Regardless of the topic, every researcher should use the five parts of conveying their argument as outlined in various texts such as The Craft of Research (Booth, 2003, 114-119), The Tongue and Quill (Air Force, 2004, 42), and A Rulebook for Arguments (Weston, 2000, 60-69). Accurately using this methodology and adhering to the tenets of scholarly writing offer a means for the scholar to present arguments if not convincingly, then in a orderly and understandable fashion. These points are illustrated using example arguments from “Student 1” and “Student 2”; Air Command and Staff College students submitting research proposals in the fashion defined in the above sources.
Both students begin by laying out their claims. 1’s claim is that the United States Air Force must not only develop internal nanoscience and nanotechnology efforts, but also leverage commercial advancements as well in order to be the preeminent cyberspace force in the year 2030. (ACSC Student #1, 2007, 1) 2’s claim is that by implementing lessons learned in OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, the United States can optimize the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) model for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and future conflicts. 1 then provides their reasons by stating that technology advancement projections are currently only near-term and nanotechnology is superior to silicon-based technology. The proposal then seems to faulter in that it lacks definable acknowledgements and qualifications to go along with its summation style warrant of reiterating the argument.
2 uses a synergistic method of combining reasons, acknowledgements, warrants, and qualification by stating that PRTs are the “preferred tool for nation-building in a post-conflict environment” (ACSC Student #2, 2007, 1), current efforts are in their infancy, and are groundbreaking in many aspects, thus concluding by an unwritten warrant and qualification for the argument that PRTs will be consistently used and future efforts of this type will benefit...