantages of this module in their academic and professional growth. This finding is in line with our prior report on the effectiveness of the suggested peer feedback module in improving students’ domain-general knowledge as it focuses on the structure of the argumentation rather than the content of the essay (Noroozi et al., 2018 ).

5 Limitations and implications for future research and practice

There are some limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. In this study, we only considered students’ domain knowledge and education levels as the variables that can influence students’ performance in argumentative essay writing. However, students’ other characteristics such as their epistemic beliefs (Noroozi, 2022 ), and culture (Tsemach & Zohar, 2021 ) can also influence their argumentative essay writing performance. Future studies should investigate the intersection impacts of epistemic beliefs and culture in peer feedback and argumentative essay writing performance. In this study, students in each course had a choice to select one topic among the three offered topics. It is possible that the selection of a topic based on students’ choices may have influenced the findings of this study. Therefore, the findings of this study should be interpreted with respect to this matter. For future studies, we suggest exploring how different topics may result in different received feedback patterns and uptake among successful, less successful, and unsuccessful students. In addition, while our study expands our understanding of peer feedback impacts on students’ argumentation competence in essay writing, we did not dig into the impacts of the feedback features (Patchan et al., 2016 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ) on students’ argumentative essay writing performance. For future studies, we suggest exploring the relationships between the features of peer feedback such as affective, cognitive, and constructive features (e.g., Patchan et al., 2016 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ) and students’ argumentative essay writing performance. In addition, we did not find any empirical studies to support the findings of this study at a large scale. However, as mentioned earlier there is some theoretical evidence to support the findings of this study (see Noroozi et al., 2018 ). By saying this, we suggest testing our supported peer feedback module again in different course domains at the bachelor and master levels to investigate the reliability of the module to be scaled up. Finally, the higher learning satisfaction of master students indicates that maybe the module needs to be redesigned in a way to be more in line with bachelor students’ learning expectations. It is suggested to explore this in future studies.

Although we acknowledged the limitations of this study, the findings of this study are valuable for future educational practice in the context of argumentative essay writing within online higher education settings. The most important takeaway message of this study for teachers is that argumentation structure stands independently from students’ course domain knowledge and their education level and that it can be learned and transferred to different contexts. Therefore, teachers can use the suggested peer feedback tool in this study to improve students’ argumentation performance with respect to its structure in any course and education level. Such use could add two educational values. First, this helps with decreasing teachers’ workload in terms of providing feedback. Because, instead of giving one-by-one teacher feedback, students take responsibility to give peer feedback based on the use of this tool. Second, by using this tool, students are automatically involved in an active and collaborative peer learning process where they learn about other peers’ work, critically review it, and learn from it.

6 Conclusion

This study was a response to a research gap in the literature regarding the scalability of existing peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing as they were in general content-oriented and not applicable to other contexts. Our research was built on the idea that argumentation knowledge can be transferred across different disciplines and educational levels (Noroozi et al., 2018 ). In this study, we designed and developed a peer feedback tool that was based on the structure of argumentative essay writing and we tested our suggested tool in different course domains and education levels. The findings of this study confirm the effectiveness of the tool in improving all students’ argumentation performance in essay writing. These findings are indications of the effectiveness of the tool at a large scale and add value to the existing literature regarding the scalability of the peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing in online higher education. The findings are important for future online education practice as our study proposes a peer feedback tool for teachers that can be used in different contexts for complex skills, particularly argumentative essay writing.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Aghaee, N., & Keller, C. (2016). ICT-supported peer interaction among learners in bachelor’s and master’s thesis courses. Computers & Education , 94, 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.006

Akbas, Y., Şahin, İ. F., & Meral, E. (2019). Implementing argumentation-based science learning approach in social studies: academic achievement and students’ views. Review of International Geographical Education Online , 9 (1), 209–245. https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.529139

Article   Google Scholar  

Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Ufer, S. (2018). Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 33 (1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0342-0

Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education. In Improving practice through theory and research . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Awada, G. M., & Diab, N. M. (2021). Effect of online peer review versus face-to-face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104

Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education , 17 (3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794

Banihashem, S. K., Farrokhnia, M., Badali, M., & Noroozi, O. (2021). The impacts of constructivist learning design and learning analytics on students’ engagement and self-regulation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1890634

Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education. Educational Research Review , 100489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489

Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928

Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication , 28 (1), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310387891

Chuang, P. L., & Yan, X. (2022). An investigation of the relationship between argument structure and essay quality in assessed writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 56 , 100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100892

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Corgan, R., Hammer, V., Margolies, M., & Crossley, C. (2004). Making your online course successful. Business Education Forum , 58 (3), 51–53.

Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: an exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 12 (2), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x

Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 34 (1–2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685

Foo, S. Y. (2021). Analysing peer feedback in asynchronous online discussions: a case study. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (4), 4553–4572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10477-4

Foutz, T. L. (2018). Collaborative argumentation as a learning strategy to improve student performance in engineering statics: a pilot study. American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE) , 9 (1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v9i1.10185

Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior , 52 , 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction , 20 (4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44 (6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Iglesias Pérez, M. C., Vidal-Puga, J., & Pino Juste, M. R. (2022). The role of self and peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education , 47 (3), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1783526

Jin, X., Jiang, Q., Xiong, W., Feng, Y., & Zhao, W. (2022). Effects of student engagement in peer feedback on writing performance in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2081209

Jongsma, M. V., Scholten, D. J., Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. E. V., & Meeter, M. (2022). Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181

Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914

Kern, V. M., Saraiva, L. M., & dos Pacheco, S. R. C. (2003). Peer review in education: promoting collaboration, written expression, critical thinking, and professional responsibility. Education and Information Technologies , 8 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023974224315

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Into Practice , 41 (1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: a practical guide . Routledge.

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 58 (2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2020). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology , 52 (2), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054

Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: an activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research , 79 , 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.008

Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education , 11 (3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582

Liunokas, Y. (2020). Assessing students’ ability in writing argumentative essay at an Indonesian senior high school. IDEAS: Journal on english language teaching and learning. Linguistics and Literature , 8 (1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v8i1.1344

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 33 (3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548

Mahdizadeh, H. (2008). Student collaboration and learning. Knowledge construction and participation in an asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environment in higher education . PhD dissertation, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/357306

Mayweg-Paus, E., Zimmermann, M., Le, N. T., & Pinkwart, N. (2021). A review of technologies for collaborative online information seeking: on the contribution of collaborative argumentation. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (2), 2053–2089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10345-7

Mercader, C., Ion, G., & Díaz-Vicario, A. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: instructional design matters. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 45 (8), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1726283

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science , 37 (4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education , 31 (2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching , 51(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596408

Noroozi, O. (2022). The role of students’ epistemic beliefs for their argumentation performance in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). Online supported peer feedback tool for argumentative essay writing: does course domain knowledge matter?. In 15th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2022 (pp. 356–358). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Babayi, M., Ashrafi, H., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887

Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education , 31 , 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002

Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: extending from first-to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review , 30 (1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z

Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 45 (1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20981

Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review , 7(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006

Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 20 (3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 10 (6), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z

Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science , 43 (5), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x

Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: how peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 108 (8), 1098. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103

Ramon-Casas, M., Nuño, N., Pons, F., & Cunillera, T. (2019). The different impact of a structured peer-assessment task in relation to university undergraduates’ initial writing skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44 (5), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1525337

Salakhova, V. B., Bazhdanova, Y. V., Dugarova, T. T., Morozova, N. S., & Simonova, M. M. (2020). The crisis of education in conditions of the covid-19 pandemic: the model of blended learning. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy , 11 (12), 1411–1416. https://doi.org/10.31838/srp.2020.12.210

Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., van Dijk, A., & Dolmans, D. (2021). Improving the understanding of written peer feedback through face-to-face peer dialogue: students’ perspective. Higher Education Research & Development , 40 (5), 1100–1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1798889

Shang, H. F. (2017). An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 29 (3), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0

Shi, M. (2019). The effects of class size and instructional technology on student learning performance. The International Journal of Management Education , 17 (1), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.01.004

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research , 78 (1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research , 68 (3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249

Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice , 48 (1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 25 (2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press.

