Unit 6: Guidelines for writing a good scientific argument

00:00: So, here are a few guidelines to writing a good scientific argument. Number one, watch out for counterclaims. You need to anticipate objections to your claim that may come from your target audience. This is what makes you a good researcher. You have to think through what possible counterclaims your audience can raise.

00:28: Number two, identify objections to the underlying assumptions that are explicitly stated in your text, which are assumed to be connected to your claim. For example, if you are using some technical terms, you must not fail to explain them. Do not assume that everyone should understand their meaning. There are some questions that will normally come from your audience when you fail to address your underlying assumptions. All the nuances in your work – methodologies, concepts, scope, and limitation of study, study area, etc. – need to be clarified and justified.

01:05: For example, you are doing a longitudinal study or case study, why did you choose that method and not another? Why are you writing, for example, a literature review and not an empirical paper? You should justify all this and state your assumptions clearly. Writing a scientific argument can be very easy once you take care of all these issues. Don’t give your audience any opportunity to give different interpretations to what you have in mind.

01:34: Make your claims as clear as possible and visit likely objections and try to clarify all your assumptions. Number three, demonstrate that you are aware of possible counterclaims. This is what distinguishes smart writers from the rest. They cleverly tell you why they did not use a particular approach in their work. Maybe it is an approach in data collection or statistical analysis. Your ability to envisage the questions people are likely to ask and to provide a counter position is a great scholarly quality.

02:06: It strengthens the quality of your work and also establishes you as an authority in that area. Number four, prove that you have the mastery of your topic. Don’t ever give your audience the impression that you’re not a subject matter expert. This is why, in picking a title, you need critical thinking skill. Yes, it is important. You must be familiar with the subject matter.

02:29: For instance, you should prove that you are knowledgeable in urban studies, urban geography, before narrowing down to aspects of urban mobility and transportation, or urban mobility and access, as the case may be. You cannot say, I’m only focusing on urban mobility and assets, and you are not demonstrating that you understand urban studies or issues in general. For example, your audience wants to see that beyond this one solution you are trying to proffer, you are aware that there are others.

03:02: Someone may applaud your presentation, your argument, or good thesis defense, but may wish to know if there are other ways of addressing the problem you have identified.