A persuasion essay is a written argument in which you state a claim regarding a certain issue. You may find that you need to argue your case in school as well as in your personal and/or professional life. Your professors may ask you to prepare not only written persuasion pieces but also oralSpoken aloud, as in oral arguments made in a court of law. arguments. It is a skill that will serve you well when you want to persuadeTo convince someone of a claim or idea. your professor you are the strongest candidate for that assistant position in the new biology laboratory, or when you want to win the new marketing account at the office. The ability to assert and back up your position with evidentiary support is also useful in personal relationships, in a sales situation, or in any circumstance in which you feel strongly and passionately about an issue.

Read the following example that demonstrates how to write a multi-page persuasion essay following the twelve-step writing process above. The essay follows MLA citation rules. A final version of the same essay in APA style follows.

Step 1: Understand the assignment.

The assignment is to write a persuasion essay. The first step is to choose a controversial topic about which I have a strong opinion.

I choose to write about the practice of cities banning pit bulls because some people believe they are too dangerous to be around people.

Step 2: Write your thesis.

Thesis statement: Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.

Step 3: Research your topic.

• Search the Internet for discussion on legislation banning pit bulls. Find both pro and con sites.
• Learn more about the history and characteristics of pit bulls. What do people like and fear about them?
• Look up dog attack statistics. How dangerous are pit bulls and how do they compare to other dogs?
• Document the results of pit bull bans that have already been passed. How do owners respond? Are they enforceable? Effective? Do dog bites decrease?

Step 4: Prewrite.

There are many different prewriting methods. Creating an outline is a good way to organize ideas.

1. Introductory Paragraph
   1. Hook: Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now, some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill.
   2. Tone: Purposeful and fair, but with conviction.
   3. Background: In the last few decades, most of the outrage over dog bites has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls.
   4. Thesis: Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.
2. Body Paragraphs
   1. Counterarguments
      1. Opposing viewpoint 1: Pit bulls are inherently aggressive, unpredictable, and dangerous because they are bred to fight.
      2. Opposing viewpoint 2: Statistics show that pit bulls attack and kill more people than any other dogs.
      3. Opposing viewpoint 3: Pit bulls are used in illegal, unwanted activities such as dog fighting and drug dealing.
      4. Opposing viewpoint 4: People are justifiably frightened of pit bulls, and the public should not be afraid to walk the sidewalks or parks.
      5. Transition to support for thesis: Most of these arguments can be shown to be wrong or irrelevant. The public does deserve to walk outside without fear of dog attacks, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.
   2. Main Supporting Point 1: Pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.
      1. Evidence: There is no such breed as a "pit bull."
      2. Analysis: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, even though each has its own disposition and characteristics.
      3. Evidence: Historically, the kinds of dogs now called pit bulls were praised as smart, brave, reliable family pets.
      4. Analysis: Although pit bulls have a reputation for viciousness today, not long ago they were praised as loyal and brave. They were popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on TV. Despite their current unsavory reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, search and rescue, military, and police dogs. Clearly these animals are not all wild killers.
      5. Evidence: Aggressiveness is more a matter of socialization and training than genetics.
      6. Evidence: The statistics on attacks by "pit bull type" dogs are flawed and unreliable.
      7. Analysis: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) records show pit bulls are responsible for more than thirty percent of fatal attacks on humans. But the same study says these statistics are unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull, especially given their reputation.
      8. Link: Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted.
   3. Main Supporting Point 2: Pit bull bans will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety.
      1. Evidence: Enforcement is very difficult.
      2. Analysis: Since there really is no "pit bull" breed, there's no way to consistently enforce a ban.
      3. Evidence: If pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary looking dogs will just switch to another large breed. Banning a breed can also make them even more popular among criminals.
      4. Evidence: Bans drive pit bull owners underground. Dogs remain in the community, but are much less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care.
      5. Analysis: Dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately.
      6. Analysis: Veterinarians can help owners identify potentially dangerous traits and direct them to proper training. Vaccinated dogs that do bite will at least not spread disease. Licensed dogs are easier for animal control to identify and keep track of.
      7. Analysis: Past attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears do simply shift to another breed. For example, from German Shepherds in the seventies to Dobermans in the eighties to Pit Bulls now.
      8. Evidence: All types of dogs can and do bite. Eliminating pit bulls will not prevent dog attacks.
      9. Analysis: CDC statistics do show that all dog breeds have been known to bite, and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs.
      10. Link: A number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell).
   4. Main Supporting Point 3: It is more effective to remove individual problem dogs than to ban entire breeds.
      1. Evidence: It's a waste of time and limited resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems.
      2. Evidence: By paying more attention to complaints about uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws.
      3. Analysis: Every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs present and the types of human/dog interactions. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings.
      4. Analysis: Many dog bites are caused by unleashed or free-roaming dogs. Stricter enforcement of leash laws would make a huge difference.
      5. Analysis: Animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed. Complaints about aggressive or loose dogs are hard to follow up on. Better funding would make it easier for cities to investigate and correct problem dogs and their owners.
      6. Link: Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.
3. Concluding Paragraph
   1. Synthesis: Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense.
   2. Final impression: The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.