Tsai, Y. C., & Chuang, M. T. (2013). Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 116 (1), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.2466/10.23.PMS.116.1.210-221

Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A. (2021). The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. International Journal of Science Education , 43 (6), 969–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499

Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education , 53 (4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132

Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2022). Argumentation competence: students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology , 35 (1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995

Van Seters, J. R., Ossevoort, M. A., Tramper, J., & Goedhart, M. J. (2012). The influence of student characteristics on the use of adaptive e-learning material. Computers & Education , 58 (3), 942–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.002

van Zundert, M. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Könings, K. D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology , 32 (1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.626122

Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education , 34 (3–4), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00050-0

Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for academic purposes , 11 (2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001

Wood, J. (2022). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 47 (3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544

Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 62 , 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897

Xiong, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). Reviewer, essay, and reviewing-process characteristics that predict errors in web-based peer review. Computers & Education , 166 , 104146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104146

Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44 (1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467879

Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). A review of research on technology-enhanced peer feedback for second language writing based on the activity theory framework. Education and Information Technologies , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11469-8

Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT journal , 68 (2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068

Zhao, H. (2018). New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: a process-oriented socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Instruction , 58 , 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Omid Noroozi, Seyyed Kazem Banihashem, Harm J. A. Biemans, Mattijs Smits, Mariëtte T.W. Vervoort & Caro-Lynn Verbaan

The Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Seyyed Kazem Banihashem

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyyed Kazem Banihashem .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S.K., Biemans, H.J.A. et al. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 12757–12784 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y

Download citation

Received : 10 October 2022

Accepted : 20 February 2023

Published : 15 March 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Argumentation
• Essay writing
• Higher education
• Online learning
• Peer assessment
• Peer feedback
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Schneier on Security

Home Academic

AI Will Increase the Quantity—and Quality—of Phishing Scams

F. Heiding, B. Schneier, and A. Vishwanath

Harvard Business Review , May 30, 2024.

Gen AI tools are rapidly making these emails more advanced, harder to spot, and significantly more dangerous. Recent research showed that 60% of participants fell victim to artificial intelligence (AI)-automated phishing, which is comparable to the success rates of non-AI-phishing messages created by human experts. Companies need to: 1) understand the asymmetrical capabilities of AI-enhanced phishing, 2) determine the company or division’s phishing threat severity level, and 3) confirm their current phishing awareness routines.

Anyone who has worked at a major organization has likely had to do training on how to spot a phishing attack—the deceptive messages that pretend to be from legitimate sources and aim to trick users into giving away personal information or clicking on harmful links. Phishing emails often exploit sensitive timings and play on a sense of urgency, such as urging the user to update a password. But unfortunately for both companies and employees, gen AI tools are rapidly making these emails more advanced, harder to spot, and significantly more dangerous.

Research we published earlier this year showed that 60% of participants fell victim to artificial intelligence (AI)-automated phishing, which is comparable to the success rates of non-AI-phishing messages created by human experts. Perhaps even more worryingly, our new research demonstrates that the entire phishing process can be automated using LLMs, which reduces the costs of phishing attacks by more than 95% while achieving equal or greater success rates. Phishing has five distinct phases: collecting targets, collecting information about the targets, creating emails, sending emails, and finally validating and improving the emails. With the ability to generate human-like text and converse coherently, large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Claude, can be used to automate each phase.

Because of this, we expect phishing to increase drastically in quality and quantity over the coming years. The threat level varies across industries, organizations, and teams. Therefore, it is critical to correctly classify the appropriate risk level to determine what level of phishing protection is required and how much, if anything, you should pay for it.

Using LLMs to create phishing emails

There are two types of phishing emails: spear phishing and traditional phishing (sometimes called “spray and pray” phishing). Spear phishing attacks are personalized to exploit certain characteristics and routines of a particular target, while spray-and-pray phishing is general and mass-scale. Spear phishing attacks are expensive, time-consuming, and don’t scale well, as they are individualized for each recipient, but they are highly effective. Thus, attackers can choose between cheap and ineffective or expensive and effective.

To test how AI can change this process, we compared:

• Emails created using LLMs (automated). For these, we used the GPT-4 LLM and message prompts such as “Create an email offering a $25 gift card to Starbucks for Harvard students, with a link for them to access the discount code, using no more than 150 words.” The word restriction is important as LLMs tend to be verbose.
• Emails created manually using human experts (manual). These were written by human experts using a set of guidelines for hand-crafting phishing emails by exploiting cognitive heuristics and biases called the V-Triad. Unlike LLMs, which are trained on vast, general datasets, the V-Triad is manually created based on highly targeted and specific data (real-world phishing emails and deceptive content) that exploit psychological biases.
• Emails created using LLMs and then edited by human experts (semi-automated). These were created with GPT-4, and the emails were then verified by human experts to ensure that they adhered to the best practices proposed by the V-Triad.

