10 Type 2: Evaluation Argument

Evaluation Arguments

What is an evaluation argument?

In college, professional life, politics, and everyday life, we constantly must assess how things measure up. We are faced with questions like the following:

  • Does our employer treat us fairly?
  • Does our local cafe deserve five stars or four?
  • Is the “Free City” program that makes City College of San Francisco tuition free for residents a success?
  • Is a particular hillside a good location for a wind farm?
  • Does the president deserve their current approval rating?

To answer each of these questions and convince others that our answer is valid, we would need to make an evaluation argument. Most commonly, evaluation arguments rate their subject on a scale from positive to negative. Evaluation arguments make a claim about the quality of something. We can think of them as answering the question “How good or bad is it?”

Woman pondering at a laptop, looking undecided.

Photo by Liza Summer from Pexels under the Pexels License.

 

Criteria

Evaluation arguments usually need to define and justify the criteria they use to make the evaluation. These criteria may consist of moral standards, aesthetic standards, or tests of successful functioning. Depending on how controversial the criteria are, the argument may need to defend and explain why they have been chosen. How can we support our choice of criteria? We may cite precedent or the authoritative sources in the field, or we may discuss the merit of the criteria in themselves by arguing for the good results they lead to and aligning them with values we believe our audience will share.

 

Judgment

Once we have convinced readers that the criteria for quality are valid, we will need to articulate our judgment about the extent to which the subject meets or doesn’t meet those criteria.

 

Evidence

Finally, the argument will need to provide evidence of the way in which the subject meets or does not meet the criteria. See 4.4: Decide How Strong the Evidence Is and 12.5: Developing Paragraphs. for ideas on the types of evidence to choose from.

 

Ranking criteria

In cases where there are multiple valid criteria, the writer may need to rank them in order of importance and justify this ranking. For example, an editorial supporting Alyesha Jenkins for mayor would need to explain what the city should be looking for in a mayor at the moment. The editorial might argue that the top priority should be finding someone who has a workable plan to address the homelessness crisis. It might then go on to identify as secondary priority finding someone who has been an effective leader of a large organization. Finally, it might argue that finding a candidate who will focus on ending police brutality in the city should be the third priority.  Given these criteria, the argument might praise describe Alyesha Jenkins’ concrete, popular plan on homelessness and background as a successful city supervisor and head of a law firm. It might note that her record on police brutality is limited, but we still judge her to be a strong candidate.

 

Types of criteria

We can classify evaluative arguments by the kind of criteria they use. They may focus on aesthetics, that is the appearance or appeal of something (a movie, a work of art, or a building), or practical concerns about how something functions, or moral judgements based on values.

 

Aesthetic Criteria

What makes a great film can be an academic question or an everyday debate among friends going to the movies. Film critics and Film Studies classes try to identify clear aesthetic criteria for award-worthy movies.  Film blogger Tyler Schirado, who writes for the San Diego Film festival, details criteria including acting quality, dialogue, pacing, plot coherence, cinematography, production design, and special effects. Each of those criteria could in turn include sub-criteria.  For example, the criteria for the quality of the special effects might include both how innovative and how spectacular they are.

 

Operational Criteria

Sometimes the criteria that matter are very practical.  We use operational criteria when we are looking for certain concrete results.  What does the subject we are evaluating do?  If we want to evaluate a new car’s safety features, we will ended to see how it performs under challenging conditions. When the FDA evaluates and tests a new vaccine, they follow an set of procedures to test how the vaccine affects first cells, then animal bodies, and finally human bodies. The FDA considers the results of all these procedures to help it decide whether to approve the vaccine or not.  And if the consumer has confidence in the FDA’s standards for data collection, they can use the criteria about the vaccine’s past record of immune protection and side effects to help them decide whether or not to get vaccinated.

 

Moral Criteria

An evaluation argument based on moral criteria will claim that something is right or wrong.  It will need to appeal to shared values or make a case for a particular value that serves as criteria. Some values are nearly universal, such as honesty, reasonableness, and fairness, as we will discuss in 9.6: Moral Character. However, even values that seem universal may be defined differently by different groups. We each grow up in an environment that instills a particular set of family or cultural or religious values. These help to shape our own sense of morality, or personal values and codes that we chose to live by.

Many values may be unconsciously held, but a moral argument will need to articulate them explicitly in order to make its case. Remembering our discussion of assumptions in 4.5: Check the Argument’s Assumptions, we recall that each argument is based upon spoken or unspoken beliefs (warrants), such as “free speech is worthy of protection,” or “democracy is desirable,” or “cheating is wrong.” As we saw in 7.2: Tailoring an Argument to an Audience, it can be helpful to recognize our particular audience’s values and see where they align with our own. Convincing readers that we share values can enhance the sense of trust between reader and writer, as we will see in Chapter 9: How Arguments Appeal to Trust and Connection (Ethos).

