I could use the history I have previously researched and stated in my paper to back up my arguments in the persuasive part of my paper. This will provide enough support to really convince the reader as well as added information that werenít previously stated.
One example of a transition between history and the argument is:One debate that keeps coming up time and again is the topic of the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is the most widely used illegal drug. Nearly one in three teenagers have at least tried marijuana by the time they graduate high school. It is also gets the most publicity for its legalization. Over thirty pro-legalization organizations have been displayed on the Internet alone.
The legalization of marijuana, although popular by today's drug culture, would be a very dangerous and detrimental act for the United States to take part in. Not only would it destroy families, but would also lead to the fall of our economy.
They use this transition to tie the history in with the argument they are trying to convince. They use a transition saying that marijuana is a popular drug in todayís times, reinfluencing the fact they stated earlier in the previous paragraph about the statistic of teenagers and how many have tried the drug. Then they go into saying why legalization is the best bet for the united states to do.
The problem I see in that is the feeling is they just jump right into the argument without easing the reader into why they should be convinced. They also donít do a very good job at starting to convince the reader why, and it looks as if they didnít research the reasons of the opposing side very well posing a very weak argument on their side.