Reflection
This paper reminds me of one that I learned how to write in AP Literature in high school called a qualifying argument. It is slightly different, however. The qualifying argument states an issue, then gives both sides a chance to “speak”, and then the author picks a side and concludes. The Rogerian argument does everything except make the writer pick a side. The writer’s opinion is taken out almost completely. It needs to be unbiased, letting both sides see where the other is coming from. A compromise is proposed for the issue instead of picking a side. This was difficult to do because I definitely had a side in the issue I wrote about, Planned Parenthood. I did research and explored both sides of the issue of Planned Parenthood funding. Some say keep it and some say defund it. Both sides were interesting to explore. However, the compromise was almost a lose-lose situation. Neither side fully got what they want, but they kept the other from getting what they want. I used specific rhetoric when addressing the side to this argument. Keeping unbiased was essential to a successful argument. I feel that I did that very well.
This paper reminds me of one that I learned how to write in AP Literature in high school called a qualifying argument. It is slightly different, however. The qualifying argument states an issue, then gives both sides a chance to “speak”, and then the author picks a side and concludes. The Rogerian argument does everything except make the writer pick a side. The writer’s opinion is taken out almost completely. It needs to be unbiased, letting both sides see where the other is coming from. A compromise is proposed for the issue instead of picking a side. This was difficult to do because I definitely had a side in the issue I wrote about, Planned Parenthood. I did research and explored both sides of the issue of Planned Parenthood funding. Some say keep it and some say defund it. Both sides were interesting to explore. However, the compromise was almost a lose-lose situation. Neither side fully got what they want, but they kept the other from getting what they want. I used specific rhetoric when addressing the side to this argument. Keeping unbiased was essential to a successful argument. I feel that I did that very well.