I am currently working on an essay designed to probe the question, “When should we start treating private companies more like public entities?“ Essays are essentially structured arguments. But the real work isn’t about figuring out what to argue but how to argue. This means visualizing the argument, which I’ve spent 4-5 hours iterating already in Miro, using a “sticky note” approach to argument construction. While I’ve certainly made progress, I’m feeling a bit stuck. So, in true EFI fashion, I’ve decided to write about this process in more of a creative writing format to get unstuck. Below is somewhat of a stream of consciousness based on what I think is working or not working:
- The thesis itself is solid. In this case, I argue that due process should be enforced upon private firms when the firm acts like a local, state, or federal government. The thesis is sharp and explicit. It’s also big enough and powerful enough to carry the weight of the paper. Sometimes, a thesis may be valid, but it runs out of steam halfway through the paper because there’s insufficient argument.
- I can point to examples of private firms acting like government agencies, specifically in cases where private firms have disproportional economic and employment impacts when their products and services affect the general public’s safety and exert influence on public opinion and democracy.
- I haven’t yet reconciled whether the examples are the argument or if “examples” are merely one part of a three-part argument. This begs the question of what makes a stronger argument. I’m trying to figure out what supporting points will make the strongest possible argument. Would that be examples pointing to firms acting like government, or is it better to go broad, examining the thesis, including definitions, examples, and impact? After much deliberation, I’ve arrived at the idea of using examples as part of the argument without depending entirely on examples to prove the argument. The thinking here is that examples are naturally included in the argument when made part of the larger argument, and nothing is forfeited when taking this approach. It also reinforces the first point about choosing a theme (and argument structure) that doesn’t run out of steam.