Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How to draw the line between expository and argumentative writing?

+0
−0

I read many articles on-line, but cannot understand where to draw the line between expository and argumentative writing. According to many articles, expository writing presents information. Argumentative writing tries to argue a case.

Every research paper I have ever read has some form of argument in it. That is their thesis. They might be arguing, "This new veterinary medicine we tested did not conclusively cure the disease in cats", then they present the data from the study. Or they might argue "Our new method for extracting coal works very efficiently," and then present their research data proving this argument. Since the authors are arguing the case for something, even with the scientific method behind it, does that make it an argumentative paper?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/31212. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

Writing is typically combined; there is an expository part, then an argumentative part. Expository writing can exist by itself, in encyclopedic or historical reference works (like, "here are the properties of carbon", or "this is what happened at the battle of York").

However, arguments make little sense if they are not based on something observed or known to be true. So basically all argumentative writing will include some exposition to remind the reader of some facts (which may be cherry-picked to support their flawed logic!).

Basically they present the premises, or axioms (things we believe to be true without needing to be proved), and then use them to craft an argument proving something else, which does need to be proved in order to be accepted.

So if I wish to argue for the efficiency of my coal extraction method, I have to have some exposition detailing the current state of the art and its efficiency before I have some exposition detailing MY method and then in argument I can compare the two, and conclude my method works "very efficiently" (compared to existing methods).

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »