For this assignment you will complete a topic outline (phrases that indicate the main points and supporting points to be used in the research paper). Use Roman numerals for the main point and capital letters for the supporting points. A working thesis needs to be included in the outline.
As you are presenting a Rogerian argument you will need to have an introduction with a working thesis. Remember, as this is a Rogerian argument, the thesis should not take a stand on the issue. You will need to present both sides of the issue and a section that shows how the two sides do have some common ground. The paper also will need to have a conclusion that wraps everything up for the reader. Remember, for the actual research paper you will need to have more than five paragraphs in the paper.
INTRODUCTION
Lead-in sentences
("hook" strategies: a scenario or an example, a related current event in the news, a startling statistic, a provocative question or statement)
Rhetorical context/brief synopsis of the discussion surrounding the issue
Issue stated as an issue question to set neutral tone of inquiry and investigation
BODY
Two or three paragraphs to examine key supporting points that support one prominent position on the issue
Two or three paragraphs to examine supporting points that support an alternative position, opposing the above viewpoint
(The writer's use of transition/signal sentences, such as On the other hand, critics argue . . . ; or, Despite these compelling arguments for . . . , many persons strongly oppose . . . helps prepare readers for the writer's switch from examining one position to an opposing viewpoint.)
CONCLUSION
Paragraph which presents a balanced and concise summation of the most compelling points representing different sides of the argument
Closing paragraph which presents the writer's middle-ground position, drawing elements from each position examined earlier
(A common ground value appeal can lay the groundwork for a united front in approaching a resolution to the issue; e.g., In the debate over legalization of physician-assisted suicide, we can all agree that we wish to make the process of dying more humane and comfortable for the individual person who is suffering from a terminal illness. Even so . . . . Also, as illustrated, the writer may choose to use the inclusive first-person, plural point of view, we, to reinforce the collective spirit of his or her proposal.)