As an example, the Motion Pictures Academy includes some moral criteria as well as aesthetic criteria when it selects winners for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actors. Responding to the #OscarsSoWhite campaign, the Academy of Motion Pictures decided to incorporate the value of inclusiveness into their criteria. In order to emphasize “the inclusion of people in underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people and those with cognitive or physical disabilities,” they developed a new set of criteria for nominations for Best Picture. The criteria state that starting in 2024, “To be eligible for best picture, a film must meet at least two standards across four categories: ‘Onscreen Representation, Themes and Narratives,’ ‘Creative Leadership and Project Team,’ ‘Industry Access and Opportunities’ and ‘Audience Development,’ (Rottenberg).  Each of these new criteria responds to the demands for inclusivity and equity, and is evidence that criteria can and should evolve as social morals evolve.

 

Comparative Evaluation

Many times we will need to evaluate the worth of one subject in relation to another in order to judge which is better. Of course, we will need to decide on the basis for comparison, or the criteria to be used, and make that basis clear. Then we will need to evaluate each subject according to the criteria. In comparisons, ranking the criteria will often be important because one subject may do better on one criterion and worse on another.  We’ll need to know which criterion is more important in order to decide which comes out ahead overall.

The point-by-point organizational technique described in 3.9: Comparing and Contrasting Arguments can be helpful in structuring such an essay because it allows us to write about one criterion at a time and see how both subjects compare on that one point before moving on to the next criterion. For example, we might compare the job of being a nanny with the job of being a preschool teacher.  In one section, we would compare earnings for each job, and in another section, we would discuss potential for professional growth. If nannies come out ahead on earnings and teachers come out ahead on professional growth opportunities, then we will need to rank these criteria in order of importance to decide which job to recommend.

 

Sample evaluation arguments

To get a sense of what research-based evaluation arguments look like in college classes, see this sample evaluation argument essay prompt and the sample outline to match it. For a full sample evaluation essay, see “Universal Health Care Coverage for the United States.” Annotations on that essay point out how the author uses evaluation argument strategies.  We offer it in two formats:

 

Reflect on the following questions to construct your own evaluation argument.

  • What makes a person a good role model?  Choose your top three criteria.
  • How would you rank those criteria in order of importance?
  • Choose two prominent public figures from history, pop culture or politics, dead or alive, who would be interesting to compare as role models.
  • Evaluate each person according to the three criteria you identified.
  • Which figure comes out as the better role model?
  • If you ranked the criteria differently, would the other one come out ahead?
  • What is most controversial in your evaluation?  Is it the choice of criteria, the ranking of the criteria, or the idea that your figure fits certain criteria?

Sample Evaluation Argument Prompt and Outline

Below is a sample essay prompt that calls on students to make a case that a particular environmental focus will meet certain criteria for engaging the public.  We offer one sample argument outline to respond to the prompt.

 

Sample Evaluation Argument Prompt

 

Background

Environmental groups and journalists choose many different approaches to engaging the public. Clearly, they need to raise awareness about urgent concerns, but they also need to consider what viewers will connect to emotionally. Some issues have direct adverse effects for humans, like toxins in the water we drink. Others have immediate effects on ecosystems, like the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Others, like endangered species such as elephants and whales, become symbols of human longing, empathy, and reverence.

 

Assignment

Choose one environmental issue you would recommend such groups to focus on and explain your choice.  What makes this issue both scientifically urgent and emotionally appealing?  In order to make your case, consider how you will measure urgency (By statistics on health impacts? Species extinction? Economic disruptions?) and how you will gauge the emotional appeal (By the popularity of past memes and documentaries and campaigns on the issue? By its connection to popular leisure activities? By how relatable it is?).

 

Sample Evaluation Argument Outline

A small figure of a person fully dressed floating in a tranquil ocean.

Photo by Mohamed Nashah on Unsplash under the Unsplash License.

 

Title: My Love is as Great as the Ocean: Engaging Citizen Oceanic Stewards

 

I. Thesis Statement: Because of its scientific importance and its power in the human imagination, the ocean should be a focus of environmental advocacy.

 

II. Topic Sentence: The ocean has symbolic resonance because in many cultures, it is connected with the birth of life and powerful goddesses and gods.

  1. Mami Wata, a West African water goddess, is important to many in the African Diaspora and has her own priests today.
  2. In Hindu mythology and classic texts, Samudra and Varuna play key roles as gods of the ocean.
  3. In Greek mythology, Eros, or love, gave birth to earth, Gaia, which included the sea.
  4. Greek gods like Poseidon and Roman Neptune have figured in western popular culture for many centuries.
  5. In the Ancient Summerian text Enuma Elish, the goddess Tiamat gives birth to all life by releasing her waters around Earth.

 

III. Topic Sentence: The ocean also has symbolic resonance because it gave rise to the first life forms.

  1. Ancient myths have their parallel in scientific fact.
  2. Science has popularized the idea that life likely originated in the oceans over 3 billion years ago.
  3. 2021 research into microbe fossils in South African gold mines supports the idea that life first formed in thermal vents on the sea floor.

 

III. Topic Sentence: Our visceral response to the ocean’s presence is even more powerful than its symbolism.

  1. Our intuitive sensory and emotional response to the ocean is deep.
  2. We love the ocean because it’s powerful; it humbles us with its relentless kinetic energy.
  3. It grounds us with its refreshing breeze and rhythmic waves, renewing our spirits.
  4. It promotes well-being: water contains negative ions which counter the positive ions that cause bad moods.

