Payton Roberts

Period 1 & 2
4/28/14
Prompt 2
Whats an Argument without Techniques?
There are a variety of different topics in the world that people tend to discuss and have
different opinions on. One of these topics is government and whether or not it is necessary. Two
authors portray different arguments on the matter using persuasive techniques in order to capture
the readers attention. Doug Casey, the author of an article, Is Government Necessary, explains
his views on why government is not necessary. Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D., author of the article,
The Necessity of Government, has a different view on government and how it is much needed
for the U.S. or any group of people to function. Although both authors share great view points on
each argument, Adler has a more compelling argument due to his capability of using supporting
evidence, connecting with his audience and giving thorough background information.
One important aspect of an argument is when one supports their idea with evidence to
give the reader a better understanding of where there coming from. Adler, during a section of his
article, asks if an individual can retain autonomy in a social setting. He brings up this point to
show readers that government is an important mechanism to have because they makes decisions
together and not individually. He supports his answer with a thought experiment about three
scientists who want to explore the Amazon, but soon realize that at a certain point they will be
entirely on their own. Adler poses a statement claiming, If they do not stay together and act
together for their common purpose, they cannot succeed (Adler, Pg. 4). Adler does a very good
job at leading the reader with a question, giving a solid piece of evidence and then wraps up the
idea with an answer to the question. Casey, on the other hand, is straight forward with his
thoughts and does not go much into detail. He presents the impression that force is the essence of
government. Casey jokingly says, maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a
successful government (Casey, Pg. 3). Instead of elaborating more on that statement he
continues on with comparing the government to terrorists which leads in a whole different
direction then what Casey was previously saying. There is a significant difference between the
two authors on how they present their argument with supporting evidence. Adler finds ways to
include evidence, while Casey does not.
Supporting evidence is not the only key to persuading a reader. Connecting with the
audience can play a huge role in winning an argument. When an author puts their readers
thoughts before their own it proves how credible the author is about the topic being argued.
Anyone can list reasons for being right, but who can admit that they might not be a hundred
percent correct? Adler does a substantial job connecting with the audience by explaining in the
beginning what his attitude will be throughout the article. Adler explains, I am going to try, in
what follows, to concentrate on propositions that are clearly and plainly normative in their intent
and that have the universality proper to controlling principles (Adler, Pg. 2). Not only does
Adler tell the truth about his writing but he lets the reader know that he is a person you can trust
right from the beginning. On the other side Casey does a good job at letting the reader know how
passionate he is for this topic. However, he never tries to connect with the audience or show a
different point of view. Many readers like to know the opposing views before coming to a final
decision. Casey states, Government sponsors untold waste, criminality and inequality in every
sphere of life it touches, giving little or nothing in return (Casey, Pg. 1). Casey does a
pronounced job at listing his opinionated views but always lacks something more to his
argument, such as supporting evidence or having credibility. Adler establishes a reliable
connection with the reader right away while Casey argues a point with no real connections.
Background information is necessary for any type of writing style. It gives the reader
need to know facts to understand what is to come next. Adler in the first few pages of his article
explains the definition of government and autonomy. Both these points or needed for Adler to
help explain to his audience information that will help his argument. Adler defines government,
autonomy, and defines two argument techniques. He does this in order access factual evidence
that will help in his argument. Casey however, jumps right into his writing with no introduction
of what readers should know before reading his paper. Casey begins his story with, I give a
good number of speeches each year (Casey, Pg.1). He definitely trys to assure the people that
he has experience with this topic and that he can be trusted, however there is no kind of factual
evidence that helps to kick start Caseys paper. Adler does a fantastic job introducing important
topics for his writing piece, whereas Casey takes another approach with attempting to get the
readers to trust him with the information that is about to be given.
Adler does a better job using specific argument techniques such as giving supporting
evidence connecting with the audience and providing back ground information. Adler uses
evidence, stories and more to back up his information opposed to Casey who relies on his
opinions to win over the audience. Adler finds ways to have credible connections with his
readers by reflecting trustworthiness whereas Casey tends to be emotional towards himself.
Adler starts his paper with detailed paragraphs about the definition of government and Casey
starts of when letting the reader know that hes given a good number of speeches. Both authors
have great ideas and arguments towards if government is necessary or not, but Adler is the one
who has the more compelling argument. An argument is never won unless the person arguing
knows how to employ the persuasive techniques.