Proposal Argument

This week’s reading assignment centered on the proposal argument. I will have to agree with the book in that this type of argument is the most common. Even in my profession, Law Enforcement, the proposal argument seems to be the most prevalent. As the operations supervisor, I am responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Police Department. One of those functions is to answer citizen complaints that are received by the City Manager, Mayor and City Council. The responses to these complaints are normally written in the form of a letter. Contained in the letter are an overview of the complaint or problem, possible solutions to the complaint or problem, and whether or not the solutions are feasible. This seems to fall right in line with the structure of the proposal argument.

The proposal argument generally contains three parts. The first part is a description of the problem. For me this usually comes from a citizen or Council Member complaint. An example would be that a citizen made the complaint that a certain intersection in the city seems to have a lot of pedestrians hit by vehicles when crossing the street. This appears to be a valid concern. I would then analyze all traffic accident reports at that intersection and determine if there are an unusual number of pedestrians being hit by vehicles. If the results indicate that there are a disproportionate number of accidents involving pedestrians at that intersection then I would go on to step two.

Step two is to examine a number of possible solutions to the problem. The solutions need to be realistic and attainable. Using the example above, possible solutions for the problem intersection could be better marked crosswalks, crosswalk signals, or reducing the speed limit near the intersection. You could even go as far as an elevated cross walk or tunnel under the street.

The final step is to justify the solution. One part of justifying the solution is to try and foresee opposition to the proposals. If I can anticipate the resistance and counter their opposition with solid facts and knowledge then the argument and proposals should succeed.  For me the justification comes from whether or not the city can afford to pay for the proposed solutions. Marking the crosswalk better, crosswalk signals and reducing the speed limit are relatively inexpensive fixes that would possibly correct the problem. If they do not work, then the more expensive elevated crosswalk or tunnel may need to be constructed.

            I would then conclude the argument by summarizing and restating the main issue or problem. In my example the main issue is pedestrian safety. By acting now and correcting the problem, the life saved may be yours.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.