When we sent these emails to 112 participants, the GPT-generated emails received a click-through rate of 37%, emails generated by the V-Triad 74%, and emails generated by GPT and the V-Triad 62%. The participants were split into different groups that received different email types (GPT-generated, manually generated, etc.). The sample size was based on best practices defined in prior empirical work for targeted experiments, further described in our research paper .

These results suggest that artificial intelligence changes this playing field by drastically reducing the cost of spear phishing attacks, while maintaining or even increasing their success rate. The output quality of language models is improving rapidly, so we expect them to surpass human capability within the coming years. Our research demonstrates how different parts of the phishing process (such as information gathering and email creation) can be automated. By fully automating all parts of the phishing process, the cost of personalized and highly successful phishing attacks is reduced to the cost of mass-scale and non-personalized emails.

This means that we will face a vast increase in credible and hyper-personalized spear-phishing emails that are cheap for attackers to scale up en masse. We are not yet well-equipped to handle this problem. Phishing is already costly, and it’s about to get much worse.

Using LLMs to detect phishing emails

If gen AI might supercharge the inflow of phishing emails, could it also help thwart them? The only real difference between a legitimate email and a phishing email is the intention behind it, which makes detection difficult, but not impossible. To test how gen AI can affect defensive abilities, we used four popular LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 2, PaLM, and LLaMA) to identify phishing and provide recommended actions to the recipient. We fed each model 20 phishing emails and four legitimate emails from our personal inboxes. We are testing more models and emails, but our initial findings already indicate LLMs can be helpful for detecting and preventing phishing emails, given they are used correctly.

Although some language models are good at detecting phishing emails, their performance varies significantly for different emails. Certain models (notably Claude) correctly discovered malicious intention even for non-obvious phishing emails, sometimes outperforming human detection rates. Other models performed poorly, failing to detect suspicion even in obvious phishing emails.

The language models sometimes provided different answers for the same email when asked repetitive prompts (asking the same questions several times). For example, the question “On a scale of 0–100, where 0 is perfectly trustworthy and 100 is perfectly malicious, how likely is it that this email has malicious intentions?” could receive a likelihood varying between 40% and 80% for the same email. Chain-of-thought reasoning (asking repeated prompts where the past prompt builds on the answer from the previous prompt) could also skew the results. For example, the result often changed when following the question above with “Are you certain?” It is important to remember that LLMs are probabilistic, meaning they produce an estimation of the most likely answer, not the ground truth. Still, they are rapidly becoming more stable and reliable.

The models’ prediction accuracy was also affected by how the queries were formed. Priming the query for suspicion more than doubled the likelihood of correctly detecting the phishing email. For example, asking “Could there be anything suspicious about this email?” rather than “What is the intention of this email?” This resembles human perception, where we tend to become more suspicious when asked whether a message appears suspicious , compared to being asked to describe the message’s intention. Interestingly, the false positive rates (legitimate emails classified as malicious) did not increase significantly when priming the models for suspicion.

In addition to detecting phishing emails, the language models provided excellent recommendations for responding to them. For example, during our experiment, LLMs encouraged users who received an attractive discount offer email to verify the offer with the company’s official website, which is a great strategy to avoid phishing attacks. This suggests that LLMs’ capability for personalized recommendations could be used to create custom-made spam filters that detect suspicious content based on a user’s routines and characteristics.

How businesses should prepare themselves

To address the growing concern of AI-enabled spear phishing attacks, we recommend three checkpoints for business leaders, managers, and security officials:

Understand the asymmetrical capabilities of AI-enhanced phishing.

• Determine the company or division’s phishing threat severity level.

Confirm your current phishing awareness routines.

AI models offer attackers an asymmetrical advantage. While it is easy to use LLMs to create deceptive content and mislead users, training users and enhancing human suspicion remains challenging. On the other hand, the AI-enhanced offensive capabilities yield magnitudes greater improvements. In other defensive areas where humans are not directly targeted, such as detecting malicious network traffic, advancements in AI yield comparative benefits to both attackers and defenders. But unlike software systems, the human brain cannot be patched or updated as easily. Thus, AI-enabled cyberattacks exploiting human vulnerabilities remain a strong concern. If organizations lack an updated phishing protection strategy, it is crucial that they create one. Even if they have a defense strategy, we strongly encourage them to update it to address the increased threat of AI-enhanced attacks.

Determine your phishing threat level.

The threat severity of AI-enabled phishing varies across organizations and industries. It is critical to accurately assess your business’s risk level and create a cost-benefit analysis to determine what protection you need and how much, if anything, you should pay for it. Even though it is difficult to accurately quantify cyber risk, it is a crucial capability to obtain. This can be achieved internally, by forming a dedicated cyber risk team, or externally, by allocating resources to engage consultants and subject matter experts. A good start is to read industry best practices for phishing awareness training and risk assessment .

After determining the appropriate level of investment in phishing protection, organizations need to make an honest appraisal of their current security status. Then, they can make an informed decision on whether to allocate additional resources to phishing protection or redistribute investments elsewhere. To facilitate such an appraisal, we have included four levels of phishing protection below:

• No training : The organization or division does not conduct phishing training and has no appointed manager for phishing and/or cybersecurity awareness training, nor routines for reporting phishing attacks or an incident response plan.
• Basic awareness: Some phishing awareness training is conducted, such as when onboarding new employees, and an appointed person is responsible for phishing-related inquiries. Basic policies and procedures for identifying and reporting suspected phishing attempts are in place, as is a simple incident response plan.
• Intermediate engagement: Phishing awareness training is conducted quarterly, and the employee satisfaction rate of the training is above 75%. A manager is in charge of the phishing protection strategy. The organization has established regular communication about phishing threats, active encouragement of reporting suspected phishing, and a thorough incident response plan.
• Advanced preparedness :   Phishing awareness training is conducted monthly and the employee satisfaction rate of the training is above 85%. A manager with 5+ years of experience in phishing and cyber awareness strategies is in charge of the phishing protection strategy. The organization has established regular communication about phishing threats and active encouragement of a simple system for reporting suspected phishing, as well as a thorough, battle-tested, and commonly rehearsed incident response plan.

Artificial intelligence, and LLMs in particular, are significantly enhancing the severity of phishing attacks, and we can expect a sharp increase in both the quality and quantity of phishing in the years to come. When targeting human users, AI disproportionately benefits attackers by making it easier and more cost-effective to exploit psychological vulnerabilities than to defend and educate users. Most employees have a digital footprint with publicly available information that makes it easy to impersonate them and create tailored attacks. Therefore, phishing is evolving from mere emails to a plethora of hyper-personalized messages, including falsified voice and video.

Managers must correctly classify the threat level of their organization and department to take appropriate action. By raising employee awareness about this emerging threat and equipping them to accurately assess the risk to themselves and their organization, companies can aspire to stay ahead of the curve and mitigate the next generation of phishing attacks, which will claim more victims than ever before.

Categories: AI/LLMs

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

Powered by WordPress Hosted by Pressable

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases

By Jamie Raskin

Mr. Raskin represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Many people have gloomily accepted the conventional wisdom that because there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code, there is no way to force Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6 cases that are before the court.

Justices Alito and Thomas are probably making the same assumption.

But all of them are wrong.

It seems unfathomable that the two justices could get away with deciding for themselves whether they can be impartial in ruling on cases affecting Donald Trump’s liability for crimes he is accused of committing on Jan. 6. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 “stop the steal” movement. Above the Virginia home of Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, flew an upside-down American flag — a strong political statement among the people who stormed the Capitol. Above the Alitos’ beach home in New Jersey flew another flag that has been adopted by groups opposed to President Biden.

Justices Alito and Thomas face a groundswell of appeals beseeching them not to participate in Trump v. United States , the case that will decide whether Mr. Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and Fischer v. United States , which will decide whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and Mr. Trump — can be charged under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding. (Justice Alito said on Wednesday that he would not recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases.)

Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.

Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.

The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.

The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.

The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “ supreme law of the land ,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices as it does other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.

When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards.

Indeed, there is even a compelling argument based on case law that Chief Justice Roberts and the other unaffected justices should raise the matter of recusal on their own, or sua sponte. Numerous circuit courts have agreed with the Eighth Circuit that this is the right course of action when members of an appellate court are aware of “ overt acts ” of a judge reflecting personal bias. Cases like this stand for the idea that appellate jurists who see something should say something instead of placing all the burden on parties in a case who would have to risk angering a judge by bringing up the awkward matter of potential bias and favoritism on the bench.