 

III. Topic Sentence: Oceans help heal our planet; they counteract various environmental problems.

  1. In addition to fast-disappearing rainforests, oceans provide the majority of our oxygen
  2. Recent climate science tells us we’re at the tipping point. Oceans help maintain atmospheric temperatures by absorbing carbon dioxide.

 

IV. Topic Sentence: Yet oceans are being profoundly damaged by human activities.

  1. As oceans absorb carbon dioxide, they get more acidic, which threatens species that depend on hard shells.
  2. Millions of tons of plastic enter the ocean every year, creating huge garbage patches.
  3. Overfishing has depleted fish stocks: there may be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050 unless trends change.

 

Conclusion: Perhaps if environmental groups focus more on spreading these ideas, many more people will help protect the ocean and feel their love for it grow.

  1. While science is an excellent reason to take action, our basic humanity should be commanding us to protect and cherish the oceans that begat us.
  2. Love is the greatest quality humans possess and it can and should guide us to protect our mother ocean.

 

Attributions

Original content by Allison Murray with additions by Anna Mills, licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. 

 

Screen-Reader Accessible Annotated Evaluation Argument

Format note: This version is accessible to screen reader users.  Refer to these tips for reading our annotated sample arguments with a screen reader. For a more traditional visual format, see the PDF version of “Universal Health Care Coverage for the United States” above.

Anonymous Student

Anonymous Professor

English 101

 

Universal Health Care Coverage for the United States

The United States is the only modernized Western nation that does not offer publicly funded health care to all its citizens; the costs of health care for the uninsured in the United States are prohibitive, and insurance companies are often more interested in profit margins than providing health care. These conditions are incompatible with U.S. ideals and standards. Universal health care coverage is a better system for all citizens because it is more cost-effective and upholds the value of human life. (Note: The thesis evaluates universal healthcare based on two specific criteria.)

One of the most common arguments against providing universal health care coverage (UHC) is that it will cost too much money, but in fact, UHC is a cheaper option than private insurance if one considers all costs. (Note: This body paragraph addresses the criteria of cost by answering the question, “How cheap is universal healthcare?” The author summarizes a counterargument about cost and then refutes it.) While providing health care for all U.S. citizens would cost a lot of money for every tax-paying citizen, citizens need to examine exactly how much money it would cost, and more importantly, how much money is too much when it comes to opening up health care for all. Those who have health insurance already pay a considerable amount of money, and those without coverage are charged unfathomable amounts. The cost of publicly funded health care versus the cost of current insurance premiums is unclear. In fact, some Americans, especially those in lower income brackets, could stand to pay less than their current premiums.

Under the current system, even patients with coverage must pay for some treatments out of pocket. (Note: This paragraph continues the discussion of cost, introducing a particular case in which the current system means high costs for patients.)Each day an American acquires a form of cancer, and the only effective treatment might be considered experimental by an insurance company and thus is not covered. The costs may be so prohibitive that the patient will either opt for a less effective, but covered, treatment; opt for no treatment at all; or attempt to pay the costs of treatment and experience unimaginable financial consequences. Medical bills in these cases can easily rise into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is enough to force even wealthy families out of their homes and into perpetual debt. Even though each American could someday face this unfortunate situation, many still choose to take the financial risk. Instead of gambling with health and financial welfare, U.S. citizens should press their representatives to set up UHC, where their coverage will be guaranteed and affordable.

A common argument against UHC in the United States is that other comparable national health care systems, like that of England, France, or Canada do not deliver timely patient care. (Note: Introduces a counterargument.) UHC opponents claim that sick patients in these countries often wait in long lines or long wait lists for basic health care. A fair amount of truth lies in these claims, but Americans must remember to put those problems in context with the problems of the current U.S. system as well. (Note: The author admits seeing some merit in the counterargument before they go on to offer a rebuttal.)It is true that people often wait to see a doctor in countries with UHC, but we in the United States wait as well, and we often schedule appointments weeks in advance, only to have onerous waits in the doctor’s waiting rooms.

Even if UHC would cost Americans a bit more money each year, we ought to reflect on what type of country we would like to live in, and what types of morals we represent if we are more willing to deny health care to others on the basis of saving a few hundred dollars per year.  (Note: This paragraph focuses on the criteria of values.)In a system that privileges capitalism and rugged individualism, little room remains for compassion and love. It is time that Americans realize the amorality of U.S. hospitals forced to turn away the sick and poor. UHC is a health care system that aligns more closely with the core values that so many Americans espouse and respect, and it is time to realize its potential.

Despite the opponents’ claims against UHC, a universal system will save lives and encourage the health of all Americans. It is time for Americans to start thinking socially about health in the same ways they think about education and police services: as a right of U.S. citizens.

 

Attributions

Adapted from an essay included in Writing for Success, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Annotations by Natalie Peterkin, licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. 

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Upping Your Argument and Research Game Copyright © 2022 by Liona Burnham is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book