Writing Advice: Using Specific Illustrative Examples

large view large view

To illustrate is to show, to use pictures or images. Books with illustrations contain drawings or photos, which help readers better see (or imagine) the ideas or events of which the writer writes.

To improve the effectiveness of your own writing, consider using specific illustrative examples. Present your examples in such a way that readers can better SEE your point.

For example:

NOT ILLUSTRATIVE: Does a homeless man care that the food on his plate is only there because a teacher offered a student incentives to bring in cans during a school food drive?

ILLUSTRATIVE: Does a child living in poverty--who sleeps on a soiled mattress, whose home is infested with rats and cockroaches, whose wears the same tattered clothes each day, who hears gunshots in his neighborhood most nights, who eats little apart from his free school breakfast and lunch--does this child care that the food on his dinner plate is only there because a teacher offered a student incentives to bring cans during a school food drive?

COMMENT: Note how the illustrative example is more effective persuasively even though both entries make the same point. First, consider the central choice of a homeless man versus a poor child. People tend to believe that a homeless man can do something about his circumstances, whereas as a child is at the mercy of others. Readers will pity the child moreso and thereby be more open to changing their mind. Next, note how the added details create a picture of the child's life. The pitiful image touches the reader's emotions, again opening their heart to changing their mind.

As a writer, help your reader SEE why they should support your views. The detailed images don't change your point, but they do improve the effectiveness of your persuasion, moving many papers from the range of "adequate" scores to "effective."

AP Essay: 2008, Form B, Question 3

Write a carefully reasoned essay in which you defend, challenge, or qualify Daniel Boorstin's view in the following selection:

Dissent is the great problem of America today. It overshadows all others. It is a symptom, an expression, a consequence, and a cause of all others.

I say dissent and not disagreement. And it is the distinction between dissent and disagreement which I really want to make. Disagreement produces debate but dissent produces dissension. Dissent (which comes from Latin, dis and sentire) means originally to feel apart from others.

People who disagree have an argument, but people who dissent have a quarrel. People may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority. But a person who dissents is by definition in a minority. A liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension. Disagreement is the life blood of democracy, dissension is its cancer.

COMMENT: This prompt lends itself perfectively to the use of specific illustration examples. SHOW the cancer of dissent; SHOW the benefit of disagreement. Describe with vivid detail real or hypothetical situations. But don't forget depth of thought: Is the writer correct? Is dissension always a cancer? What about Martin Luther King's civil disobedience, where he and his followers intentionally broke laws of society in order to bring change? What about the dangers of majority rule, where the voices of the minority can be quashed and summarily ignored? The stronger papers will challenge the author's views, suggesting that it is not always so simple.

STUDENT EXAMPLES

Here follow paragraphs written by students that effectively use specific illustrative examples. Note the array of examples used, which range from historical (e.g., Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Holocaust), to contemporary (e.g., Terrell Owens, Hannity & Colmes), to the hypothetical (a man and woman talking at a bus stop).

While disagreement is usually preferable over dissent, there are some times when circumstances necessitate dissent in order to retain personal morality and attempt to improve conditions. These instances typically occur whenever the majority are in favor of an idea which is immoral and will not be moved by mere argument, usually because of fear. For instance, during the Holocaust the majority of people were in favor of Hitler's actions, and their minds could not be changed by simple rational argument because of fear the secret police. Simple argument would have done no good, and so it took bold dissentors to help alleviate the horrors of the war. Those who infiltrated the workings of the secret police, those who fled the country so that they would not be forced to aid the Nazi movement- these people would certainly qualify as dissentors under Boorstin's definition, yet their decisions are considered to be morally correct by most modern views. It is true, those actions did not take place in a democracy- but is such a travesty impossible under a democracy? During WWII, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put many innocent Japanese into internment camps, suspending the rights of habeas corpus. Lincoln declared martial law in Maryland during the civil war and similarly suspended habeas corpus. Both these men are hailed as heroes today. If these things could happen in a democracy and the perpetrator could be venerated, it is entirely possible that worse things along the lines of the Holocaust could happen in a democracy. Indeed, in modern times, there are other examples where dissent may be needed. For gay marriage, the majority of Americans who do not wish for gays to have the same legal rights as those who are straight, despite scientific evidence supporting the idea that being gay is genetic. These people will not be reasoned with due to religious conviction. Is it not necessary, then, for one to dissent and remove themselves from the majority in order to sustain personal morality? On the conservative side of the spectrum, an almost identical case could be made for abortion. When the majority fails to be moral, it is one's obligation to dissent to dissolve themselves of responsibility.

