research position paper on the effect of violent video games on mental health A+ Writers | apluswriters.net

RPP Outline

Components of the outline

Issue: State your issue in a clear way that indicates how this is more than a topic of thought, but a controversy with multiple perspectives and matters seeking resolution. You might state this as a question, but in any case, use specific language that expresses this issue as you are approaching it.

Central claim: Express what your position is on this issue. The way you do this here is by stating a claim that responds to everything you have read and learned about your issue thus far. Yes, this claim is tentative at this point and will likely undergo some revision and refinement going forward, but give yourself a point from which your argument for your position will begin. The options are many, as you might seek to address an error you have noticed in the work of several others weighing in on the issue, or you might propose a completely new solution that you believe will have positive impacts on the issue, or something else.

Reasons: Why do you hold the position you do? What rationale do you have to make the central claim you make in this paper? In order to answer these questions, you consider and state your reasons that logically tie to your claim. Most arguments fall flat because of a lack of solid reasoning or simply a lack of enough reasoning, so be sure to have at least three reasons to back up your position, if not more. Also, it is usually a good idea to have some sense of which reasons are your strongest, as this will influence the order and arrangement of your eventual writing, so try listing your reasons within the RPP Outline according to strength (logical strength, relevancy strength, emotional strength, etc.), with the strongest first.

Evidence: What do you have to prove to your audience that your reasons are valid? All reasoning needs support in order to be convincing, fully realized, transparent, what have you, and you get this support from evidence that you incorporate and interpret for your audience. Perhaps there is a prior incident where your reasoning applies, or someone has presented similar arguments whose logic shows why your reason is valid, or there have been studies and data collected which correlates directly to your reason for making such a claim. Let us not forget the value of personal experiences, yours or another’s, which illuminates a line of reasoning for the audience in ways that they might be able to personally relate to. For each reason you list, attach at least one piece of supporting evidence you have gathered from research. Additionally, you might state another specific kind of evidence you will be looking for in further research in order to satisfy your reader of that reason.

Counterargument: As the Mapping the Issue paper revealed to you, there are numerous perspectives and approaches to your issue, and even when two positions have a lot in common, there are critical differences existing beneath their similarities. State a counterargument to your position, perhaps by doing one of the following: identify the perspective on the complete opposite spectrum of your own; select one of your reasons and see what a naysayer might present to contend or refute that logic; or examine how a naysayer would not agree to your definition of a key term at play in your issue. Clearly identify the naysayer who presents this counterargument, then state their counterargument fairly and accurately, so as not to manipulate their point in a way that is easier to combat, but in a manner that they would accept if they read it (because they might in fact read it). After you state that counterargument, name the reason that naysayer has for making that specific refutation. Then, try your hand at forming a tentative response to their counterargument.

Outline model (which may be built upon and expanded how you see fit)

  • Issue
  • Central claim
    • Reason one
      • Warrant (may go unstated in the paper)
        • Evidence (at least one piece of evidence required per reason)
        • Evidence (another supporting material for this reason)
        • Developing evidence (supporting material you are still inquiring into)
    • Reason two
      • Warrant (may go unstated in the paper)
        • Evidence (at least one piece of evidence required per reason)
        • Evidence (another supporting material for this reason)
        • Developing evidence (supporting material you are still inquiring into)
    • Reason three
      • Warrant (may go unstated in the paper)
        • Evidence (at least one piece of evidence required per reason)
        • Evidence (another supporting material for this reason)
        • Developing evidence (supporting material you are still inquiring into)
    • And so on with reasons …
  • Naysayer
    • Counterargument
      • Concessions you can make to naysayer
        • Tentative response to naysayer

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW