After completing the assigned readings, write 2-3 page paper on the ways in which academic arguments differ from the ones you have in casual settings.

From Classroom to Society: Comparing Academic Versus Non-Academic Discourses Your name Subject and Section Professor’s name Date The difference between academic disagreements and common arguments is clear and significant. Scholarly claims present themselves as towers of erudition and call for consistently high levels of systematic thinking, documentation, and planning in the wording. Scholars should not take them as mental stunts, as they are indispensable to academic honesty and the quest for knowledge. In contrast, casual and everyday appear lively but contentious, bearing little relation to the academic context and relying on subjective experience rather than the systematic approach. This shows that while the formal and technical nature of academic arguments defines a comprehensive approach, their stringent rules and procedures are vastly different from those of casual discussions and arguments that can often be informal and ad hoc in many cases. By critically analyzing the structural, evidential, linguistic, and purposive variations of both methods of argumentation, this essay will illustrate how each method is best suited to its intended setting and audience. Firstly, both formal reasoning used by scholars and informal reasoning used in everyday conversations are persuasive and appeal to various modules in the brain; the difference lies in which of these strategies is deemed more critical depending on the situation. In particular, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that there is a significantly high level of formalism and rationalism, or logos, in academic language. This form of persuasion is based on the rationale of collecting and analyzing data, logic, and organization in arguments to support statements and convince the audience. For instance, Varpio’s (2018) analysis of rhetorical appeals explains how scholars adopt the use of structures for pro-trial with statistical sections used as primary evidence in a research paper and logical flow of argumentation in academic writing. On the contrary, in casual debates, ethos and pathos play more critical roles than logos—ethical appeal and emotional appeal, respectively. Logos strengthens the persuader and contributes to the ethical criteria; this is important for informal appeal, where character strongly influences the decisions of an individual. In contrast, pathos aims to appeal to the audience's emotions to make arguments more appealing and sensational on the human level. This emotional attachment is especially felt in the casual setting meant to appeal to the caller's sentiments rather than engage in a highly rational process that characterizes scholarly discussion (Bennett, n. d.). Secondly, the strict organization of an academic argument makes an astringent difference in persuasion compared to the loosely built presentation of casual discussions. In academic settings, arguments are typically organized with a deliberate format with an intro...