{"id":36,"date":"2017-06-06T11:50:17","date_gmt":"2017-06-06T11:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/sunycorning1010elec201718\/?post_type=chapter&p=36"},"modified":"2020-10-14T02:29:09","modified_gmt":"2020-10-14T02:29:09","slug":"distinguishing-between-main-points-and-sub-claims","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/sunycorning1010elec201718\/chapter\/distinguishing-between-main-points-and-sub-claims\/","title":{"raw":"Distinguishing Between Main Points and Sub-Claims","rendered":"Distinguishing Between Main Points and Sub-Claims"},"content":{"raw":"An effective argument contains a thesis, supporting claims, and evidence to support those claims. The thesis is the writer\u2019s central argument, or claim, and the supporting claims reinforce the validity of the thesis. When reading another writer\u2019s argument, it is important to be able to distinguish between main points and sub-claims; being able to recognize the difference between the two will prove incredibly useful when composing your own thesis-driven essays.\r\n\r\nAs you may know, a writer\u2019s thesis articulates the direction he or she will take with his or her argument. For example, let\u2019s say that my thesis is as follows: \u201csmoking should be banned on campus because of its health and environmental repercussions.\u201d At least two things are clear from this statement: my central claim is that smoking should be banned on campus, and I will move from discussing the health impact of allowing smoking on campus to covering the environmental impact of allowing smoking on campus. These latter two ideas (the health and the environmental repercussions of allowing smoking on campus) are the author\u2019s main points<\/strong>, which function as support for the author\u2019s central claim (thesis), and they will likely comprise one or more body paragraphs of the writer\u2019s thesis-driven essay.\r\nLet\u2019s take a look at the following diagram:\r\n\r\n\"Writer\r\nThis diagram translates into the following organizational plan:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. I argue that smoking should be banned on campus.\r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the health repercussions.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the environmental repercussions.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nPoints (A) and (B) will be explored in body paragraphs, will likely form the topic sentences<\/strong> of those body paragraphs, and will be supported by more claims specific to each point, or sub-claims<\/strong>. Let\u2019s return to the previous diagram and see what happens when we include sub-claims:\r\n\r\n\"Writer\r\nThis diagram translates into the following organizational plan:\r\n
        \r\n \t
      1. I argue that smoking should be banned on campus.\r\n
          \r\n \t
        1. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the health repercussions.\r\n
            \r\n \t
          1. Smoking affects students with allergies.<\/li>\r\n \t
          2. Smoking affects students suffering from asthma.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t
          3. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the environmental repercussions.\r\n
              \r\n \t
            1. The cigarette butts are harming animals on campus.<\/li>\r\n \t
            2. The cigarette ash is killing the grass in the campus green areas.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nAssertions (1) and (2) listed under each main point are the writer\u2019s sub-claims, statements that reinforce the validity of his or her main points. Think about it this way: every time a writer presents a claim, the reader likely asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d So, when the writer argues, \u201cSmoking should be banned on campus,\u201d the reader asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d And the writer responds with, \u201cBecause I\u2019ve found that there are health and environmental repercussions.\u201d Then, when the reader asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for your claim that there are health and environmental repercussions to smoking on campus?\u201d the writer can say, \u201cWell, smoking negatively affects students suffering from asthma as well as those who have allergies, and the pollution caused by cigarettes is harming animals and killing the grass.\u201d Each major claim bolsters the writer\u2019s thesis, and each sub-claim bolsters one of the writer\u2019s major claims; additionally, the claims get increasingly specific as they move from main points to sub-claims.\r\n\r\nThen, the writer includes evidence to support each sub-claim. For instance, if I assert that \u201csmoking affects students with allergies,\u201d the reader would ask, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d And the writer might cite a poll taken on campus proving that students with allergies have suffered more when walking through smoky areas. To support the sub-claim that \u201csmoking affects students suffering from asthma,\u201d the writer might cite a report released by Student Health Services connecting the increase of on-campus asthma attacks to on-campus smoking. Those studies function as evidence to support two of the author\u2019s sub-claims. Other evidence would be necessary to prove the validity of the writer\u2019s other sub-claims.\r\n\r\nWhenever you, as a reader, come across an assertion in a thesis-driven text, ask yourself, \u201cWhat support is the writer offering to back this claim?\u201d You can then chart the points made by the writer by filling in the answers you locate when reading the text. If a point is missing, take note of that, because the point\u2019s absence might very well undermine the author\u2019s argument. Similarly, as a writer, whenever you make an assertion, ask yourself, \u201cWhat support can I offer to back this claim?\u201d Then bolster your argument by adding supporting claims and evidence as needed.","rendered":"

              An effective argument contains a thesis, supporting claims, and evidence to support those claims. The thesis is the writer\u2019s central argument, or claim, and the supporting claims reinforce the validity of the thesis. When reading another writer\u2019s argument, it is important to be able to distinguish between main points and sub-claims; being able to recognize the difference between the two will prove incredibly useful when composing your own thesis-driven essays.<\/p>\n

              As you may know, a writer\u2019s thesis articulates the direction he or she will take with his or her argument. For example, let\u2019s say that my thesis is as follows: \u201csmoking should be banned on campus because of its health and environmental repercussions.\u201d At least two things are clear from this statement: my central claim is that smoking should be banned on campus, and I will move from discussing the health impact of allowing smoking on campus to covering the environmental impact of allowing smoking on campus. These latter two ideas (the health and the environmental repercussions of allowing smoking on campus) are the author\u2019s main points<\/strong>, which function as support for the author\u2019s central claim (thesis), and they will likely comprise one or more body paragraphs of the writer\u2019s thesis-driven essay.
              \nLet\u2019s take a look at the following diagram:<\/p>\n

              \"Writer
              \nThis diagram translates into the following organizational plan:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. I argue that smoking should be banned on campus.\n
                  \n
                1. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the health repercussions.<\/li>\n
                2. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the environmental repercussions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Points (A) and (B) will be explored in body paragraphs, will likely form the topic sentences<\/strong> of those body paragraphs, and will be supported by more claims specific to each point, or sub-claims<\/strong>. Let\u2019s return to the previous diagram and see what happens when we include sub-claims:<\/p>\n

                  \"Writer
                  \nThis diagram translates into the following organizational plan:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. I argue that smoking should be banned on campus.\n
                      \n
                    1. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the health repercussions.\n
                        \n
                      1. Smoking affects students with allergies.<\/li>\n
                      2. Smoking affects students suffering from asthma.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
                      3. Smoking should be banned on campus because of the environmental repercussions.\n
                          \n
                        1. The cigarette butts are harming animals on campus.<\/li>\n
                        2. The cigarette ash is killing the grass in the campus green areas.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Assertions (1) and (2) listed under each main point are the writer\u2019s sub-claims, statements that reinforce the validity of his or her main points. Think about it this way: every time a writer presents a claim, the reader likely asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d So, when the writer argues, \u201cSmoking should be banned on campus,\u201d the reader asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d And the writer responds with, \u201cBecause I\u2019ve found that there are health and environmental repercussions.\u201d Then, when the reader asks, \u201cWhat support do you have for your claim that there are health and environmental repercussions to smoking on campus?\u201d the writer can say, \u201cWell, smoking negatively affects students suffering from asthma as well as those who have allergies, and the pollution caused by cigarettes is harming animals and killing the grass.\u201d Each major claim bolsters the writer\u2019s thesis, and each sub-claim bolsters one of the writer\u2019s major claims; additionally, the claims get increasingly specific as they move from main points to sub-claims.<\/p>\n

                          Then, the writer includes evidence to support each sub-claim. For instance, if I assert that \u201csmoking affects students with allergies,\u201d the reader would ask, \u201cWhat support do you have for that claim?\u201d And the writer might cite a poll taken on campus proving that students with allergies have suffered more when walking through smoky areas. To support the sub-claim that \u201csmoking affects students suffering from asthma,\u201d the writer might cite a report released by Student Health Services connecting the increase of on-campus asthma attacks to on-campus smoking. Those studies function as evidence to support two of the author\u2019s sub-claims. Other evidence would be necessary to prove the validity of the writer\u2019s other sub-claims.<\/p>\n

                          Whenever you, as a reader, come across an assertion in a thesis-driven text, ask yourself, \u201cWhat support is the writer offering to back this claim?\u201d You can then chart the points made by the writer by filling in the answers you locate when reading the text. If a point is missing, take note of that, because the point\u2019s absence might very well undermine the author\u2019s argument. Similarly, as a writer, whenever you make an assertion, ask yourself, \u201cWhat support can I offer to back this claim?\u201d Then bolster your argument by adding supporting claims and evidence as needed.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

                          \n\t\t\t

                          Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
                          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
                          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
                          CC licensed content, Original<\/div>