Dissent through the minority has empirically been necessitated to motivate a positive, revolutionary action that would not occur otherwise. Though some forms of dissent are counterproductive and irrational, there are still certain instances where dissent is needed to overthrow oppression. The most notable of revolutions, the American Revolution, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 – was fought to become free from the shackles of oppression that were selfishly bestowed upon them by the British through unfair taxation and policies. The pro-revolution Patriots were the brave minority in the quake of the Loyalist majority, and only through their dignified defiance of injustice could America become a freely autonomous, democratic nation. This draws two unique distinctions that directly contradict Boorstin’s view. First, dissent is needed to promote a beneficial result. In this example the dissent of the Patriots to stand up against these countless cases of injustice was the only way people would stop their complacency with being loyal to the King. Empirically, it is only through dissent that the worst governments in history are overthrown or revolutionized. The result of a free, democratic nation is good because democratic nations are less likely to go to war with other nations and they exemplify the “common man” in an attempt to mitigate social stratification (which is normally used by oppressive governments adversely). Second, it is only through the minority that radical societal change can occur. In this example the Patriots were the minority that exhibited resolute defiance – surrounded by fearful and complacent Loyalists that were the majority. Radical ideologies will only be found in the minority because the majority is normally ambivalent or mad towards ideas that would change their current economic, political, or social position, which all inhibit action. This failure to act in the face of supreme oppression, means that dissent should be encouraged, rather than condemned.

Argument and dissension have been and still remain a fundamental part of this nation’s development and government. To say that argument is okay but dissent is wrong is ludicrous. Dissension is merely an aggressive disagreement with a higher authority such as the government, yet argument and dissension remain synonymous as well as essential to this nation. The government we have today was itself a product of both argument and dissent. A group of dissenters were tired of life in British colonies and wrote the Declaration of Independence. Fiery revolutionaries like John and Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine were leaders in their time; they were the faces of a dissenting minority that led to this nation’s independence, with faces red with anger and veins pulsing in their necks as they delivered speeches of impending liberty and wrote scorching pamphlets denouncing the current government. Dissenters like these men took time to debate and argue when writing the Declaration of Independence, a declaration in which they repeatedly called their ruler a tyrant, a clear illustration of dissent. Without these dissenters and without the argument that led to the writing and revising of the Declaration of Independence, it is likely that there would not be a United States of America today. In addition, those who wrote the Constitution are prime examples of how argument and dissent were both utilized in creating our government. The Constitutional Convention was a hotbed of argument, debate, as well as passionate speeches in which opposing views met head on. This led to compromise and an exchange of ideas that helped frame the government. Dissent was also an integral part of this process. In fact, if delegates from the same state did not unanimously vote the same way on any issue, their vote was given “with dissent” from the minority within their delegation. Dissent and argument go hand in hand and can develop and fuel a government and encourage an exchange of ideas that can form a government by the people and for the people.

In the world of major league sports, confrontation between big headed egos and stubborn personalities is both unavoidable and unpreventable. When millionaire players cross paths with experienced veteran coaches, someone is bound to give. While on some teams coaches maintain a fairly friendly relationship with players there are always the opposites, and the result of such dissension is devastating. An example of this can be found on the Philadelphia eagles football team, when star wide receiver Terrell Owens criticized some of his teammates and coaching staff while preceding to forge a quarrel with them also, and as a result was released in the off-season of 07. Before Owens was released he had managed, through dissension and his cynical attitude to totally destroy the Philadelphia eagle’s locker room. Tearing coach away from the team, and causing players to choose sides on his arguments, Owens single handily divided the locker room in two factions, those who favored the coach, and those who sided with him. Owens clearly portrays the dividing powers of dissension: by complaining rather then communicating rationally, and by gossiping rather confronting Owens created a rift in between himself and his Coaches. If Owens could have merely tried to reason or even argue in a civilized manner, the results might have been a drastically different landscape. But instead Owens faced off in a full scale quarrel with head coach Andy Reid, who is often known for his fire and brimstone like nature. Man by nature will naturally come to conflict with one another, but it is at that point that one must remember that criticizing some one and arguing a point are entirely different entities. While debating with someone in a cool headed manner is acceptable, turning an argument into a person matter is not If dissension could divide a close knit team of players, it can most certainly divide a country.

