Zinn's argument centers around the idea that history should be presented from the perspective of marginalized groups, challenging traditional narratives that often omit their experiences. By highlighting the voices and struggles of these groups, Zinn aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of historical events and the impact of power dynamics. This approach can be seen as persuasive in urging readers to critically assess the biases present in mainstream historical accounts.
Does this list make his argument more or less convincing? Why?
A convincing argument is supported by strong evidence, logical reasoning, and clear presentation. Additionally, considering counterarguments and addressing them effectively can also contribute to making an argument more convincing.
No.
An argument.
The list can make the argument more convincing by providing specific examples and supporting evidence. It can make the argument less convincing if the examples are weak or irrelevant to the main point being argued. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the list in strengthening the argument depends on the relevance and quality of the examples provided.
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
It is a proof.
It confuses correlation with causation
Providing evidence to support an argument strengthens it by adding credibility and persuasiveness. It shows that the argument is based on facts and research, making it more convincing to the audience.
It's called a proof
"cogent" means powerfully persuasive, reasonable and convincing. "A cogent argument."
You could say, "There is no point convincing you that you are wrong."