CLAIMS OF POLICY
Claims of policy are arguments that urge action. Typically, a claim of policy ends up as a relatively straightforward proposition—“X should be done”, but a lot of different paths might need to be taken to reach that kind of conclusion.
Overview:
A basic policy claim is an argument that something should or should not be done. For example, arguing that marijuana should be legalized or that a friend should try a new food are both claims of policy. Because policy claims argue for an action, they imply a value claim—that taking the recommended action is better than not taking it. This, in turn, means that claims of fact and definition become involved. Consequently, policy claims are some of the most complex arguments that exist.
Many academic policy arguments put forward a specific problem, and they then solve that problem with a course of action (i.e. you should do X because it makes Y better). Such arguments have an additional level of complexity, because they require that writers prove that the solution actually works.
Because policy arguments actually ask people to act in the real world, they frequently depend upon whether or not things ‘work’ in the same way that the author claims. In other words, they must make use of logos in order to demonstrate that they have validity.
Application:
College students frequently write policy arguments. Typically, a policy argument at the college level involves grappling with a single issue or justifying a single course of action. This argument must then be placed into a meaningful context. The student has to argue that the relative merits of the policy outweigh the relative costs.
It might be possible to reduce the problem of shoplifting rather dramatically, for example, if all shoplifters are simply executed. Are the merits of this approach worth the costs? The answer will vary from reader to reader, and a student’s essay on the subject would have to consider how readers will weigh the implications of such a policy.
Finally, policy arguments need to identify who has the power to take meaningful action in a situation. They must then make an argument that suggests why those with the power should, in fact, take the action.
What to Avoid:
One of the biggest reasons policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to distinguish between doing something and doing something that matters. Students should avoid thinking that all solutions are created equal. Sometimes, a supposed solution actually just makes things worse (e.g. the fabled ‘I’ll help you deal with your stubbed toe by hitting you with a hammer – chances are you aren’t worried about the toe anymore, even if nothing is improved).
Another reason that policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to identify an entity (an agent) that could take the desired action. A simple, personal argument (eat less and exercise) at least attempts to convince individual readers to take action. However, an argument about lowering tuition or gas prices has no clear person or group who is supposed to do the lowering.
Claims of policy are arguments that urge action. Typically, a claim of policy ends up as a relatively straightforward proposition—“X should be done”, but a lot of different paths might need to be taken to reach that kind of conclusion.
Overview:
A basic policy claim is an argument that something should or should not be done. For example, arguing that marijuana should be legalized or that a friend should try a new food are both claims of policy. Because policy claims argue for an action, they imply a value claim—that taking the recommended action is better than not taking it. This, in turn, means that claims of fact and definition become involved. Consequently, policy claims are some of the most complex arguments that exist.
Many academic policy arguments put forward a specific problem, and they then solve that problem with a course of action (i.e. you should do X because it makes Y better). Such arguments have an additional level of complexity, because they require that writers prove that the solution actually works.
Because policy arguments actually ask people to act in the real world, they frequently depend upon whether or not things ‘work’ in the same way that the author claims. In other words, they must make use of logos in order to demonstrate that they have validity.
Application:
College students frequently write policy arguments. Typically, a policy argument at the college level involves grappling with a single issue or justifying a single course of action. This argument must then be placed into a meaningful context. The student has to argue that the relative merits of the policy outweigh the relative costs.
It might be possible to reduce the problem of shoplifting rather dramatically, for example, if all shoplifters are simply executed. Are the merits of this approach worth the costs? The answer will vary from reader to reader, and a student’s essay on the subject would have to consider how readers will weigh the implications of such a policy.
Finally, policy arguments need to identify who has the power to take meaningful action in a situation. They must then make an argument that suggests why those with the power should, in fact, take the action.
What to Avoid:
One of the biggest reasons policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to distinguish between doing something and doing something that matters. Students should avoid thinking that all solutions are created equal. Sometimes, a supposed solution actually just makes things worse (e.g. the fabled ‘I’ll help you deal with your stubbed toe by hitting you with a hammer – chances are you aren’t worried about the toe anymore, even if nothing is improved).
Another reason that policy arguments fall apart is that they fail to identify an entity (an agent) that could take the desired action. A simple, personal argument (eat less and exercise) at least attempts to convince individual readers to take action. However, an argument about lowering tuition or gas prices has no clear person or group who is supposed to do the lowering.