Dissent leads to greater, more significant, and worse conflicts than disagreement. For example, the Civil War in America was primarily caused by dissension. The majority of the South was pro-slavery because of its economic dependence on slave labor, whereas abolitionists flourished in the North, gathering much support and protest against what they thought as the immoral and evil practice of slavery. However, because of the Southerners’ inbred pro-slavery views, they were inherently in dissent with the North. This caused the Confederate states’ withdrawal from the Union and the start of an incredibly bloody war. Dissension, not merely disagreement, caused this intense and detrimental war because of the South’s much differing opinion from the majority of the country. Disagreement, on the other hand, causes less extreme problems and can often be of value. The political TV talk show “Hannity and Colmes” is an example of how disagreement, which leads to argument, can be of benefit to both the people who partake in the argument and the viewers of the show. Sean Hannity is a conservative republican, and Alan Colmes is a liberal democrat. Together they discuss the latest politics and news, often disagreeing with each other because of their differing viewpoints. However, their opposing opinions provide good insight to each other and the viewers of their show. Thus, their disagreement is advantageous to people who enjoy staying up to date with politics and considering the opinions of many in order to fully develop an opinion of their own.

Disagreement, is necessary for development and essential for progress because of it's involvment of many people and their opposing views. Democracy is completely dependent upon people disagreeing and resolving disagreements. Dissent, typically involves more emotion and is generally more isolated than disagreement, making it a more hazardous substance to democracy. However, dissent, to a certain degree, is always involved with disagreement. Consider a man and a woman making small talk about politics as they wait for their bus in the morning on their way to work, when the man, an ardent, conservative Republican makes a comment about women in the workplace that offends the passionate, liberal, Democratic woman. This opens up a debate about feminism and gender stereotypes. Though both people may bring in valid points and not attack the other, there is always some emotion involved, something is motivating him or her to continue this debate. Something is driving the single, first-generation immigrant, mother of two, who works full time to make sure her children don't go to bed hungry, to convince the aged and balding, wealthy, corpulent man that his views are illogical. Each side considers the other and they both continue to refute. Though eventually an agreement can be made, there must have been some dissent present because if either person truly considered the other, there would be no argument. Dissent is what keeps the argument going strong, and keeps one side from completely forfeiting to the opposition. If people like the young, hard-working woman did not dissent at least a little, people like the older man would always have their way, therefore encouraging him to be more close-minded and dissent more often. There is a delicate balance, yes, too much dissent can lead to the death of democracy because nothing is produced, however, dissent to some degree may still contribute to development because there must be some dissent in the opposition for there to be a real argument.

Disagreement is an indispensable component of any legitimate democratic government because it leads to deeper justification of ideas and ultimately better compromises, which are dire necessities of a successful government. However, in many cases disagreement is not sufficient and dissent is necessary to reach a greater goal or purpose. In these situations, disagreement is preferred over dissent, but dissent ultimately is needed to reach the goal. This is evident while looking back at American History. In the years leading up to the Civil War, the North and South had many disagreements. The North was mostly pro-abolition and the South was strongly pro-slavery. Northern abolitionists argued that slavery was morally wrong, and that the harsh treatment of slaves was clearly wrong. Pro-slavery supporters in the South argued that their slaves had benefits of shelter, food, and most importantly, they were introduced to Christianity. Both sides had countless disagreements which were lightly addressed in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. Even with these compromises that addressed the disagreements of both sides, the problem did not go away. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th president of the United States. With his election, seven Southern states dissented from the Union. There dissention directly resulted to the Civil War, which resulted in the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union. While the disagreements between the states helped quiet problems, ultimately it was dissent which helped solve the greatest spectacle in American History. Because dissent can solve issues that sometimes disagreement by itself cannot, dissent is not necessarily crippling to democracy or to humanity as a whole. It can be of great value in times where peaceful disagreement fails, and conflict is needed.

Teacher Websites © 2009 SchoolWorld