Step 5: Write the body of your essay.

Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed. Citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Pit bulls are bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are the most common breed used in dog fighting, and they seem to be the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but a closer look shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong.

A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, it turns out that there is no such breed as a pit bull. The ASPCA says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the 1900s they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on TV. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding. Dogs aren't born bad; they're made that way by irresponsible owners.

Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While government records do list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the same study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull.

Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care. This is bad all around, because dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary looking dogs will just switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. The same statistics referenced above show that all dog breeds have been known to bite, and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs.

I suggest that the best way to reduce injuries and deaths is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. Many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. Every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size fits all legislation.

Step 6: Identify gaps in your argument.

1. Counterarguments

• Include statistics and/citation on pit bull attacks.
• Add a better transition from counterargument to arguments.

2. Pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.

• Provide examples of good behavior in pit bulls to contrast with bad reputation.

3. Pit bull bans will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety.

• Any data on the results of breed-specific bans? How have they worked in the past?

4. It is more effective to focus on removing individual problem dogs than banning entire breeds.

• Include more alternative ways to reduce dog attacks.

Step 7: Do more research.

• Find out if other types of dogs have been banned in the past. What was the result over the long term?
• Check anti-ban debates for specifics on other ways to reduce attacks.
• Check for more recent statistics on pit bulls and other dogs.

Step 8: Write a conclusion.

Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.

Step 9: Write an introduction.

Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now, some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.

Step 10: Cite your sources.

• Paragraph 2, paraphrase: statistics on pit bull attacks from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, pages 836-837
• Paragraph 3, paraphrase: ASPCA pit bull breed information from ASPCA.org, no page
• Paragraph 3, paraphrase: aggressiveness linked to socialization and breeding from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 839
• Paragraph 4, paraphrase: study information from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 838
• Paragraph 5, direct quote: Sacks et al. caution that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite" from Sacks, Sinclair, and Gilchrist, page 838
• Paragraph 6, paraphrase: Community-based approach to dog attacks from American Veterinary Medical Association, page 1733

Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.

Works Cited

Step 12: Revise your essay.

Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all MLA guidelines for final essays.

MLA style

Ban the Biters, Not the Pit Bulls

            Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.

            Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed (Sacks et al. 836-37). They say that citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Some people think that pit bulls have been bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are supposedly the most common breed used in dog fighting, and the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but careful examination shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong. The public does indeed deserve to walk outside without fear of a dog attack, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.

            A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, there is no such breed as a pit bull. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the nineteen hundreds they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on television (ASPCA). Even with their current bad reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, and search and rescue dogs. Clearly, they are not all uncontrollable killers. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding (Sacks et al. 839). Dogs aren't born bad, they're made that way by irresponsible owners.

            Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While the study by Sacks et al. does list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull (838).

            Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care (Sacks et al. 840). This would be a very negative consequence, because according to the ASPCA, dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, the study by Sacks et al. cautions that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite" and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs (838). Basically, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary-looking dogs will likely switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. This is why a number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell). Attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears simply shift to another breed. For example, over the past several decades the public's image of dangerous dogs has changed from German Shepherds to Dobermans to pit bulls.

            The best way to reduce injuries and deaths from dog bites is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. The American Veterinary Medical Association recommends a community-based approached to the issue (1733). It says that many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. It is a waste of time and resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems, especially since animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed (American Veterinary Medical Association 1736). By paying more attention to complaints about specific uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Additionally, every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.

            Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.

Works Cited

Note: The following essay has been properly cited, but it is not formatted according to all APA guidelines for final essays.

APA style

Ban the Biters, Not the Pit Bulls

            Thousands of years ago, man and dog came out of the wilderness together. Now some cities want to cast one of our best friends back into the darkness because dogs bite, and sometimes they kill. Although deaths are rare, they are horrifying and tend to raise a public outcry. In the last few decades, most of the outrage has been directed at pit bulls. In an effort to reduce human fatalities due to dog bites, many cities have enacted laws banning pit bulls. Unfortunately, these efforts to protect the public from danger have not and will not work. Municipalities should not pass laws banning pit bulls because breed-specific legislation generally causes more harm than good to both people and dogs.

            Many people say it makes sense to ban pit bulls from cities because they are simply too dangerous to be around. They point to statistics showing that these animals attack and kill more humans than any other dog breed (Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, & Lockwood, 2000, pp. 836-837). They say that citizens have a right to walk down the street or visit a park without fear, but that isn't possible when pit bulls are around. Some people think that pit bulls have been bred to attack and to fight to the death, and this has made the breed unpredictable and aggressive. Proponents of bans also claim that besides injuring and killing people and pets, pit bulls are tied to other illegal activities. They are supposedly the most common breed used in dog fighting, and the guard dog of choice for drug dealers and other criminals. Banning pit bulls could go a long way in discouraging those kinds of unsavory behaviors, according to the pro-ban crowd. These arguments may sound persuasive, but careful examination shows that they range from irrelevant to downright wrong. The public does indeed deserve to walk outside without fear of a dog attack, but banning pit bulls will not make that happen.

            A closer look at pit bulls and the hype surrounding them shows that they are not more dangerous than other dogs. For one thing, there is no such breed as a pit bull. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA, n.d.) says a dozen or more different breeds are often lumped under the label, and each has its own disposition and characteristics. This fact negates the claims that pit bulls are both genetically and actually more aggressive than other canines. Although pit bull type dogs have a reputation for viciousness today, for most of the nineteen hundreds they were praised as loyal and brave, popular in advertising, as mascots, as family pets, and on television (ASPCA, n.d.). Even with their current bad reputation, the animals are regularly used as seeing eye, therapy, and search and rescue dogs. Clearly, they are not all uncontrollable killers. Animal behaviorists and veterinarians also point out that aggressiveness in dogs is related far more to socialization and training than to breeding (Sacks et al., 2000, p. 839). Dogs aren't born bad, they're made that way by irresponsible owners.

            Because there isn't a true pit bull breed, the statistics that ban advocates use cannot be trusted. While the study by Sacks et al. (2000) does list pit bulls as the biggest single cause of fatal dog attacks, the study calls its own figures unreliable because people tend to call any large dog with a big head and short coat a pit bull (p. 838).

            Another major flaw with pit bull bans is that they will not reduce dog attacks or increase public safety. Because there's really no such thing as a pit bull, there's no easy or consistent way to enforce such a ban. However, fear for their dogs would drive pit bull owners underground, meaning the dogs would remain in the community, but be less likely to be vaccinated, trained, licensed, or receive proper veterinary care (Sacks et al., 2000, p. 840). This would be a very negative consequence, because according to the ASPCA, dogs that are socialized, trained, and well-cared for are much more likely to behave appropriately. In addition, the study by Sacks et al. (2000) cautions that "any dog of any breed has the potential to bite," and that severe and fatal attacks on humans have been caused by many non-pit bull type dogs (p. 838). Basically, if pit bulls are banned, people who want aggressive or scary-looking dogs will likely switch to another large breed. Banning a breed might even make them more popular among criminals. This is why a number of states have found pit bull bans so problematic that they now forbid breed-specific laws (Campbell, 2009). Attempts at breed-specific legislation show that problems and fears simply shift to another breed. For example, over the past several decades the public's image of dangerous dogs has changed from German Shepherds to Dobermans to pit bulls.

            The best way to reduce injuries and deaths from dog bites is to focus on removing individual problem dogs rather than banning entire breeds. The American Veterinary Medical Association (2001) recommends a community-based approached to the issue (p. 1733). It says that many attacks could be prevented simply by vigorous enforcement of leash laws. It is a waste of time and resources to find and remove dogs that are not causing problems, especially since animal control departments are generally underfunded and understaffed (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2001, p. 1736). By paying more attention to complaints about specific uncontrolled or aggressive dogs and sanctioning owners who do not correct problems, bad behavior may be corrected before it escalates. Additionally, every community is different in terms of the kinds of dogs that are present and the ways in which humans and dogs interact. Approaches to reduce biting that work in urban areas may not be useful in rural settings. Dog bites are a serious public health problem, one that won't be solved by knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all legislation.

            Banning pit bulls is an idea that goes against research, experience, and common sense. Dog attacks are tragic, and every reasonable step should be taken to make them even rarer than they already are. But taking beloved pets and useful service dogs away from those who treasure them is not the answer. Those who know the most about the situation – health officials who study dog bites and fatalities, and professional organizations of animal trainers and caregivers – agree that pit bull type dogs have been falsely accused. The statistics that claim to show their aggressiveness are flawed and have been exaggerated by media hype. Dogs, like people, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most effective way to reduce bites is not to condemn an entire breed but to use community-based approaches that concentrate on correcting or containing bad behavior in individual dogs and irresponsible owners.

References

Now it's your turn to write a multi-page (600 - 900 words) persuasion essay following the twelve-step writing process. For your topic, take a position on a debatable subject.

Topic ideas:

• Whether cigarette smoking should be allowed or banned in all outdoor public spaces.
• Whether or not motorcyclists should be required to wear helmets.
• Whether or not public transportation (such as city buses) should be funded by taxes and free to all people.

Be sure to incorporate research to support your personal opinion. You may use either MLA or APA format for your citations, depending on your instructor's preference. (The sample student work follows MLA style; an alternate version of the final paper using APA style is also provided.)

Step 1: Understand the assignment.

What is the assignment?

Step 2: Write your thesis.

Write your thesis statement.

Step 3: Research your topic.

Indicate how you will research the topic.

Step 4: Prewrite.

Pick a method of prewriting. Show your brainstorming here.

Step 5: Write the body of your essay.

Write a rough draft of the body paragraphs of your essay.

Step 6: Identify gaps in your argument.

Indicate where you would like to add information to your essay.

Step 7: Do more research.

Indicate how you will do more research to fill in gaps in your argument.

Step 8: Write a conclusion.

Write a concluding paragraph.

Step 9: Write an introduction.

Write an introductory paragraph.

Step 10: Cite your sources.

List your sources and locations for in-text citations.

Step 11: Create a works cited or references page.

Create your works cited of references page.

Step 12: Revise your essay.

Write the final draft of your essay using MLA or APA formatting.

When might you need to write a persuasion essay?