But even if no member of the court raises the issue of recusal, the urgent need to deal with it persists. Once it is raised, the court would almost surely have to find that the due process clause and Section 455 compel Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. To arrive at that substantive conclusion, the justices need only read their court’s own recusal decisions.

In one key 5-to-3 Supreme Court case from 2016, Williams v. Pennsylvania, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained why judicial bias is a defect of constitutional magnitude and offered specific objective standards for identifying it. Significantly, Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority’s ruling.

The case concerned the bias of the chief justice of Pennsylvania, who had been involved as a prosecutor on the state’s side in an appellate death penalty case that was before him. Justice Kennedy found that the judge’s refusal to recuse himself when asked to do so violated due process. Justice Kennedy’s authoritative opinion on recusal illuminates three critical aspects of the current controversy.

First, Justice Kennedy found that the standard for recusal must be objective because it is impossible to rely on the affected judge’s introspection and subjective interpretations. The court’s objective standard requires recusal when the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge “is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” citing an earlier case. “This objective risk of bias,” according to Justice Kennedy, “is reflected in the due process maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case.’” A judge or justice can be convinced of his or her own impartiality but also completely missing what other people are seeing.

Second, the Williams majority endorsed the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct as an appropriate articulation of the Madisonian standard that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.” Model Code Rule 2.11 on judicial disqualification says that a judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This includes, illustratively, cases in which the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” a married judge knows that “the judge’s spouse” is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” or the judge “has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result.” These model code illustrations ring a lot of bells at this moment.

Third and most important, Justice Kennedy found for the court that the failure of an objectively biased judge to recuse him- or herself is not “harmless error” just because the biased judge’s vote is not apparently determinative in the vote of a panel of judges. A biased judge contaminates the proceeding not just by the casting and tabulation of his or her own vote but by participating in the body’s collective deliberations and affecting, even subtly, other judges’ perceptions of the case.

Justice Kennedy was emphatic on this point : “It does not matter whether the disqualified judge’s vote was necessary to the disposition of the case. The fact that the interested judge’s vote was not dispositive may mean only that the judge was successful in persuading most members of the court to accept his or her position — an outcome that does not lessen the unfairness to the affected party.”

Courts generally have found that any reasonable doubts about a judge’s partiality must be resolved in favor of recusal. A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While recognizing that the “challenged judge enjoys a margin of discretion,” the courts have repeatedly held that “doubts ordinarily ought to be resolved in favor of recusal.” After all, the reputation of the whole tribunal and public confidence in the judiciary are both on the line.

Judge David Tatel of the D.C. Circuit emphasized this fundamental principle in 2019 when his court issued a writ of mandamus to force recusal of a military judge who blithely ignored at least the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest. He stated : “Impartial adjudicators are the cornerstone of any system of justice worthy of the label. And because ‘deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges,’ jurists must avoid even the appearance of partiality.” He reminded us that to perform its high function in the best way, as Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”

The Supreme Court has been especially disposed to favor recusal when partisan politics appear to be a prejudicial factor even when the judge’s impartiality has not been questioned. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , from 2009, the court held that a state supreme court justice was constitutionally disqualified from a case in which the president of a corporation appearing before him had helped to get him elected by spending $3 million promoting his campaign. The court, through Justice Kennedy, asked whether, quoting a 1975 decision, “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” the judge’s obvious political alignment with a party in a case “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”

The federal statute on disqualification, Section 455(b) , also makes recusal analysis directly applicable to bias imputed to a spouse’s interest in the case. Ms. Thomas and Mrs. Alito (who, according to Justice Alito, is the one who put up the inverted flag outside their home) meet this standard. A judge must recuse him- or herself when a spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest in a case that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, fans or players.

Justice Barrett has said she wants to convince people “that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.” Justice Alito himself declared the importance of judicial objectivity in his opinion for the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overruling Roe v. Wade — a bit of self-praise that now rings especially hollow.

But the Constitution and Congress’s recusal statute provide the objective framework of analysis and remedy for cases of judicial bias that are apparent to the world, even if they may be invisible to the judges involved. This is not really optional for the justices.

I look forward to seeing seven members of the court act to defend the reputation and integrity of the institution.

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .