notes about argumentative essay

8 Effective Strategies to Write Argumentative Essays

In a bustling university town, there lived a student named Alex. Popular for creativity and wit, one challenge seemed insurmountable for Alex– the dreaded argumentative essay!

One gloomy afternoon, as the rain tapped against the window pane, Alex sat at his cluttered desk, staring at a blank document on the computer screen. The assignment loomed large: a 350-600-word argumentative essay on a topic of their choice . With a sigh, he decided to seek help of mentor, Professor Mitchell, who was known for his passion for writing.

Entering Professor Mitchell’s office was like stepping into a treasure of knowledge. Bookshelves lined every wall, faint aroma of old manuscripts in the air and sticky notes over the wall. Alex took a deep breath and knocked on his door.

“Ah, Alex,” Professor Mitchell greeted with a warm smile. “What brings you here today?”

Alex confessed his struggles with the argumentative essay. After hearing his concerns, Professor Mitchell said, “Ah, the argumentative essay! Don’t worry, Let’s take a look at it together.” As he guided Alex to the corner shelf, Alex asked,

Table of Contents

“What is an Argumentative Essay?”

The professor replied, “An argumentative essay is a type of academic writing that presents a clear argument or a firm position on a contentious issue. Unlike other forms of essays, such as descriptive or narrative essays, these essays require you to take a stance, present evidence, and convince your audience of the validity of your viewpoint with supporting evidence. A well-crafted argumentative essay relies on concrete facts and supporting evidence rather than merely expressing the author’s personal opinions . Furthermore, these essays demand comprehensive research on the chosen topic and typically follows a structured format consisting of three primary sections: an introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph.”

He continued, “Argumentative essays are written in a wide range of subject areas, reflecting their applicability across disciplines. They are written in different subject areas like literature and philosophy, history, science and technology, political science, psychology, economics and so on.

Alex asked,

“When is an Argumentative Essay Written?”

The professor answered, “Argumentative essays are often assigned in academic settings, but they can also be written for various other purposes, such as editorials, opinion pieces, or blog posts. Some situations to write argumentative essays include:

1. Academic assignments

In school or college, teachers may assign argumentative essays as part of coursework. It help students to develop critical thinking and persuasive writing skills .

2. Debates and discussions

Argumentative essays can serve as the basis for debates or discussions in academic or competitive settings. Moreover, they provide a structured way to present and defend your viewpoint.

3. Opinion pieces

Newspapers, magazines, and online publications often feature opinion pieces that present an argument on a current issue or topic to influence public opinion.

4. Policy proposals

In government and policy-related fields, argumentative essays are used to propose and defend specific policy changes or solutions to societal problems.

5. Persuasive speeches

Before delivering a persuasive speech, it’s common to prepare an argumentative essay as a foundation for your presentation.

Regardless of the context, an argumentative essay should present a clear thesis statement , provide evidence and reasoning to support your position, address counterarguments, and conclude with a compelling summary of your main points. The goal is to persuade readers or listeners to accept your viewpoint or at least consider it seriously.”

Handing over a book, the professor continued, “Take a look on the elements or structure of an argumentative essay.”

Elements of an Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay comprises five essential components:

Claim in argumentative writing is the central argument or viewpoint that the writer aims to establish and defend throughout the essay. A claim must assert your position on an issue and must be arguable. It can guide the entire argument.

2. Evidence

Evidence must consist of factual information, data, examples, or expert opinions that support the claim. Also, it lends credibility by strengthening the writer’s position.

3. Counterarguments

Presenting a counterclaim demonstrates fairness and awareness of alternative perspectives.

4. Rebuttal

After presenting the counterclaim, the writer refutes it by offering counterarguments or providing evidence that weakens the opposing viewpoint. It shows that the writer has considered multiple perspectives and is prepared to defend their position.

The format of an argumentative essay typically follows the structure to ensure clarity and effectiveness in presenting an argument.

How to Write An Argumentative Essay

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an argumentative essay:

1. Introduction

• Begin with a compelling sentence or question to grab the reader’s attention.
• Provide context for the issue, including relevant facts, statistics, or historical background.
• Provide a concise thesis statement to present your position on the topic.

2. Body Paragraphs (usually three or more)

• Start each paragraph with a clear and focused topic sentence that relates to your thesis statement.
• Furthermore, provide evidence and explain the facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and quotations from credible sources that supports your thesis.
• Use transition sentences to smoothly move from one point to the next.

3. Counterargument and Rebuttal

• Acknowledge opposing viewpoints or potential objections to your argument.
• Also, address these counterarguments with evidence and explain why they do not weaken your position.

4. Conclusion

• Restate your thesis statement and summarize the key points you’ve made in the body of the essay.
• Leave the reader with a final thought, call to action, or broader implication related to the topic.

5. Citations and References

• Properly cite all the sources you use in your essay using a consistent citation style.
• Also, include a bibliography or works cited at the end of your essay.

6. Formatting and Style

• Follow any specific formatting guidelines provided by your instructor or institution.
• Use a professional and academic tone in your writing and edit your essay to avoid content, spelling and grammar mistakes .

Remember that the specific requirements for formatting an argumentative essay may vary depending on your instructor’s guidelines or the citation style you’re using (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Always check the assignment instructions or style guide for any additional requirements or variations in formatting.

Did you understand what Prof. Mitchell explained Alex? Check it now!

Fill the Details to Check Your Score

Prof. Mitchell continued, “An argumentative essay can adopt various approaches when dealing with opposing perspectives. It may offer a balanced presentation of both sides, providing equal weight to each, or it may advocate more strongly for one side while still acknowledging the existence of opposing views.” As Alex listened carefully to the Professor’s thoughts, his eyes fell on a page with examples of argumentative essay.

Example of an Argumentative Essay

Alex picked the book and read the example. It helped him to understand the concept. Furthermore, he could now connect better to the elements and steps of the essay which Prof. Mitchell had mentioned earlier. Aren’t you keen to know how an argumentative essay should be like? Here is an example of a well-crafted argumentative essay , which was read by Alex. After Alex finished reading the example, the professor turned the page and continued, “Check this page to know the importance of writing an argumentative essay in developing skills of an individual.”

Importance of an Argumentative Essay

After understanding the benefits, Alex was convinced by the ability of the argumentative essays in advocating one’s beliefs and favor the author’s position. Alex asked,

“How are argumentative essays different from the other types?”

Prof. Mitchell answered, “Argumentative essays differ from other types of essays primarily in their purpose, structure, and approach in presenting information. Unlike expository essays, argumentative essays persuade the reader to adopt a particular point of view or take a specific action on a controversial issue. Furthermore, they differ from descriptive essays by not focusing vividly on describing a topic. Also, they are less engaging through storytelling as compared to the narrative essays.

Alex said, “Given the direct and persuasive nature of argumentative essays, can you suggest some strategies to write an effective argumentative essay?

Turning the pages of the book, Prof. Mitchell replied, “Sure! You can check this infographic to get some tips for writing an argumentative essay.”

Effective Strategies to Write an Argumentative Essay

As days turned into weeks, Alex diligently worked on his essay. He researched, gathered evidence, and refined his thesis. It was a long and challenging journey, filled with countless drafts and revisions.

Finally, the day arrived when Alex submitted their essay. As he clicked the “Submit” button, a sense of accomplishment washed over him. He realized that the argumentative essay, while challenging, had improved his critical thinking and transformed him into a more confident writer. Furthermore, Alex received feedback from his professor, a mix of praise and constructive criticism. It was a humbling experience, a reminder that every journey has its obstacles and opportunities for growth.

Frequently Asked Questions

An argumentative essay can be written as follows- 1. Choose a Topic 2. Research and Collect Evidences 3. Develop a Clear Thesis Statement 4. Outline Your Essay- Introduction, Body Paragraphs and Conclusion 5. Revise and Edit 6. Format and Cite Sources 7. Final Review

One must choose a clear, concise and specific statement as a claim. It must be debatable and establish your position. Avoid using ambiguous or unclear while making a claim. To strengthen your claim, address potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints. Additionally, use persuasive language and rhetoric to make your claim more compelling

Starting an argument essay effectively is crucial to engage your readers and establish the context for your argument. Here’s how you can start an argument essay are: 1. Begin With an Engaging Hook 2. Provide Background Information 3. Present Your Thesis Statement 4. Briefly Outline Your Main 5. Establish Your Credibility

The key features of an argumentative essay are: 1. Clear and Specific Thesis Statement 2. Credible Evidence 3. Counterarguments 4. Structured Body Paragraph 5. Logical Flow 6. Use of Persuasive Techniques 7. Formal Language

An argumentative essay typically consists of the following main parts or sections: 1. Introduction 2. Body Paragraphs 3. Counterargument and Rebuttal 4. Conclusion 5. References (if applicable)

The main purpose of an argumentative essay is to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a particular viewpoint or position on a controversial or debatable topic. In other words, the primary goal of an argumentative essay is to convince the audience that the author's argument or thesis statement is valid, logical, and well-supported by evidence and reasoning.

Great article! The topic is simplified well! Keep up the good work

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Industry News

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

• Reporting Research

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

We define an argumentative essay as a type of essay that presents arguments about both sides of an issue. The purpose is to convince the reader to accept a particular viewpoint or action. In an argumentative essay, the writer takes a stance on a controversial or debatable topic and supports their position with evidence, reasoning, and examples. The essay should also address counterarguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic.

Table of Contents

• What is an argumentative essay?  
• Argumentative essay structure 
• Argumentative essay outline 
• Types of argument claims 

How to write an argumentative essay?

• Argumentative essay writing tips 
• Good argumentative essay example 

How to write a good thesis

• How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an argumentative essay.

An argumentative essay is a type of writing that presents a coherent and logical analysis of a specific topic. 1 The goal is to convince the reader to accept the writer’s point of view or opinion on a particular issue. Here are the key elements of an argumentative essay: 

• Thesis Statement : The central claim or argument that the essay aims to prove. 
• Introduction : Provides background information and introduces the thesis statement. 
• Body Paragraphs : Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, presents evidence, and may include counter arguments. 

Articulate your thesis statement better with Paperpal. Start writing now!

• Evidence : Supports the main argument with relevant facts, examples, statistics, or expert opinions. 
• Counterarguments : Anticipates and addresses opposing viewpoints to strengthen the overall argument. 
• Conclusion : Summarizes the main points, reinforces the thesis, and may suggest implications or actions. 

Argumentative essay structure

Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin are three distinct approaches to argumentative essay structures, each with its principles and methods. 2 The choice depends on the purpose and nature of the topic. Here’s an overview of each type of argumentative essay format.

Have a looming deadline for your argumentative essay? Write 2x faster with Paperpal – Start now!  

Argumentative essay outline

An argumentative essay presents a specific claim or argument and supports it with evidence and reasoning. Here’s an outline for an argumentative essay, along with examples for each section: 3  

1.  Introduction : 

• Hook : Start with a compelling statement, question, or anecdote to grab the reader’s attention. 

Example: “Did you know that plastic pollution is threatening marine life at an alarming rate?” 

• Background information : Provide brief context about the issue. 

Example: “Plastic pollution has become a global environmental concern, with millions of tons of plastic waste entering our oceans yearly.” 

• Thesis statement : Clearly state your main argument or position. 

Example: “We must take immediate action to reduce plastic usage and implement more sustainable alternatives to protect our marine ecosystem.” 

2.  Body Paragraphs : 

• Topic sentence : Introduce the main idea of each paragraph. 

Example: “The first step towards addressing the plastic pollution crisis is reducing single-use plastic consumption.” 

• Evidence/Support : Provide evidence, facts, statistics, or examples that support your argument. 

Example: “Research shows that plastic straws alone contribute to millions of tons of plastic waste annually, and many marine animals suffer from ingestion or entanglement.” 

• Counterargument/Refutation : Acknowledge and refute opposing viewpoints. 

Example: “Some argue that banning plastic straws is inconvenient for consumers, but the long-term environmental benefits far outweigh the temporary inconvenience.” 

• Transition : Connect each paragraph to the next. 

Example: “Having addressed the issue of single-use plastics, the focus must now shift to promoting sustainable alternatives.” 

3.  Counterargument Paragraph : 

• Acknowledgement of opposing views : Recognize alternative perspectives on the issue. 

Example: “While some may argue that individual actions cannot significantly impact global plastic pollution, the cumulative effect of collective efforts must be considered.” 

• Counterargument and rebuttal : Present and refute the main counterargument. 

Example: “However, individual actions, when multiplied across millions of people, can substantially reduce plastic waste. Small changes in behavior, such as using reusable bags and containers, can have a significant positive impact.” 

4.  Conclusion : 

• Restatement of thesis : Summarize your main argument. 

Example: “In conclusion, adopting sustainable practices and reducing single-use plastic is crucial for preserving our oceans and marine life.” 

• Call to action : Encourage the reader to take specific steps or consider the argument’s implications. 

Example: “It is our responsibility to make environmentally conscious choices and advocate for policies that prioritize the health of our planet. By collectively embracing sustainable alternatives, we can contribute to a cleaner and healthier future.” 

Types of argument claims

A claim is a statement or proposition a writer puts forward with evidence to persuade the reader. 4 Here are some common types of argument claims, along with examples: 

• Fact Claims : These claims assert that something is true or false and can often be verified through evidence.  Example: “Water boils at 100°C at sea level.”
• Value Claims : Value claims express judgments about the worth or morality of something, often based on personal beliefs or societal values. Example: “Organic farming is more ethical than conventional farming.” 
• Policy Claims : Policy claims propose a course of action or argue for a specific policy, law, or regulation change.  Example: “Schools should adopt a year-round education system to improve student learning outcomes.” 
• Cause and Effect Claims : These claims argue that one event or condition leads to another, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Example: “Excessive use of social media is a leading cause of increased feelings of loneliness among young adults.” 
• Definition Claims : Definition claims assert the meaning or classification of a concept or term.  Example: “Artificial intelligence can be defined as machines exhibiting human-like cognitive functions.” 
• Comparative Claims : Comparative claims assert that one thing is better or worse than another in certain respects.  Example: “Online education is more cost-effective than traditional classroom learning.” 
• Evaluation Claims : Evaluation claims assess the quality, significance, or effectiveness of something based on specific criteria.  Example: “The new healthcare policy is more effective in providing affordable healthcare to all citizens.” 

Understanding these argument claims can help writers construct more persuasive and well-supported arguments tailored to the specific nature of the claim.  

If you’re wondering how to start an argumentative essay, here’s a step-by-step guide to help you with the argumentative essay format and writing process.

• Choose a Topic: Select a topic that you are passionate about or interested in. Ensure that the topic is debatable and has two or more sides.
• Define Your Position: Clearly state your stance on the issue. Consider opposing viewpoints and be ready to counter them.
• Conduct Research: Gather relevant information from credible sources, such as books, articles, and academic journals. Take notes on key points and supporting evidence.
• Create a Thesis Statement: Develop a concise and clear thesis statement that outlines your main argument. Convey your position on the issue and provide a roadmap for the essay.
• Outline Your Argumentative Essay: Organize your ideas logically by creating an outline. Include an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each body paragraph should focus on a single point that supports your thesis.
• Write the Introduction: Start with a hook to grab the reader’s attention (a quote, a question, a surprising fact). Provide background information on the topic. Present your thesis statement at the end of the introduction.
• Develop Body Paragraphs: Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that relates to the thesis. Support your points with evidence and examples. Address counterarguments and refute them to strengthen your position. Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs.
• Address Counterarguments: Acknowledge and respond to opposing viewpoints. Anticipate objections and provide evidence to counter them.
• Write the Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your argumentative essay. Reinforce the significance of your argument. End with a call to action, a prediction, or a thought-provoking statement.
• Revise, Edit, and Share: Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Check for grammatical and spelling errors. Share your essay with peers, friends, or instructors for constructive feedback.
• Finalize Your Argumentative Essay: Make final edits based on feedback received. Ensure that your essay follows the required formatting and citation style.

Struggling to start your argumentative essay? Paperpal can help – try now!   

Argumentative essay writing tips

Here are eight strategies to craft a compelling argumentative essay: 

• Choose a Clear and Controversial Topic : Select a topic that sparks debate and has opposing viewpoints. A clear and controversial issue provides a solid foundation for a strong argument. 
• Conduct Thorough Research : Gather relevant information from reputable sources to support your argument. Use a variety of sources, such as academic journals, books, reputable websites, and expert opinions, to strengthen your position. 
• Create a Strong Thesis Statement : Clearly articulate your main argument in a concise thesis statement. Your thesis should convey your stance on the issue and provide a roadmap for the reader to follow your argument. 
• Develop a Logical Structure : Organize your essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each paragraph should focus on a specific point of evidence that contributes to your overall argument. Ensure a logical flow from one point to the next. 
• Provide Strong Evidence : Support your claims with solid evidence. Use facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions to support your arguments. Be sure to cite your sources appropriately to maintain credibility. 
• Address Counterarguments : Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and counterarguments. Addressing and refuting alternative perspectives strengthens your essay and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue. Be mindful of maintaining a respectful tone even when discussing opposing views. 
• Use Persuasive Language : Employ persuasive language to make your points effectively. Avoid emotional appeals without supporting evidence and strive for a respectful and professional tone. 
• Craft a Compelling Conclusion : Summarize your main points, restate your thesis, and leave a lasting impression in your conclusion. Encourage readers to consider the implications of your argument and potentially take action. 

Good argumentative essay example

Let’s consider a sample of argumentative essay on how social media enhances connectivity:

In the digital age, social media has emerged as a powerful tool that transcends geographical boundaries, connecting individuals from diverse backgrounds and providing a platform for an array of voices to be heard. While critics argue that social media fosters division and amplifies negativity, it is essential to recognize the positive aspects of this digital revolution and how it enhances connectivity by providing a platform for diverse voices to flourish. One of the primary benefits of social media is its ability to facilitate instant communication and connection across the globe. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram break down geographical barriers, enabling people to establish and maintain relationships regardless of physical location and fostering a sense of global community. Furthermore, social media has transformed how people stay connected with friends and family. Whether separated by miles or time zones, social media ensures that relationships remain dynamic and relevant, contributing to a more interconnected world. Moreover, social media has played a pivotal role in giving voice to social justice movements and marginalized communities. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #ClimateStrike have gained momentum through social media, allowing individuals to share their stories and advocate for change on a global scale. This digital activism can shape public opinion and hold institutions accountable. Social media platforms provide a dynamic space for open dialogue and discourse. Users can engage in discussions, share information, and challenge each other’s perspectives, fostering a culture of critical thinking. This open exchange of ideas contributes to a more informed and enlightened society where individuals can broaden their horizons and develop a nuanced understanding of complex issues. While criticisms of social media abound, it is crucial to recognize its positive impact on connectivity and the amplification of diverse voices. Social media transcends physical and cultural barriers, connecting people across the globe and providing a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. By fostering open dialogue and facilitating the exchange of ideas, social media contributes to a more interconnected and empowered society. Embracing the positive aspects of social media allows us to harness its potential for positive change and collective growth.

• Clearly Define Your Thesis Statement:   Your thesis statement is the core of your argumentative essay. Clearly articulate your main argument or position on the issue. Avoid vague or general statements.  
• Provide Strong Supporting Evidence:   Back up your thesis with solid evidence from reliable sources and examples. This can include facts, statistics, expert opinions, anecdotes, or real-life examples. Make sure your evidence is relevant to your argument, as it impacts the overall persuasiveness of your thesis.  
• Anticipate Counterarguments and Address Them:   Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints to strengthen credibility. This also shows that you engage critically with the topic rather than presenting a one-sided argument. 

How to Write an Argumentative Essay with Paperpal?

Writing a winning argumentative essay not only showcases your ability to critically analyze a topic but also demonstrates your skill in persuasively presenting your stance backed by evidence. Achieving this level of writing excellence can be time-consuming. This is where Paperpal, your AI academic writing assistant, steps in to revolutionize the way you approach argumentative essays. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use Paperpal to write your essay: 

• Sign Up or Log In: Begin by creating an account or logging into paperpal.com .  
• Navigate to Paperpal Copilot: Once logged in, proceed to the Templates section from the side navigation bar.  
• Generate an essay outline: Under Templates, click on the ‘Outline’ tab and choose ‘Essay’ from the options and provide your topic to generate an outline.  
• Develop your essay: Use this structured outline as a guide to flesh out your essay. If you encounter any roadblocks, click on Brainstorm and get subject-specific assistance, ensuring you stay on track. 
• Refine your writing: To elevate the academic tone of your essay, select a paragraph and use the ‘Make Academic’ feature under the ‘Rewrite’ tab, ensuring your argumentative essay resonates with an academic audience. 
• Final Touches: Make your argumentative essay submission ready with Paperpal’s language, grammar, consistency and plagiarism checks, and improve your chances of acceptance.  

Paperpal not only simplifies the essay writing process but also ensures your argumentative essay is persuasive, well-structured, and academically rigorous. Sign up today and transform how you write argumentative essays. 

The length of an argumentative essay can vary, but it typically falls within the range of 1,000 to 2,500 words. However, the specific requirements may depend on the guidelines provided.

You might write an argumentative essay when:  1. You want to convince others of the validity of your position.  2. There is a controversial or debatable issue that requires discussion.  3. You need to present evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims.  4. You want to explore and critically analyze different perspectives on a topic. 

Argumentative Essay:  Purpose : An argumentative essay aims to persuade the reader to accept or agree with a specific point of view or argument.  Structure : It follows a clear structure with an introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs presenting arguments and evidence, counterarguments and refutations, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is formal and relies on logical reasoning, evidence, and critical analysis.    Narrative/Descriptive Essay:  Purpose : These aim to tell a story or describe an experience, while a descriptive essay focuses on creating a vivid picture of a person, place, or thing.  Structure : They may have a more flexible structure. They often include an engaging introduction, a well-developed body that builds the story or description, and a conclusion.  Tone : The tone is more personal and expressive to evoke emotions or provide sensory details. 

• Gladd, J. (2020). Tips for Writing Academic Persuasive Essays.  Write What Matters . 
• Nimehchisalem, V. (2018). Pyramid of argumentation: Towards an integrated model for teaching and assessing ESL writing.  Language & Communication ,  5 (2), 185-200. 
• Press, B. (2022).  Argumentative Essays: A Step-by-Step Guide . Broadview Press. 
• Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2005).  Argumentation and critical decision making . Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences

Make Your Research Paper Error-Free with Paperpal’s Online Spell Checker 

The do’s & don’ts of using generative ai tools ethically in academia, you may also like, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples .

Argumentative Essay

Definition of argumentative essay.

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents arguments about both sides of an issue. It could be that both sides are presented equally balanced, or it could be that one side is presented more forcefully than the other. It all depends on the writer, and what side he supports the most. The general structure of an argumentative essay follows this format:

• Introduction : Attention Grabber/ hook , Background Information , Thesis Statement
• Body : Three body paragraphs (three major arguments)
• Counterargument : An argument to refute earlier arguments and give weight to the actual position
• Conclusion : Rephrasing the thesis statement , major points, call to attention, or concluding remarks .

Models for Argumentative Essays

There are two major models besides this structure given above, which is called a classical model. Two other models are the Toulmin and Rogerian models.

Toulmin model is comprised of an introduction with a claim or thesis, followed by the presentation of data to support the claim. Warrants are then listed for the reasons to support the claim with backing and rebuttals. However, the Rogerian model asks to weigh two options, lists the strengths and weaknesses of both options, and gives a recommendation after an analysis.

Five Types of Argument Claims in Essay Writing  

There are five major types of argument claims as given below.

• A claim of definition
• A claim about values
• A claim about the reason
• A claim about comparison
• A claim about policy or position

A writer makes a claim about these issues and answers the relevant questions about it with relevant data and evidence to support the claim.

Three Major Types of Argument and How to Apply Them

Classical argument.

This model of applying argument is also called the Aristotelian model developed by Aristotle. This type of essay introduces the claim, with the opinion of the writer about the claim, its both perspectives, supported by evidence, and provides a conclusion about the better perspective . This essay includes an introduction, a body having the argument and support, a counter-argument with support, and a conclusion.

Toulmin Argument

This model developed by Stephen Toulmin is based on the claim followed by grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal . Its structure comprises, an introduction having the main claim, a body with facts and evidence, while its rebuttal comprises counter-arguments and a conclusion.

Rogerian Argument

The third model by Carl Rogers has different perspectives having proof to support and a conclusion based on all the available perspectives. Its structure comprises an introduction with a thesis, the opposite point of view and claim, a middle-ground for both or more perspectives, and a conclusion.

Four Steps to Outline and Argumentative Essay

There are four major steps to outlining an argumentative essay.

• Introduction with background, claim, and thesis.
• Body with facts, definition, claim, cause and effect, or policy.
• The opposing point of view with pieces of evidence.

Examples of Argumentative Essay in Literature

Example #1: put a little science in your life by brian greene.

“When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods, personal computers and the Internet, it’s easy to see how science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into the fabric of our day-to-day activities . When we benefit from CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents, we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and identify looming challenges like climate change, global pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we don’t hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems and find solutions. And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on the horizon—stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine interface, quantum computers, space technology—we realize how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can engage with scientific issues; there’s simply no other way that as a society we will be prepared to make informed decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.”

These two paragraphs present an argument about two scientific fields — digital products and biotechnology. It has also given full supporting details with names.

Example #2: Boys Here, Girls There: Sure, If Equality’s the Goal by Karen Stabiner

“The first objections last week came from the National Organization for Women and the New York Civil Liberties Union, both of which opposed the opening of TYWLS in the fall of 1996. The two groups continue to insist—as though it were 1896 and they were arguing Plessy v. Ferguson—that separate can never be equal. I appreciate NOW ’s wariness of the Bush administration’s endorsement of single-sex public schools, since I am of the generation that still considers the label “feminist” to be a compliment—and many feminists still fear that any public acknowledgment of differences between the sexes will hinder their fight for equality .”

This paragraph by Karen Stabiner presents an objection to the argument of separation between public schools. It has been fully supported with evidence of the court case.

Example #3: The Flight from Conversation by Sherry Turkle

“We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “ alone together.” Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.”

This is an argument by Sherry Turkle, who beautifully presented it in the first person plural dialogues . However, it is clear that this is part of a greater argument instead of the essay.

Function of Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay presents both sides of an issue. However, it presents one side more positively or meticulously than the other one, so that readers could be swayed to the one the author intends. The major function of this type of essay is to present a case before the readers in a convincing manner, showing them the complete picture.

Synonyms of Argumentative Essay

Argumentative Essay synonyms are as follows: persuasive essays, research essays, analytical essays, or even some personal essays.

Related posts:

• Elements of an Essay
• Narrative Essay
• Definition Essay
• Descriptive Essay
• Types of Essay
• Analytical Essay
• Cause and Effect Essay
• Critical Essay
• Expository Essay
• Persuasive Essay
• Process Essay
• Explicatory Essay
• An Essay on Man: Epistle I
• Comparison and Contrast Essay

Post navigation

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Argumentative Essays

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

What is an argumentative essay?

The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner.

Please note : Some confusion may occur between the argumentative essay and the expository essay. These two genres are similar, but the argumentative essay differs from the expository essay in the amount of pre-writing (invention) and research involved. The argumentative essay is commonly assigned as a capstone or final project in first year writing or advanced composition courses and involves lengthy, detailed research. Expository essays involve less research and are shorter in length. Expository essays are often used for in-class writing exercises or tests, such as the GED or GRE.

Argumentative essay assignments generally call for extensive research of literature or previously published material. Argumentative assignments may also require empirical research where the student collects data through interviews, surveys, observations, or experiments. Detailed research allows the student to learn about the topic and to understand different points of view regarding the topic so that she/he may choose a position and support it with the evidence collected during research. Regardless of the amount or type of research involved, argumentative essays must establish a clear thesis and follow sound reasoning.

The structure of the argumentative essay is held together by the following.

• A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first paragraph of the essay.

In the first paragraph of an argument essay, students should set the context by reviewing the topic in a general way. Next the author should explain why the topic is important ( exigence ) or why readers should care about the issue. Lastly, students should present the thesis statement. It is essential that this thesis statement be appropriately narrowed to follow the guidelines set forth in the assignment. If the student does not master this portion of the essay, it will be quite difficult to compose an effective or persuasive essay.

• Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.

Transitions are the mortar that holds the foundation of the essay together. Without logical progression of thought, the reader is unable to follow the essay’s argument, and the structure will collapse. Transitions should wrap up the idea from the previous section and introduce the idea that is to follow in the next section.

• Body paragraphs that include evidential support.

Each paragraph should be limited to the discussion of one general idea. This will allow for clarity and direction throughout the essay. In addition, such conciseness creates an ease of readability for one’s audience. It is important to note that each paragraph in the body of the essay must have some logical connection to the thesis statement in the opening paragraph. Some paragraphs will directly support the thesis statement with evidence collected during research. It is also important to explain how and why the evidence supports the thesis ( warrant ).

However, argumentative essays should also consider and explain differing points of view regarding the topic. Depending on the length of the assignment, students should dedicate one or two paragraphs of an argumentative essay to discussing conflicting opinions on the topic. Rather than explaining how these differing opinions are wrong outright, students should note how opinions that do not align with their thesis might not be well informed or how they might be out of date.

• Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).

The argumentative essay requires well-researched, accurate, detailed, and current information to support the thesis statement and consider other points of view. Some factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal evidence should support the thesis. However, students must consider multiple points of view when collecting evidence. As noted in the paragraph above, a successful and well-rounded argumentative essay will also discuss opinions not aligning with the thesis. It is unethical to exclude evidence that may not support the thesis. It is not the student’s job to point out how other positions are wrong outright, but rather to explain how other positions may not be well informed or up to date on the topic.

• A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided.

It is at this point of the essay that students may begin to struggle. This is the portion of the essay that will leave the most immediate impression on the mind of the reader. Therefore, it must be effective and logical. Do not introduce any new information into the conclusion; rather, synthesize the information presented in the body of the essay. Restate why the topic is important, review the main points, and review your thesis. You may also want to include a short discussion of more research that should be completed in light of your work.

A complete argument

Perhaps it is helpful to think of an essay in terms of a conversation or debate with a classmate. If I were to discuss the cause of World War II and its current effect on those who lived through the tumultuous time, there would be a beginning, middle, and end to the conversation. In fact, if I were to end the argument in the middle of my second point, questions would arise concerning the current effects on those who lived through the conflict. Therefore, the argumentative essay must be complete, and logically so, leaving no doubt as to its intent or argument.

The five-paragraph essay

A common method for writing an argumentative essay is the five-paragraph approach. This is, however, by no means the only formula for writing such essays. If it sounds straightforward, that is because it is; in fact, the method consists of (a) an introductory paragraph (b) three evidentiary body paragraphs that may include discussion of opposing views and (c) a conclusion.

Longer argumentative essays

Complex issues and detailed research call for complex and detailed essays. Argumentative essays discussing a number of research sources or empirical research will most certainly be longer than five paragraphs. Authors may have to discuss the context surrounding the topic, sources of information and their credibility, as well as a number of different opinions on the issue before concluding the essay. Many of these factors will be determined by the assignment.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

4-minute read

• 30th April 2022

An argumentative essay is a structured, compelling piece of writing where an author clearly defines their stance on a specific topic. This is a very popular style of writing assigned to students at schools, colleges, and universities. Learn the steps to researching, structuring, and writing an effective argumentative essay below.

Requirements of an Argumentative Essay

To effectively achieve its purpose, an argumentative essay must contain:

●  A concise thesis statement that introduces readers to the central argument of the essay

●  A clear, logical, argument that engages readers

●  Ample research and evidence that supports your argument

Approaches to Use in Your Argumentative Essay

1.   classical.

●  Clearly present the central argument.

●  Outline your opinion.

●  Provide enough evidence to support your theory.

2.   Toulmin

●  State your claim.

●  Supply the evidence for your stance.

●  Explain how these findings support the argument.

●  Include and discuss any limitations of your belief.

3.   Rogerian

●  Explain the opposing stance of your argument.

●  Discuss the problems with adopting this viewpoint.

●  Offer your position on the matter.

●  Provide reasons for why yours is the more beneficial stance.

●  Include a potential compromise for the topic at hand.

Tips for Writing a Well-Written Argumentative Essay

●  Introduce your topic in a bold, direct, and engaging manner to captivate your readers and encourage them to keep reading.

●  Provide sufficient evidence to justify your argument and convince readers to adopt this point of view.

●  Consider, include, and fairly present all sides of the topic.

●  Structure your argument in a clear, logical manner that helps your readers to understand your thought process.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  Discuss any counterarguments that might be posed.

●  Use persuasive writing that’s appropriate for your target audience and motivates them to agree with you.

Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay

Follow these basic steps to write a powerful and meaningful argumentative essay :

Step 1: Choose a topic that you’re passionate about

If you’ve already been given a topic to write about, pick a stance that resonates deeply with you. This will shine through in your writing, make the research process easier, and positively influence the outcome of your argument.

Step 2: Conduct ample research to prove the validity of your argument

To write an emotive argumentative essay , finding enough research to support your theory is a must. You’ll need solid evidence to convince readers to agree with your take on the matter. You’ll also need to logically organize the research so that it naturally convinces readers of your viewpoint and leaves no room for questioning.

Step 3: Follow a simple, easy-to-follow structure and compile your essay

A good structure to ensure a well-written and effective argumentative essay includes:

Introduction

●  Introduce your topic.

●  Offer background information on the claim.

●  Discuss the evidence you’ll present to support your argument.

●  State your thesis statement, a one-to-two sentence summary of your claim.

●  This is the section where you’ll develop and expand on your argument.

●  It should be split into three or four coherent paragraphs, with each one presenting its own idea.

●  Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that indicates why readers should adopt your belief or stance.

●  Include your research, statistics, citations, and other supporting evidence.

●  Discuss opposing viewpoints and why they’re invalid.

●  This part typically consists of one paragraph.

●  Summarize your research and the findings that were presented.

●  Emphasize your initial thesis statement.

●  Persuade readers to agree with your stance.

We certainly hope that you feel inspired to use these tips when writing your next argumentative essay . And, if you’re currently elbow-deep in writing one, consider submitting a free sample to us once it’s completed. Our expert team of editors can help ensure that it’s concise, error-free, and effective!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.3: The Argumentative Essay

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58378
• Lumen Learning

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you argue that something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the causes of the decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean and make a case for your cause.

Evaluation Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your education class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you must propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a proposal that would increase retention rates at your college.

Narrative Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/20277

Essay Examples

• Click here to read an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

Contributors and Attributions

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Module 9: Academic Argument

The argumentative essay, learning objectives.

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Figure 1 . When writing an argumentative essay, students must be able to separate emotion based arguments from logic based arguments in order to appeal to an academic audience.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• You write about how something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the increase of industrial pollution and the resulting decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean.

Evaluation Arguments

• You can write an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you also need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your Introduction to Educational Theory class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• With this type of writing, you need to propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a removal of parking fines on students who use the parking deck on campus.

Narrative Arguments

• For this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your negative experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past. For this type of writing assignment, you have to explain what you are refuting first, and then you can expand on your new ideas or perspectives.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

Essay Examples

• You can read more about an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/ . License : Other . License Terms : https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

• SAT BootCamp
• SAT MasterClass
• SAT Private Tutoring
• SAT Proctored Practice Test
• ACT Private Tutoring
• Academic Subjects
• College Essay Workshop
• Academic Writing Workshop
• AP English FRQ BootCamp
• 1:1 College Essay Help
• Online Instruction
• Free Resources

12 Essential Steps for Writing an Argumentative Essay (with 10 example essays)

Bonus Material: 10 complete example essays

Writing an essay can often feel like a Herculean task. How do you go from a prompt… to pages of beautifully-written and clearly-supported writing?

This 12-step method is for students who want to write a great essay that makes a clear argument.

In fact, using the strategies from this post, in just 88 minutes, one of our students revised her C+ draft to an A.

If you’re interested in learning how to write awesome argumentative essays and improve your writing grades, this post will teach you exactly how to do it.

First, grab our download so you can follow along with the complete examples.

Then keep reading to see all 12 essential steps to writing a great essay.

Download 10 example essays

Why you need to have a plan

One of the most common mistakes that students make when writing is to just dive in haphazardly without a plan.

Writing is a bit like cooking. If you’re making a meal, would you start throwing ingredients at random into a pot? Probably not!

Instead, you’d probably start by thinking about what you want to cook. Then you’d gather the ingredients, and go to the store if you don’t already have them in your kitchen. Then you’d follow a recipe, step by step, to make your meal.

Here’s our 12-step recipe for writing a great argumentative essay:

• Pick a topic
• Choose your research sources
• Read your sources and take notes
• Create a thesis statement
• Choose three main arguments to support your thesis statement —now you have a skeleton outline
• Populate your outline with the research that supports each argument
• Do more research if necessary
• Add your own analysis
• Add transitions and concluding sentences to each paragraph
• Write an introduction and conclusion for your essay
• Add citations and bibliography

Grab our download to see the complete example at every stage, along with 9 great student essays. Then let’s go through the steps together and write an A+ essay!

1. Pick a topic

Sometimes you might be assigned a topic by your instructor, but often you’ll have to come up with your own idea! 

If you don’t pick the right topic, you can be setting yourself up for failure.

Be careful that your topic is something that’s actually arguable —it has more than one side. Check out our carefully-vetted list of 99 topic ideas .

Let’s pick the topic of laboratory animals . Our question is should animals be used for testing and research ?

Download our set of 10 great example essays to jump to the finished version of this essay.

2. Choose your research sources

One of the big differences between the way an academic argumentative essay and the version of the assignment that you may have done in elementary school is that for an academic argumentative essay, we need to support our arguments with evidence .

Where do we get that evidence?

Let’s be honest, we all are likely to start with Google and Wikipedia.

Now, Wikipedia can be a useful starting place if you don’t know very much about a topic, but don’t use Wikipedia as your main source of evidence for your essay. 

Instead, look for reputable sources that you can show to your readers as proof of your arguments. It can be helpful to read some sources from either side of your issue.

Look for recently-published sources (within the last 20 years), unless there’s a specific reason to do otherwise.

Good places to look for sources are:

• Books published by academic presses
• Academic journals
• Academic databases like JSTOR and EBSCO
• Nationally-published newspapers and magazines like The New York Times or The Atlantic
• Websites and publications of national institutions like the NIH
• Websites and publications of universities

Some of these sources are typically behind a paywall. This can be frustrating when you’re a middle-school or high-school student.

However, there are often ways to get access to these sources. Librarians (at your school library or local public library) can be fantastic resources, and they can often help you find a copy of the article or book you want to read. In particular, librarians can help you use Interlibrary Loan to order books or journals to your local library!

More and more scientists and other researchers are trying to publish their articles for free online, in order to encourage the free exchange of knowledge. Check out respected open-access platforms like arxiv.org and PLOS ONE .

How do you find these sources?

If you have access to an academic database like JSTOR or EBSCO , that’s a great place to start.

Everyone can use Google Scholar to search for articles. This is a powerful tool and highly recommended!

Of course, if there’s a term you come across that you don’t recognize, you can always just Google it!

How many sources do you need? That depends on the length of your essay and on the assignment. If your instructor doesn’t give you any other guidance, assume that you should have at least three good sources.

For our topic of animal research, here’s a few sources that we could assemble:

Geoff Watts. “Animal Testing: Is It Worth It?” BMJ: British Medical Journal , Jan. 27, 2007, Vol. 334, No. 7586 (Jan. 27, 2007), pp. 182-184.

Kim Bartel Sheehan and Joonghwa Lee. “What’s Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and Public Policy.” Journal of Animal Ethics , Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 1-15.

Justin Goodman, Alka Chandna and Katherine Roe. “Trends in animal use at US research facilities.” Journal of Medical Ethics , July 2015, Vol. 41, No. 7 (July 2015), pp. 567-569.

Katy Taylor. “Recent Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing.” In Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change . Brill 2019.

Thomas Hartung. “Research and Testing Without Animals: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading?” In Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change . Brill 2019.

Bonus: download 10 example essays now .

3. Read your sources and take notes

Once you have a nice pile of sources, it’s time to read them!

As we read, we want to take notes that will be useful to us later as we write our essay.

We want to be careful to keep the source’s ideas separate from our own ideas . Come up with a system to clearly mark the difference as you’re taking notes: use different colors, or use little arrows to represent the ideas that are yours and not the source’s ideas.

We can use this structure to keep notes in an organized way:

Download a template for these research notes here .

For our topic of animal research, our notes might look something like this:

Grab our download to read the rest of the notes and see more examples of how to do thoughtful research!

4. Create a thesis

What major themes did you find in your reading? What did you find most interesting or convincing?

Now is the point when you need to pick a side on your topic, if you haven’t already done so. Now that you’ve read more about the issue, what do you think? Write down your position on the issue:

Animal testing is necessary but should be reduced.

Next, it’s time to add more detail to your thesis. What reasons do you have to support that position? Add those to your sentence.

Animal testing is necessary but should be reduced by eliminating testing for cosmetics, ensuring that any testing is scientifically sound, and replacing animal models with other methods as much as possible.

Add qualifiers to refine your position. Are there situations in which your position would not apply? Or are there other conditions that need to be met? 

For our topic of animal research, our final thesis statement (with lead-in) might look something like this:

The argument: Animal testing and research should not be abolished, as doing so would upend important medical research and substance testing. However, scientific advances mean that in many situations animal testing can be replaced by other methods that not only avoid the ethical problems of animal testing, but also are less costly and more accurate. Governments and other regulatory bodies should further regulate animal testing to outlaw testing for cosmetics and other recreational products, ensure that the tests conducted are both necessary and scientifically rigorous, and encourage the replacement of animal use with other methods whenever possible.

The highlighted bit at the end is the thesis statement, but the lead-in is useful to help us set up the argument—and having it there already will make writing our introduction easier!

The thesis statement is the single most important sentence of your essay. Without a strong thesis, there’s no chance of writing a great essay. Read more about it here .

See how nine real students wrote great thesis statements in 9 example essays now.

5. Create three supporting arguments

Think of three good arguments why your position is true. We’re going to make each one into a body paragraph of your essay.

For now, write them out as 1–2 sentences. These will be topic sentences for each body paragraph.

For our essay about animal testing, it might look like this:

Supporting argument #1: For ethical reasons, animal testing should not be allowed for cosmetics and recreational products.

Supporting argument #2: The tests that are conducted with animals should be both necessary (for the greater good) and scientifically rigorous—which isn’t always the case currently. This should be regulated by governments and institutions.

Supporting argument #3: Governments and institutions should do more to encourage the replacement of animal testing with other methods.

Optional: Find a counterargument and respond to it

Think of a potential counterargument to your position. Consider writing a fourth paragraph anticipating this counterargument, or find a way to include it in your other body paragraphs. 

For our essay, that might be:

Possible counterargument: Animal testing is unethical and should not be used in any circumstances.

Response to the counterargument: Animal testing is deeply entrenched in many research projects and medical procedures. Abruptly ceasing animal testing would upend the scientific and medical communities. But there are many ways that animal testing could be reduced.

With these three arguments, a counterargument, and a thesis, we now have a skeleton outline! See each step of this essay in full in our handy download .

6. Start populating your outline with the evidence you found in your research

Look through your research. What did you find that would support each of your three arguments?

Copy and paste those quotes or paraphrases into the outline. Make sure that each one is annotated so that you know which source it came from!

Ideally you already started thinking about these sources when you were doing your research—that’s the ideas in the rightmost column of our research template. Use this stuff too! 

A good rule of thumb would be to use at least three pieces of evidence per body paragraph.

Think about in what order it would make most sense to present your points. Rearrange your quotes accordingly! As you reorder them, feel free to start adding short sentences indicating the flow of ideas .

For our essay about animal testing, part of our populated outline might look something like:

Argument #1: For ethical reasons, animal testing should not be allowed for cosmetics and recreational products.

Lots of animals are used for testing and research.

In the US, about 22 million animals were used annually in the early 1990s, mostly rodents (BMJ 1993, 1020).

But there are ethical problems with using animals in laboratory settings. Opinions about the divide between humans and animals might be shifting.

McIsaac refers to “the essential moral dilemma: how to balance the welfare of humans with the welfare of other species” (Hubel, McIsaac 29).

The fundamental legal texts used to justify animal use in biomedical research were created after WWII, and drew a clear line between experiments on animals and on humans. The Nuremburg Code states that “the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment” (Ferrari, 197). The 1964  Declaration of the World Medical Association on the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (known as the Helsinki Declaration) states that “Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected” (Ferrari, 197).

→ Context? The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles, developed in 1947 in the wake of Nazi atrocities during WWII, specifically the inhumane and often fatal experimentation on human subjects without consent.

“Since the 1970s, the animal-rights movement has challenged the use of animals in modern Western society by rejecting the idea of dominion of human beings over nature and animals and stressing the intrinsic value and rights of individual animals” (van Roten, 539, referencing works by Singer, Clark, Regan, and Jasper and Nelkin).

“The old (animal) model simply does not fully meet the needs of scientific and economic progress; it fails in cost, speed, level of detail of understanding, and human relevance. On top of this, animal experimentation lacks acceptance by an ethically evolving society” (Hartung, 682).

Knight’s article summarizes negative impacts on laboratory animals—invasive procedures, stress, pain, and death (Knight, 333). These aren’t very widely or clearly reported (Knight, 333). → Reading about these definitely produces an emotional reaction—they sound bad.

Given this context, it makes sense to ban animal testing in situations where it’s just for recreational products like cosmetics.

Fortunately, animal testing for cosmetics is less common than we might think.

A Gallup poll published in 1990 found that 14% of people thought that the most frequent reason for using animals to test cosmetics for safety—but figures from the UK Home Office in 1991 found that less than 1% of animals were used for tests for cosmetics and toiletries (BMJ 1993, 1019). → So in the early 1990s there was a big difference between what people thought was happening and what actually was happening!

But it still happens, and there are very few regulations of it (apart from in the EU).

Because there are many definitions of the phrase “cruelty-free,” many companies “can (and do) use the term when the product or its ingredients were indeed tested on animals” (Sheehan and Lee, 1).

The authors compare “cruelty-free” to the term “fair trade.” There is an independent inspection and certification group (Flo-Cert) that reviews products labeled as “fair trade,” but there’s no analogous process for “cruelty-free” (Sheehan and Lee, 2). → So anyone can just put that label on a product? Apparently, apart from in the European Union. That seems really easy to abuse for marketing purposes.

Companies can also hire outside firms to test products and ingredients on animals (Sheehan and Lee, 3).

Animal testing for recreational, non-medical purposes should be banned, like it is in the EU.

Download the full example outline here .

7. Do more research if necessary

Occasionally you might realize that there’s a hole in your research, and you don’t have enough evidence to support one of your points.

In this situation, either change your argument to fit the evidence that you do have, or do a bit more research to fill the hole!

For example, looking at our outline for argument #1 for our essay on animal testing, it’s clear that this paragraph is missing a small but crucial bit of evidence—a reference to this specific ban on animal testing for cosmetics in Europe. Time for a bit more research!

A visit to the official website of the European Commission yields a copy of the law, which we can add to our populated outline:

“The cosmetics directive provides the regulatory framework for the phasing out of animal testing for cosmetics purposes. Specifically, it establishes (1) a testing ban – prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals, and (2) a marketing ban – prohibition to market finished cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU which were tested on animals. The same provisions are contained in the cosmetics regulation , which replaced the cosmetics directive as of 11 July 2013. The testing ban on finished cosmetic products applies since 11 September 2004. The testing ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients applies since 11 March 2009. The marketing ban applies since 11 March 2009 for all human health effects with the exception of repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and toxicokinetics. For these specific health effects, the marketing ban applies since 11 March 2013, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests.” (website of the European Commission, “Ban on animal testing”)

Alright, now this supporting argument has the necessary ingredients!

You don’t need to use all of the evidence that you found in your research. In fact, you probably won’t use all of it!

This part of the writing process requires you to think critically about your arguments and what evidence is relevant to your points .

8. Add your own analysis and synthesis of these points

Once you’ve organized your evidence and decided what you want to use for your essay, now you get to start adding your own analysis!

You may have already started synthesizing and evaluating your sources when you were doing your research (the stuff on the right-hand side of our template). This gives you a great starting place!

For each piece of evidence, follow this formula:

• Context and transitions: introduce your piece of evidence and any relevant background info and signal the logical flow of ideas
• Reproduce the paraphrase or direct quote (with citation )
• Explanation : explain what the quote/paraphrase means in your own words
• Analysis : analyze how this piece of evidence proves your thesis
• Relate it back to the thesis: don’t forget to relate this point back to your overarching thesis! 

If you follow this fool-proof formula as you write, you will create clear, well-evidenced arguments.

As you get more experienced, you might stray a bit from the formula—but a good essay will always intermix evidence with explanation and analysis, and will always contain signposts back to the thesis throughout.

For our essay about animal testing, our first body paragraph might look like:

Every year, millions of animals—mostly rodents—are used for testing and research (BMJ 1993, 1020) . This testing poses an ethical dilemma: “how to balance the welfare of humans with the welfare of other species” (Hubel, McIsaac 29) . Many of the fundamental legal tests that are used to justify animal use in biomedical research were created in wake of the horrors of World War II, when the Nazi regime engaged in terrible experimentation on their human prisoners. In response to these atrocities, philosophers and lawmakers drew a clear line between experimenting on humans without consent and experimenting on (non-human) animals. For example, the 1947 Nuremberg Code stated that “the experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment” (Ferrari, 197) . Created two years after the war, the code established a set of ethical research principles to demarcate ethical differences between animals and humans, clarifying differences between Nazi atrocities and more everyday research practices. However, in the following decades, the animal-rights movement has challenged the philosophical boundaries between humans and animals and questioned humanity’s right to exert dominion over animals (van Roten, 539, referencing works by Singer, Clark, Regan, and Jasper and Nelkin) . These concerns are not without justification, as animals used in laboratories are subject to invasive procedures, stress, pain, and death (Knight, 333) . Indeed, reading detailed descriptions of this research can be difficult to stomach . In light of this, while some animal testing that contributes to vital medical research and ultimately saves millions of lives may be ethically justified, animal testing that is purely for recreational purposes like cosmetics cannot be ethically justified . Fortunately, animal testing for cosmetics is less common than we might think . In 1990, a poll found that 14% of people in the UK thought that the most frequent reason for using animals to test cosmetics for safety—but actual figures were less than 1% (BMJ 1993, 1019) . Unfortunately, animal testing for cosmetics is not subject to very much regulation . In particular, companies can use the phrase “cruelty-free” to mean just about anything, and many companies “can (and do) use the term when the product or its ingredients were indeed tested on animals” (Sheehan and Lee, 1) . Unlike the term “fair trade,” which has an independent inspection and certification group (Flo-Cert) that reviews products using the label, there’s no analogous process for “cruelty-free” (Sheehan and Lee, 2) . Without regulation, the term is regularly abused by marketers . Companies can also hire outside firms to test products and ingredients on animals and thereby pass the blame (Sheehan and Lee, 3) . Consumers trying to avoid products tested on animals are frequently tricked . Greater regulation of terms would help, but the only way to end this kind of deceit will be to ban animal testing for recreational, non-medical purposes . The European Union is the only governmental body yet to accomplish this . In a series of regulations, the EU first banned testing finished cosmetic products (2004), then testing ingredients or marketing products which were tested on animals (2009); exceptions for specific health effects ended in 2013 (website of the European Commission, “Ban on animal testing”) . The result is that the EU bans testing cosmetic ingredients or finished cosmetic products on animals, as well as marketing any cosmetic ingredients and products which were tested on animals elsewhere (Regulation 1223/2009/EU, known as the “Cosmetics Regulation”) . The rest of the world should follow this example and ban animal testing on cosmetic ingredients and products, which do not contribute significantly to the greater good and therefore cannot outweigh the cost to animal lives .

Edit down the quotes/paraphrases as you go. In many cases, you might copy out a great long quote from a source…but only end up using a few words of it as a direct quote, or you might only paraphrase it!

There were several good quotes in our previous step that just didn’t end up fitting here. That’s fine!

Take a look at the words and phrases highlighted in red. Notice how sometimes a single word can help to provide necessary context and create a logical transition for a new idea. Don’t forget the transitions! These words and phrases are essential to good writing.

The end of the paragraph should very clearly tie back to the thesis statement.

As you write, consider your audience

If it’s not specified in your assignment prompt, it’s always appropriate to ask your instructor who the intended audience of your essay or paper might be. (Your instructor will usually be impressed by this question!) 

If you don’t get any specific guidance, imagine that your audience is the typical readership of a newspaper like the New York Times —people who are generally educated, but who don’t have any specialized  knowledge of the specific subject, especially if it’s more technical.

That means that you should explain any words or phrases that aren’t everyday terminology!

Equally important, you don’t want to leave logical leaps for your readers to make. Connect all of the dots for them!

See the other body paragraphs of this essay, along with 9 student essays, here .

9. Add paragraph transitions and concluding sentences to each body paragraph

By now you should have at least three strong body paragraphs, each one with 3–5 pieces of evidence plus your own analysis and synthesis of the evidence. 

Each paragraph has a main topic sentence, which we wrote back when we made the outline. This is a good time to check that the topic sentences still match what the rest of the paragraph says!

Think about how these arguments relate to each other. What is the most logical order for them? Re-order your paragraphs if necessary.

Then add a few sentences at the end of each paragraph and/or the beginning of the next paragraph to connect these ideas. This step is often the difference between an okay essay and a really great one!

You want your essay to have a great flow. We didn’t worry about this at the beginning of our writing, but now is the time to start improving the flow of ideas!

10. The final additions: write an introduction and a conclusion

Follow this formula to write a great introduction:

• It begins with some kind of “hook”: this can be an anecdote, quote, statistic, provocative statement, question, etc. 

(Pro tip: don’t use phrases like “throughout history,” “since the dawn of humankind,” etc. It’s good to think broadly, but you don’t have to make generalizations for all of history.)

• It gives some background information that is relevant to understand the ethical dilemma or debate
• It has a lead-up to the thesis
• At the end of the introduction, the thesis is clearly stated

This makes a smooth funnel that starts more broadly and smoothly zeroes in on the specific argument.

Your conclusion is kind of like your introduction, but in reverse. It starts with your thesis and ends a little more broadly.

For the conclusion, try and summarize your entire argument without being redundant. Start by restating your thesis but with slightly different wording . Then summarize each of your main points.

If you can, it’s nice to point to the larger significance of the issue. What are the potential consequences of this issue? What are some future directions for it to go in? What remains to be explored?

See how nine students wrote introductions in different styles here .

11. Add citations and bibliography

Check what bibliographic style your instructor wants you to use. If this isn’t clearly stated, it’s a good question to ask them!

Typically the instructions will say something like “Chicago style,” “APA,” etc., or they’ll give you their own rules. 

These rules will dictate how exactly you’ll write your citations in the body of your essay (either in parentheses after the quote/paraphrase or else with a footnote or endnote) and how you’ll write your “works cited” with the full bibliographic information at the end.

Follow these rules! The most important thing is to be consistent and clear.

Pro tip: if you’re struggling with this step, your librarians can often help! They’re literally pros at this. 🙂

Now you have a complete draft!

Read it from beginning to end. Does it make sense? Are there any orphan quotes or paraphrases that aren’t clearly explained? Are there any abrupt changes of topic? Fix it!

Are there any problems with grammar or spelling ? Fix them!

Edit for clarity.

Ideally, you’ll finish your draft at least a few days before it’s due to be submitted. Give it a break for a day or two, and then come back to it. Things to be revised are more likely to jump out after a little break!

Try reading your essay out loud. Are there any sentences that don’t sound quite right? Rewrite them!

Double-check your thesis statement. This is the make-or-break moment of your essay, and without a clear thesis it’s pretty impossible for an essay to be a great one. Is it:

• Arguable: it’s not just the facts—someone could disagree with this position
• Narrow & specific: don’t pick a position that’s so broad you could never back it up
• Complex: show that you are thinking deeply—one way to do this is to consider objections/qualifiers in your thesis

Try giving your essay to a friend or family member to read. Sometimes (if you’re lucky) your instructors will offer to read a draft if you turn it in early. What feedback do they have? Edit accordingly!

See the result of this process with 10 example essays now .

You’re done!

You did it! Feel proud of yourself 🙂

We regularly help students work through all of these steps to write great academic essays in our Academic Writing Workshop or our one-on-one writing tutoring . We’re happy to chat more about what’s challenging for you and provide you customized guidance to help you write better papers and improve your grades on writing assignments!

Want to see what this looks like when it’s all pulled together? We compiled nine examples of great student essays, plus all of the steps used to create this model essay, in this handy resource. Download it here !

Emily graduated  summa cum laude  from Princeton University and holds an MA from the University of Notre Dame. She was a National Merit Scholar and has won numerous academic prizes and fellowships. A veteran of the publishing industry, she has helped professors at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton revise their books and articles. Over the last decade, Emily has successfully mentored hundreds of students in all aspects of the college admissions process, including the SAT, ACT, and college application essay. 

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

Argumentative Essay Examples to Inspire You (+ Free Formula)

Table of contents

Meredith Sell

Have you ever been asked to explain your opinion on a controversial issue? 

• Maybe your family got into a discussion about chemical pesticides
• Someone at work argues against investing resources into your project
• Your partner thinks intermittent fasting is the best way to lose weight and you disagree

Proving your point in an argumentative essay can be challenging, unless you are using a proven formula.

Argumentative essay formula & example

In the image below, you can see a recommended structure for argumentative essays. It starts with the topic sentence, which establishes the main idea of the essay. Next, this hypothesis is developed in the development stage. Then, the rebuttal, or the refutal of the main counter argument or arguments. Then, again, development of the rebuttal. This is followed by an example, and ends with a summary. This is a very basic structure, but it gives you a bird-eye-view of how a proper argumentative essay can be built.

Writing an argumentative essay (for a class, a news outlet, or just for fun) can help you improve your understanding of an issue and sharpen your thinking on the matter. Using researched facts and data, you can explain why you or others think the way you do, even while other reasonable people disagree.

Free AI argumentative essay generator > Free AI argumentative essay generator >

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an explanatory essay that takes a side.

Instead of appealing to emotion and personal experience to change the reader’s mind, an argumentative essay uses logic and well-researched factual information to explain why the thesis in question is the most reasonable opinion on the matter.  

Over several paragraphs or pages, the author systematically walks through:

• The opposition (and supporting evidence)
• The chosen thesis (and its supporting evidence)

At the end, the author leaves the decision up to the reader, trusting that the case they’ve made will do the work of changing the reader’s mind. Even if the reader’s opinion doesn’t change, they come away from the essay with a greater understanding of the perspective presented — and perhaps a better understanding of their original opinion.

All of that might make it seem like writing an argumentative essay is way harder than an emotionally-driven persuasive essay — but if you’re like me and much more comfortable spouting facts and figures than making impassioned pleas, you may find that an argumentative essay is easier to write. 

Plus, the process of researching an argumentative essay means you can check your assumptions and develop an opinion that’s more based in reality than what you originally thought. I know for sure that my opinions need to be fact checked — don’t yours?

So how exactly do we write the argumentative essay?

How do you start an argumentative essay

First, gain a clear understanding of what exactly an argumentative essay is. To formulate a proper topic sentence, you have to be clear on your topic, and to explore it through research.

Students have difficulty starting an essay because the whole task seems intimidating, and they are afraid of spending too much time on the topic sentence. Experienced writers, however, know that there is no set time to spend on figuring out your topic. It's a real exploration that is based to a large extent on intuition.

6 Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay (Persuasion Formula)

Use this checklist to tackle your essay one step at a time:

1. Research an issue with an arguable question

To start, you need to identify an issue that well-informed people have varying opinions on. Here, it’s helpful to think of one core topic and how it intersects with another (or several other) issues. That intersection is where hot takes and reasonable (or unreasonable) opinions abound. 

I find it helpful to stage the issue as a question.

For example: 

Is it better to legislate the minimum size of chicken enclosures or to outlaw the sale of eggs from chickens who don’t have enough space?

Should snow removal policies focus more on effectively keeping roads clear for traffic or the environmental impacts of snow removal methods?

Once you have your arguable question ready, start researching the basic facts and specific opinions and arguments on the issue. Do your best to stay focused on gathering information that is directly relevant to your topic. Depending on what your essay is for, you may reference academic studies, government reports, or newspaper articles.

‍ Research your opposition and the facts that support their viewpoint as much as you research your own position . You’ll need to address your opposition in your essay, so you’ll want to know their argument from the inside out.

2. Choose a side based on your research

You likely started with an inclination toward one side or the other, but your research should ultimately shape your perspective. So once you’ve completed the research, nail down your opinion and start articulating the what and why of your take. 

What: I think it’s better to outlaw selling eggs from chickens whose enclosures are too small.

Why: Because if you regulate the enclosure size directly, egg producers outside of the government’s jurisdiction could ship eggs into your territory and put nearby egg producers out of business by offering better prices because they don’t have the added cost of larger enclosures.

This is an early form of your thesis and the basic logic of your argument. You’ll want to iterate on this a few times and develop a one-sentence statement that sums up the thesis of your essay.

Thesis: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with cramped living spaces is better for business than regulating the size of chicken enclosures.

Now that you’ve articulated your thesis , spell out the counterargument(s) as well. Putting your opposition’s take into words will help you throughout the rest of the essay-writing process. (You can start by choosing the counter argument option with Wordtune Spices .)

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers, making the low-cost protein source harder to afford — especially for low-income consumers.

There may be one main counterargument to articulate, or several. Write them all out and start thinking about how you’ll use evidence to address each of them or show why your argument is still the best option.

3. Organize the evidence — for your side and the opposition

You did all of that research for a reason. Now’s the time to use it. 

Hopefully, you kept detailed notes in a document, complete with links and titles of all your source material. Go through your research document and copy the evidence for your argument and your opposition’s into another document.

List the main points of your argument. Then, below each point, paste the evidence that backs them up.

If you’re writing about chicken enclosures, maybe you found evidence that shows the spread of disease among birds kept in close quarters is worse than among birds who have more space. Or maybe you found information that says eggs from free-range chickens are more flavorful or nutritious. Put that information next to the appropriate part of your argument. 

Repeat the process with your opposition’s argument: What information did you find that supports your opposition? Paste it beside your opposition’s argument.

You could also put information here that refutes your opposition, but organize it in a way that clearly tells you — at a glance — that the information disproves their point.

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers.

BUT: Sicknesses like avian flu spread more easily through small enclosures and could cause a shortage that would drive up egg prices naturally, so ensuring larger enclosures is still a better policy for consumers over the long term.

As you organize your research and see the evidence all together, start thinking through the best way to order your points.  

Will it be better to present your argument all at once or to break it up with opposition claims you can quickly refute? Would some points set up other points well? Does a more complicated point require that the reader understands a simpler point first?

Play around and rearrange your notes to see how your essay might flow one way or another.

4. Freewrite or outline to think through your argument

Is your brain buzzing yet? At this point in the process, it can be helpful to take out a notebook or open a fresh document and dump whatever you’re thinking on the page.

Where should your essay start? What ground-level information do you need to provide your readers before you can dive into the issue?

Use your organized evidence document from step 3 to think through your argument from beginning to end, and determine the structure of your essay.

There are three typical structures for argumentative essays:

• Make your argument and tackle opposition claims one by one, as they come up in relation to the points of your argument - In this approach, the whole essay — from beginning to end — focuses on your argument, but as you make each point, you address the relevant opposition claims individually. This approach works well if your opposition’s views can be quickly explained and refuted and if they directly relate to specific points in your argument.
• Make the bulk of your argument, and then address the opposition all at once in a paragraph (or a few) - This approach puts the opposition in its own section, separate from your main argument. After you’ve made your case, with ample evidence to convince your readers, you write about the opposition, explaining their viewpoint and supporting evidence — and showing readers why the opposition’s argument is unconvincing. Once you’ve addressed the opposition, you write a conclusion that sums up why your argument is the better one.
• Open your essay by talking about the opposition and where it falls short. Build your entire argument to show how it is superior to that opposition - With this structure, you’re showing your readers “a better way” to address the issue. After opening your piece by showing how your opposition’s approaches fail, you launch into your argument, providing readers with ample evidence that backs you up.

As you think through your argument and examine your evidence document, consider which structure will serve your argument best. Sketch out an outline to give yourself a map to follow in the writing process. You could also rearrange your evidence document again to match your outline, so it will be easy to find what you need when you start writing.

5. Write your first draft

You have an outline and an organized document with all your points and evidence lined up and ready. Now you just have to write your essay.

In your first draft, focus on getting your ideas on the page. Your wording may not be perfect (whose is?), but you know what you’re trying to say — so even if you’re overly wordy and taking too much space to say what you need to say, put those words on the page.

Follow your outline, and draw from that evidence document to flesh out each point of your argument. Explain what the evidence means for your argument and your opposition. Connect the dots for your readers so they can follow you, point by point, and understand what you’re trying to say.

As you write, be sure to include:

1. Any background information your reader needs in order to understand the issue in question.

2. Evidence for both your argument and the counterargument(s). This shows that you’ve done your homework and builds trust with your reader, while also setting you up to make a more convincing argument. (If you find gaps in your research while you’re writing, Wordtune Spices can source statistics or historical facts on the fly!)

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

3. A conclusion that sums up your overall argument and evidence — and leaves the reader with an understanding of the issue and its significance. This sort of conclusion brings your essay to a strong ending that doesn’t waste readers’ time, but actually adds value to your case.

6. Revise (with Wordtune)

The hard work is done: you have a first draft. Now, let’s fine tune your writing.

I like to step away from what I’ve written for a day (or at least a night of sleep) before attempting to revise. It helps me approach clunky phrases and rough transitions with fresh eyes. If you don’t have that luxury, just get away from your computer for a few minutes — use the bathroom, do some jumping jacks, eat an apple — and then come back and read through your piece.

As you revise, make sure you …

• Get the facts right. An argument with false evidence falls apart pretty quickly, so check your facts to make yours rock solid.
• Don’t misrepresent the opposition or their evidence. If someone who holds the opposing view reads your essay, they should affirm how you explain their side — even if they disagree with your rebuttal.
• Present a case that builds over the course of your essay, makes sense, and ends on a strong note. One point should naturally lead to the next. Your readers shouldn’t feel like you’re constantly changing subjects. You’re making a variety of points, but your argument should feel like a cohesive whole.
• Paraphrase sources and cite them appropriately. Did you skip citations when writing your first draft? No worries — you can add them now. And check that you don’t overly rely on quotations. (Need help paraphrasing? Wordtune can help. Simply highlight the sentence or phrase you want to adjust and sort through Wordtune’s suggestions.)
• Tighten up overly wordy explanations and sharpen any convoluted ideas. Wordtune makes a great sidekick for this too 😉

Words to start an argumentative essay

The best way to introduce a convincing argument is to provide a strong thesis statement . These are the words I usually use to start an argumentative essay:

• It is indisputable that the world today is facing a multitude of issues
• With the rise of ____, the potential to make a positive difference has never been more accessible
• It is essential that we take action now and tackle these issues head-on
• it is critical to understand the underlying causes of the problems standing before us
• Opponents of this idea claim
• Those who are against these ideas may say
• Some people may disagree with this idea
• Some people may say that ____, however

When refuting an opposing concept, use:

• These researchers have a point in thinking
• To a certain extent they are right
• After seeing this evidence, there is no way one can agree with this idea
• This argument is irrelevant to the topic

Are you convinced by your own argument yet? Ready to brave the next get-together where everyone’s talking like they know something about intermittent fasting , chicken enclosures , or snow removal policies? 

Now if someone asks you to explain your evidence-based but controversial opinion, you can hand them your essay and ask them to report back after they’ve read it.

Share This Article:

How to Craft Your Ideal Thesis Research Topic

How to Craft an Engaging Elevator Pitch that Gets Results

Eight Steps to Craft an Irresistible LinkedIn Profile

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.

Home / Guides / Writing Guides / Paper Types / How to Write an Argumentative Essay

How to Write an Argumentative Essay

Are you writing an argumentative essay for school and just don’t feel that it’s as good as it could be? This type of writing can be challenging, since it requires plenty of research, but it can also be quite rewarding.

Argumentative writing tends to be balanced in that it acknowledges all sides of the issue. Rather than only discuss your own point of view, you will be conducting research on all views of the subject, then presenting them in a way that will allow the reader to make their decision.

Guide Overview

• Choose a topic
• Draft an outline
• Include quotes
• Look at both sides of the issue

Choose a Topic

It’s far easier to write on a topic that interests you and that you feel passionate about. Selecting a topic with strong opposing views can be a great way to get your grades up, provided you do a good job of proving your point.

Great topics may include legal topics, moral topics and social topics, among others. Here are a few to get you started:

• Should businesses be permitted to advertise in schools?
• Should circumcision for infants be banned?
• Is the death penalty the best option for murderers?
• Should employers be permitted to refuse to hire pregnant women
• Should tobacco products be banned?
• Should firearms be restricted?Is abortion a legal right?

These topics have very strong views on either side and it is up to you to select which one to represent first in your essay. While both (or more, if you find others) perspectives should be represented, one will feature more strongly as your preferred opinion.

Hints for a Better Essay

Still need some extra tricks to make sure your essay is amazing? Here are a few ways you can boost the value of your writing.

Draft an Outline

Before you get too far into creating your essay, you’ll want an essay to keep things nice and neat. It’s easy to ramble if you don’t have a specific direction to follow. As you do your research, write the information you find on sticky notes. Then arrange these into a simple outline that flows. Work without a solid outline at your own risk. Consider using an argumentative essay template to understand key elements of the essay.

Include Quotes

Using quotes from experts on the topic will appeal to logic and help the reader understand why your thesis statement hold true. You can find these online, from reputable sources, or you can actually talk to some experts to get the quotes. Be sure to cite these sources to demonstrate credibility and allow the reader to see where the quotes came from. It doesn’t matter if it is in MLA format ( examples ), APA format ( examples ), or another style—be sure to include citations.

Look at Both Sides of the Issue

Balance is the key to argumentative writing. Ideally, you will present both the pros and cons of the various arguments, with a strong slant toward your preferred view. With the right research and arranging of facts, you should be able to present your perspective in a very persuasive way.

While your essay should be written to encourage people to see things from your point of view, it should also present all sides of issue. This will come across as balanced and fair and you allow the reader to ultimately choose which option they prefer.

Finally, if you’re ever facing writer’s block for your college paper, consider WriteWell Essay Templates  to help you get started.

EasyBib Writing Resources

Writing a paper.

• Academic Essay
• Argumentative Essay
• College Admissions Essay
• Expository Essay
• Persuasive Essay
• Research Paper
• Thesis Statement
• Writing a Conclusion
• Writing an Introduction
• Writing an Outline
• Writing a Summary

EasyBib Plus Features

• Citation Generator
• Essay Checker
• Expert Check Proofreader
• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tools

Plagiarism Checker

• Spell Checker

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Grammar and Plagiarism Checkers

Grammar Basics

Plagiarism Basics

Writing Basics

Upload a paper to check for plagiarism against billions of sources and get advanced writing suggestions for clarity and style.

Get Started

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

• The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
• The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

• Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
• This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
• For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
• This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
• Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
• Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets.  Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.  

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

• The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
• There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
• The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
• The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.  

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

• Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
• Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
• Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

Applying large language models for automated essay scoring for non-native Japanese

• Wenchao Li 1 &
• Haitao Liu 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  723 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

12 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to an increased use of large language models (LLMs) for language assessment tasks such as automated essay scoring (AES), automated listening tests, and automated oral proficiency assessments. The application of LLMs for AES in the context of non-native Japanese, however, remains limited. This study explores the potential of LLM-based AES by comparing the efficiency of different models, i.e. two conventional machine training technology-based methods (Jess and JWriter), two LLMs (GPT and BERT), and one Japanese local LLM (Open-Calm large model). To conduct the evaluation, a dataset consisting of 1400 story-writing scripts authored by learners with 12 different first languages was used. Statistical analysis revealed that GPT-4 outperforms Jess and JWriter, BERT, and the Japanese language-specific trained Open-Calm large model in terms of annotation accuracy and predicting learning levels. Furthermore, by comparing 18 different models that utilize various prompts, the study emphasized the significance of prompts in achieving accurate and reliable evaluations using LLMs.

Similar content being viewed by others

Scoring method of English composition integrating deep learning in higher vocational colleges

ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays

Detecting contract cheating through linguistic fingerprint

Conventional machine learning technology in aes.

AES has experienced significant growth with the advancement of machine learning technologies in recent decades. In the earlier stages of AES development, conventional machine learning-based approaches were commonly used. These approaches involved the following procedures: a) feeding the machine with a dataset. In this step, a dataset of essays is provided to the machine learning system. The dataset serves as the basis for training the model and establishing patterns and correlations between linguistic features and human ratings. b) the machine learning model is trained using linguistic features that best represent human ratings and can effectively discriminate learners’ writing proficiency. These features include lexical richness (Lu, 2012 ; Kyle and Crossley, 2015 ; Kyle et al. 2021 ), syntactic complexity (Lu, 2010 ; Liu, 2008 ), text cohesion (Crossley and McNamara, 2016 ), and among others. Conventional machine learning approaches in AES require human intervention, such as manual correction and annotation of essays. This human involvement was necessary to create a labeled dataset for training the model. Several AES systems have been developed using conventional machine learning technologies. These include the Intelligent Essay Assessor (Landauer et al. 2003 ), the e-rater engine by Educational Testing Service (Attali and Burstein, 2006 ; Burstein, 2003 ), MyAccess with the InterlliMetric scoring engine by Vantage Learning (Elliot, 2003 ), and the Bayesian Essay Test Scoring system (Rudner and Liang, 2002 ). These systems have played a significant role in automating the essay scoring process and providing quick and consistent feedback to learners. However, as touched upon earlier, conventional machine learning approaches rely on predetermined linguistic features and often require manual intervention, making them less flexible and potentially limiting their generalizability to different contexts.

In the context of the Japanese language, conventional machine learning-incorporated AES tools include Jess (Ishioka and Kameda, 2006 ) and JWriter (Lee and Hasebe, 2017 ). Jess assesses essays by deducting points from the perfect score, utilizing the Mainichi Daily News newspaper as a database. The evaluation criteria employed by Jess encompass various aspects, such as rhetorical elements (e.g., reading comprehension, vocabulary diversity, percentage of complex words, and percentage of passive sentences), organizational structures (e.g., forward and reverse connection structures), and content analysis (e.g., latent semantic indexing). JWriter employs linear regression analysis to assign weights to various measurement indices, such as average sentence length and total number of characters. These weights are then combined to derive the overall score. A pilot study involving the Jess model was conducted on 1320 essays at different proficiency levels, including primary, intermediate, and advanced. However, the results indicated that the Jess model failed to significantly distinguish between these essay levels. Out of the 16 measures used, four measures, namely median sentence length, median clause length, median number of phrases, and maximum number of phrases, did not show statistically significant differences between the levels. Additionally, two measures exhibited between-level differences but lacked linear progression: the number of attributives declined words and the Kanji/kana ratio. On the other hand, the remaining measures, including maximum sentence length, maximum clause length, number of attributive conjugated words, maximum number of consecutive infinitive forms, maximum number of conjunctive-particle clauses, k characteristic value, percentage of big words, and percentage of passive sentences, demonstrated statistically significant between-level differences and displayed linear progression.

Both Jess and JWriter exhibit notable limitations, including the manual selection of feature parameters and weights, which can introduce biases into the scoring process. The reliance on human annotators to label non-native language essays also introduces potential noise and variability in the scoring. Furthermore, an important concern is the possibility of system manipulation and cheating by learners who are aware of the regression equation utilized by the models (Hirao et al. 2020 ). These limitations emphasize the need for further advancements in AES systems to address these challenges.

Deep learning technology in AES

Deep learning has emerged as one of the approaches for improving the accuracy and effectiveness of AES. Deep learning-based AES methods utilize artificial neural networks that mimic the human brain’s functioning through layered algorithms and computational units. Unlike conventional machine learning, deep learning autonomously learns from the environment and past errors without human intervention. This enables deep learning models to establish nonlinear correlations, resulting in higher accuracy. Recent advancements in deep learning have led to the development of transformers, which are particularly effective in learning text representations. Noteworthy examples include bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) (Devlin et al. 2019 ) and the generative pretrained transformer (GPT) (OpenAI).

BERT is a linguistic representation model that utilizes a transformer architecture and is trained on two tasks: masked linguistic modeling and next-sentence prediction (Hirao et al. 2020 ; Vaswani et al. 2017 ). In the context of AES, BERT follows specific procedures, as illustrated in Fig. 1 : (a) the tokenized prompts and essays are taken as input; (b) special tokens, such as [CLS] and [SEP], are added to mark the beginning and separation of prompts and essays; (c) the transformer encoder processes the prompt and essay sequences, resulting in hidden layer sequences; (d) the hidden layers corresponding to the [CLS] tokens (T[CLS]) represent distributed representations of the prompts and essays; and (e) a multilayer perceptron uses these distributed representations as input to obtain the final score (Hirao et al. 2020 ).

AES system with BERT (Hirao et al. 2020 ).

The training of BERT using a substantial amount of sentence data through the Masked Language Model (MLM) allows it to capture contextual information within the hidden layers. Consequently, BERT is expected to be capable of identifying artificial essays as invalid and assigning them lower scores (Mizumoto and Eguchi, 2023 ). In the context of AES for nonnative Japanese learners, Hirao et al. ( 2020 ) combined the long short-term memory (LSTM) model proposed by Hochreiter and Schmidhuber ( 1997 ) with BERT to develop a tailored automated Essay Scoring System. The findings of their study revealed that the BERT model outperformed both the conventional machine learning approach utilizing character-type features such as “kanji” and “hiragana”, as well as the standalone LSTM model. Takeuchi et al. ( 2021 ) presented an approach to Japanese AES that eliminates the requirement for pre-scored essays by relying solely on reference texts or a model answer for the essay task. They investigated multiple similarity evaluation methods, including frequency of morphemes, idf values calculated on Wikipedia, LSI, LDA, word-embedding vectors, and document vectors produced by BERT. The experimental findings revealed that the method utilizing the frequency of morphemes with idf values exhibited the strongest correlation with human-annotated scores across different essay tasks. The utilization of BERT in AES encounters several limitations. Firstly, essays often exceed the model’s maximum length limit. Second, only score labels are available for training, which restricts access to additional information.

Mizumoto and Eguchi ( 2023 ) were pioneers in employing the GPT model for AES in non-native English writing. Their study focused on evaluating the accuracy and reliability of AES using the GPT-3 text-davinci-003 model, analyzing a dataset of 12,100 essays from the corpus of nonnative written English (TOEFL11). The findings indicated that AES utilizing the GPT-3 model exhibited a certain degree of accuracy and reliability. They suggest that GPT-3-based AES systems hold the potential to provide support for human ratings. However, applying GPT model to AES presents a unique natural language processing (NLP) task that involves considerations such as nonnative language proficiency, the influence of the learner’s first language on the output in the target language, and identifying linguistic features that best indicate writing quality in a specific language. These linguistic features may differ morphologically or syntactically from those present in the learners’ first language, as observed in (1)–(3).

我-送了-他-一本-书

Wǒ-sòngle-tā-yī běn-shū

1 sg .-give. past- him-one .cl- book

“I gave him a book.”

Agglutinative

彼-に-本-を-あげ-まし-た

Kare-ni-hon-o-age-mashi-ta

3 sg .- dat -hon- acc- give.honorification. past

Inflectional

give, give-s, gave, given, giving

Additionally, the morphological agglutination and subject-object-verb (SOV) order in Japanese, along with its idiomatic expressions, pose additional challenges for applying language models in AES tasks (4).

足-が 棒-に なり-ました

Ashi-ga bo-ni nar-mashita

leg- nom stick- dat become- past

“My leg became like a stick (I am extremely tired).”

The example sentence provided demonstrates the morpho-syntactic structure of Japanese and the presence of an idiomatic expression. In this sentence, the verb “なる” (naru), meaning “to become”, appears at the end of the sentence. The verb stem “なり” (nari) is attached with morphemes indicating honorification (“ます” - mashu) and tense (“た” - ta), showcasing agglutination. While the sentence can be literally translated as “my leg became like a stick”, it carries an idiomatic interpretation that implies “I am extremely tired”.

To overcome this issue, CyberAgent Inc. ( 2023 ) has developed the Open-Calm series of language models specifically designed for Japanese. Open-Calm consists of pre-trained models available in various sizes, such as Small, Medium, Large, and 7b. Figure 2 depicts the fundamental structure of the Open-Calm model. A key feature of this architecture is the incorporation of the Lora Adapter and GPT-NeoX frameworks, which can enhance its language processing capabilities.

GPT-NeoX Model Architecture (Okgetheng and Takeuchi 2024 ).

In a recent study conducted by Okgetheng and Takeuchi ( 2024 ), they assessed the efficacy of Open-Calm language models in grading Japanese essays. The research utilized a dataset of approximately 300 essays, which were annotated by native Japanese educators. The findings of the study demonstrate the considerable potential of Open-Calm language models in automated Japanese essay scoring. Specifically, among the Open-Calm family, the Open-Calm Large model (referred to as OCLL) exhibited the highest performance. However, it is important to note that, as of the current date, the Open-Calm Large model does not offer public access to its server. Consequently, users are required to independently deploy and operate the environment for OCLL. In order to utilize OCLL, users must have a PC equipped with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (8 or 12 GB VRAM).

In summary, while the potential of LLMs in automated scoring of nonnative Japanese essays has been demonstrated in two studies—BERT-driven AES (Hirao et al. 2020 ) and OCLL-based AES (Okgetheng and Takeuchi, 2024 )—the number of research efforts in this area remains limited.

Another significant challenge in applying LLMs to AES lies in prompt engineering and ensuring its reliability and effectiveness (Brown et al. 2020 ; Rae et al. 2021 ; Zhang et al. 2021 ). Various prompting strategies have been proposed, such as the zero-shot chain of thought (CoT) approach (Kojima et al. 2022 ), which involves manually crafting diverse and effective examples. However, manual efforts can lead to mistakes. To address this, Zhang et al. ( 2021 ) introduced an automatic CoT prompting method called Auto-CoT, which demonstrates matching or superior performance compared to the CoT paradigm. Another prompt framework is trees of thoughts, enabling a model to self-evaluate its progress at intermediate stages of problem-solving through deliberate reasoning (Yao et al. 2023 ).

Beyond linguistic studies, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of foreign workers in Japan and Japanese learners worldwide (Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan, 2022 ; Japan Foundation, 2021 ). However, existing assessment methods, such as the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT), J-CAT, and TTBJ Footnote 1 , primarily focus on reading, listening, vocabulary, and grammar skills, neglecting the evaluation of writing proficiency. As the number of workers and language learners continues to grow, there is a rising demand for an efficient AES system that can reduce costs and time for raters and be utilized for employment, examinations, and self-study purposes.

This study aims to explore the potential of LLM-based AES by comparing the effectiveness of five models: two LLMs (GPT Footnote 2 and BERT), one Japanese local LLM (OCLL), and two conventional machine learning-based methods (linguistic feature-based scoring tools - Jess and JWriter).

The research questions addressed in this study are as follows:

To what extent do the LLM-driven AES and linguistic feature-based AES, when used as automated tools to support human rating, accurately reflect test takers’ actual performance?

What influence does the prompt have on the accuracy and performance of LLM-based AES methods?

The subsequent sections of the manuscript cover the methodology, including the assessment measures for nonnative Japanese writing proficiency, criteria for prompts, and the dataset. The evaluation section focuses on the analysis of annotations and rating scores generated by LLM-driven and linguistic feature-based AES methods.

Methodology

The dataset utilized in this study was obtained from the International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language (I-JAS) Footnote 3 . This corpus consisted of 1000 participants who represented 12 different first languages. For the study, the participants were given a story-writing task on a personal computer. They were required to write two stories based on the 4-panel illustrations titled “Picnic” and “The key” (see Appendix A). Background information for the participants was provided by the corpus, including their Japanese language proficiency levels assessed through two online tests: J-CAT and SPOT. These tests evaluated their reading, listening, vocabulary, and grammar abilities. The learners’ proficiency levels were categorized into six levels aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the Reference Framework for Japanese Language Education (RFJLE): A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2. According to Lee et al. ( 2015 ), there is a high level of agreement (r = 0.86) between the J-CAT and SPOT assessments, indicating that the proficiency certifications provided by J-CAT are consistent with those of SPOT. However, it is important to note that the scores of J-CAT and SPOT do not have a one-to-one correspondence. In this study, the J-CAT scores were used as a benchmark to differentiate learners of different proficiency levels. A total of 1400 essays were utilized, representing the beginner (aligned with A1), A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 levels based on the J-CAT scores. Table 1 provides information about the learners’ proficiency levels and their corresponding J-CAT and SPOT scores.

A dataset comprising a total of 1400 essays from the story writing tasks was collected. Among these, 714 essays were utilized to evaluate the reliability of the LLM-based AES method, while the remaining 686 essays were designated as development data to assess the LLM-based AES’s capability to distinguish participants with varying proficiency levels. The GPT 4 API was used in this study. A detailed explanation of the prompt-assessment criteria is provided in Section Prompt . All essays were sent to the model for measurement and scoring.

Measures of writing proficiency for nonnative Japanese

Japanese exhibits a morphologically agglutinative structure where morphemes are attached to the word stem to convey grammatical functions such as tense, aspect, voice, and honorifics, e.g. (5).

食べ-させ-られ-まし-た-か

tabe-sase-rare-mashi-ta-ka

[eat (stem)-causative-passive voice-honorification-tense. past-question marker]

Japanese employs nine case particles to indicate grammatical functions: the nominative case particle が (ga), the accusative case particle を (o), the genitive case particle の (no), the dative case particle に (ni), the locative/instrumental case particle で (de), the ablative case particle から (kara), the directional case particle へ (e), and the comitative case particle と (to). The agglutinative nature of the language, combined with the case particle system, provides an efficient means of distinguishing between active and passive voice, either through morphemes or case particles, e.g. 食べる taberu “eat concusive . ” (active voice); 食べられる taberareru “eat concusive . ” (passive voice). In the active voice, “パン を 食べる” (pan o taberu) translates to “to eat bread”. On the other hand, in the passive voice, it becomes “パン が 食べられた” (pan ga taberareta), which means “(the) bread was eaten”. Additionally, it is important to note that different conjugations of the same lemma are considered as one type in order to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the language features. For example, e.g., 食べる taberu “eat concusive . ”; 食べている tabeteiru “eat progress .”; 食べた tabeta “eat past . ” as one type.

To incorporate these features, previous research (Suzuki, 1999 ; Watanabe et al. 1988 ; Ishioka, 2001 ; Ishioka and Kameda, 2006 ; Hirao et al. 2020 ) has identified complexity, fluency, and accuracy as crucial factors for evaluating writing quality. These criteria are assessed through various aspects, including lexical richness (lexical density, diversity, and sophistication), syntactic complexity, and cohesion (Kyle et al. 2021 ; Mizumoto and Eguchi, 2023 ; Ure, 1971 ; Halliday, 1985 ; Barkaoui and Hadidi, 2020 ; Zenker and Kyle, 2021 ; Kim et al. 2018 ; Lu, 2017 ; Ortega, 2015 ). Therefore, this study proposes five scoring categories: lexical richness, syntactic complexity, cohesion, content elaboration, and grammatical accuracy. A total of 16 measures were employed to capture these categories. The calculation process and specific details of these measures can be found in Table 2 .

T-unit, first introduced by Hunt ( 1966 ), is a measure used for evaluating speech and composition. It serves as an indicator of syntactic development and represents the shortest units into which a piece of discourse can be divided without leaving any sentence fragments. In the context of Japanese language assessment, Sakoda and Hosoi ( 2020 ) utilized T-unit as the basic unit to assess the accuracy and complexity of Japanese learners’ speaking and storytelling. The calculation of T-units in Japanese follows the following principles:

A single main clause constitutes 1 T-unit, regardless of the presence or absence of dependent clauses, e.g. (6).

ケンとマリはピクニックに行きました (main clause): 1 T-unit.

If a sentence contains a main clause along with subclauses, each subclause is considered part of the same T-unit, e.g. (7).

天気が良かった の で (subclause)、ケンとマリはピクニックに行きました (main clause): 1 T-unit.

In the case of coordinate clauses, where multiple clauses are connected, each coordinated clause is counted separately. Thus, a sentence with coordinate clauses may have 2 T-units or more, e.g. (8).

ケンは地図で場所を探して (coordinate clause)、マリはサンドイッチを作りました (coordinate clause): 2 T-units.

Lexical diversity refers to the range of words used within a text (Engber, 1995 ; Kyle et al. 2021 ) and is considered a useful measure of the breadth of vocabulary in L n production (Jarvis, 2013a , 2013b ).

The type/token ratio (TTR) is widely recognized as a straightforward measure for calculating lexical diversity and has been employed in numerous studies. These studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between TTR and other methods of measuring lexical diversity (e.g., Bentz et al. 2016 ; Čech and Miroslav, 2018 ; Çöltekin and Taraka, 2018 ). TTR is computed by considering both the number of unique words (types) and the total number of words (tokens) in a given text. Given that the length of learners’ writing texts can vary, this study employs the moving average type-token ratio (MATTR) to mitigate the influence of text length. MATTR is calculated using a 50-word moving window. Initially, a TTR is determined for words 1–50 in an essay, followed by words 2–51, 3–52, and so on until the end of the essay is reached (Díez-Ortega and Kyle, 2023 ). The final MATTR scores were obtained by averaging the TTR scores for all 50-word windows. The following formula was employed to derive MATTR:

\({\rm{MATTR}}({\rm{W}})=\frac{{\sum }_{{\rm{i}}=1}^{{\rm{N}}-{\rm{W}}+1}{{\rm{F}}}_{{\rm{i}}}}{{\rm{W}}({\rm{N}}-{\rm{W}}+1)}\)

Here, N refers to the number of tokens in the corpus. W is the randomly selected token size (W < N). \({F}_{i}\) is the number of types in each window. The \({\rm{MATTR}}({\rm{W}})\) is the mean of a series of type-token ratios (TTRs) based on the word form for all windows. It is expected that individuals with higher language proficiency will produce texts with greater lexical diversity, as indicated by higher MATTR scores.

Lexical density was captured by the ratio of the number of lexical words to the total number of words (Lu, 2012 ). Lexical sophistication refers to the utilization of advanced vocabulary, often evaluated through word frequency indices (Crossley et al. 2013 ; Haberman, 2008 ; Kyle and Crossley, 2015 ; Laufer and Nation, 1995 ; Lu, 2012 ; Read, 2000 ). In line of writing, lexical sophistication can be interpreted as vocabulary breadth, which entails the appropriate usage of vocabulary items across various lexicon-grammatical contexts and registers (Garner et al. 2019 ; Kim et al. 2018 ; Kyle et al. 2018 ). In Japanese specifically, words are considered lexically sophisticated if they are not included in the “Japanese Education Vocabulary List Ver 1.0”. Footnote 4 Consequently, lexical sophistication was calculated by determining the number of sophisticated word types relative to the total number of words per essay. Furthermore, it has been suggested that, in Japanese writing, sentences should ideally have a length of no more than 40 to 50 characters, as this promotes readability. Therefore, the median and maximum sentence length can be considered as useful indices for assessment (Ishioka and Kameda, 2006 ).

Syntactic complexity was assessed based on several measures, including the mean length of clauses, verb phrases per T-unit, clauses per T-unit, dependent clauses per T-unit, complex nominals per clause, adverbial clauses per clause, coordinate phrases per clause, and mean dependency distance (MDD). The MDD reflects the distance between the governor and dependent positions in a sentence. A larger dependency distance indicates a higher cognitive load and greater complexity in syntactic processing (Liu, 2008 ; Liu et al. 2017 ). The MDD has been established as an efficient metric for measuring syntactic complexity (Jiang, Quyang, and Liu, 2019 ; Li and Yan, 2021 ). To calculate the MDD, the position numbers of the governor and dependent are subtracted, assuming that words in a sentence are assigned in a linear order, such as W1 … Wi … Wn. In any dependency relationship between words Wa and Wb, Wa is the governor and Wb is the dependent. The MDD of the entire sentence was obtained by taking the absolute value of governor – dependent:

MDD = \(\frac{1}{n}{\sum }_{i=1}^{n}|{\rm{D}}{{\rm{D}}}_{i}|\)

In this formula, \(n\) represents the number of words in the sentence, and \({DD}i\) is the dependency distance of the \({i}^{{th}}\) dependency relationship of a sentence. Building on this, the annotation of sentence ‘Mary-ga-John-ni-keshigomu-o-watashita was [Mary- top -John- dat -eraser- acc -give- past] ’. The sentence’s MDD would be 2. Table 3 provides the CSV file as a prompt for GPT 4.

Cohesion (semantic similarity) and content elaboration aim to capture the ideas presented in test taker’s essays. Cohesion was assessed using three measures: Synonym overlap/paragraph (topic), Synonym overlap/paragraph (keywords), and word2vec cosine similarity. Content elaboration and development were measured as the number of metadiscourse markers (type)/number of words. To capture content closely, this study proposed a novel-distance based representation, by encoding the cosine distance between the essay (by learner) and essay task’s (topic and keyword) i -vectors. The learner’s essay is decoded into a word sequence, and aligned to the essay task’ topic and keyword for log-likelihood measurement. The cosine distance reveals the content elaboration score in the leaners’ essay. The mathematical equation of cosine similarity between target-reference vectors is shown in (11), assuming there are i essays and ( L i , …. L n ) and ( N i , …. N n ) are the vectors representing the learner and task’s topic and keyword respectively. The content elaboration distance between L i and N i was calculated as follows:

\(\cos \left(\theta \right)=\frac{{\rm{L}}\,\cdot\, {\rm{N}}}{\left|{\rm{L}}\right|{\rm{|N|}}}=\frac{\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{L}_{i}{N}_{i}}{\sqrt{\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{L}_{i}^{2}}\sqrt{\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{N}_{i}^{2}}}\)

A high similarity value indicates a low difference between the two recognition outcomes, which in turn suggests a high level of proficiency in content elaboration.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed measures in distinguishing different proficiency levels among nonnative Japanese speakers’ writing, we conducted a multi-faceted Rasch measurement analysis (Linacre, 1994 ). This approach applies measurement models to thoroughly analyze various factors that can influence test outcomes, including test takers’ proficiency, item difficulty, and rater severity, among others. The underlying principles and functionality of multi-faceted Rasch measurement are illustrated in (12).

\(\log \left(\frac{{P}_{{nijk}}}{{P}_{{nij}(k-1)}}\right)={B}_{n}-{D}_{i}-{C}_{j}-{F}_{k}\)

(12) defines the logarithmic transformation of the probability ratio ( P nijk /P nij(k-1) )) as a function of multiple parameters. Here, n represents the test taker, i denotes a writing proficiency measure, j corresponds to the human rater, and k represents the proficiency score. The parameter B n signifies the proficiency level of test taker n (where n ranges from 1 to N). D j represents the difficulty parameter of test item i (where i ranges from 1 to L), while C j represents the severity of rater j (where j ranges from 1 to J). Additionally, F k represents the step difficulty for a test taker to move from score ‘k-1’ to k . P nijk refers to the probability of rater j assigning score k to test taker n for test item i . P nij(k-1) represents the likelihood of test taker n being assigned score ‘k-1’ by rater j for test item i . Each facet within the test is treated as an independent parameter and estimated within the same reference framework. To evaluate the consistency of scores obtained through both human and computer analysis, we utilized the Infit mean-square statistic. This statistic is a chi-square measure divided by the degrees of freedom and is weighted with information. It demonstrates higher sensitivity to unexpected patterns in responses to items near a person’s proficiency level (Linacre, 2002 ). Fit statistics are assessed based on predefined thresholds for acceptable fit. For the Infit MNSQ, which has a mean of 1.00, different thresholds have been suggested. Some propose stricter thresholds ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 (Bond et al. 2021 ), while others suggest more lenient thresholds ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 (Eckes, 2009 ). In this study, we adopted the criterion of 0.70–1.30 for the Infit MNSQ.

Moving forward, we can now proceed to assess the effectiveness of the 16 proposed measures based on five criteria for accurately distinguishing various levels of writing proficiency among non-native Japanese speakers. To conduct this evaluation, we utilized the development dataset from the I-JAS corpus, as described in Section Dataset . Table 4 provides a measurement report that presents the performance details of the 14 metrics under consideration. The measure separation was found to be 4.02, indicating a clear differentiation among the measures. The reliability index for the measure separation was 0.891, suggesting consistency in the measurement. Similarly, the person separation reliability index was 0.802, indicating the accuracy of the assessment in distinguishing between individuals. All 16 measures demonstrated Infit mean squares within a reasonable range, ranging from 0.76 to 1.28. The Synonym overlap/paragraph (topic) measure exhibited a relatively high outfit mean square of 1.46, although the Infit mean square falls within an acceptable range. The standard error for the measures ranged from 0.13 to 0.28, indicating the precision of the estimates.

Table 5 further illustrated the weights assigned to different linguistic measures for score prediction, with higher weights indicating stronger correlations between those measures and higher scores. Specifically, the following measures exhibited higher weights compared to others: moving average type token ratio per essay has a weight of 0.0391. Mean dependency distance had a weight of 0.0388. Mean length of clause, calculated by dividing the number of words by the number of clauses, had a weight of 0.0374. Complex nominals per T-unit, calculated by dividing the number of complex nominals by the number of T-units, had a weight of 0.0379. Coordinate phrases rate, calculated by dividing the number of coordinate phrases by the number of clauses, had a weight of 0.0325. Grammatical error rate, representing the number of errors per essay, had a weight of 0.0322.

Criteria (output indicator)

The criteria used to evaluate the writing ability in this study were based on CEFR, which follows a six-point scale ranging from A1 to C2. To assess the quality of Japanese writing, the scoring criteria from Table 6 were utilized. These criteria were derived from the IELTS writing standards and served as assessment guidelines and prompts for the written output.

A prompt is a question or detailed instruction that is provided to the model to obtain a proper response. After several pilot experiments, we decided to provide the measures (Section Measures of writing proficiency for nonnative Japanese ) as the input prompt and use the criteria (Section Criteria (output indicator) ) as the output indicator. Regarding the prompt language, considering that the LLM was tasked with rating Japanese essays, would prompt in Japanese works better Footnote 5 ? We conducted experiments comparing the performance of GPT-4 using both English and Japanese prompts. Additionally, we utilized the Japanese local model OCLL with Japanese prompts. Multiple trials were conducted using the same sample. Regardless of the prompt language used, we consistently obtained the same grading results with GPT-4, which assigned a grade of B1 to the writing sample. This suggested that GPT-4 is reliable and capable of producing consistent ratings regardless of the prompt language. On the other hand, when we used Japanese prompts with the Japanese local model “OCLL”, we encountered inconsistent grading results. Out of 10 attempts with OCLL, only 6 yielded consistent grading results (B1), while the remaining 4 showed different outcomes, including A1 and B2 grades. These findings indicated that the language of the prompt was not the determining factor for reliable AES. Instead, the size of the training data and the model parameters played crucial roles in achieving consistent and reliable AES results for the language model.

The following is the utilized prompt, which details all measures and requires the LLM to score the essays using holistic and trait scores.

Please evaluate Japanese essays written by Japanese learners and assign a score to each essay on a six-point scale, ranging from A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 to C2. Additionally, please provide trait scores and display the calculation process for each trait score. The scoring should be based on the following criteria:

Moving average type-token ratio.

Number of lexical words (token) divided by the total number of words per essay.

Number of sophisticated word types divided by the total number of words per essay.

Mean length of clause.

Verb phrases per T-unit.

Clauses per T-unit.

Dependent clauses per T-unit.

Complex nominals per clause.

Adverbial clauses per clause.

Coordinate phrases per clause.

Mean dependency distance.

Synonym overlap paragraph (topic and keywords).

Word2vec cosine similarity.

Connectives per essay.

Conjunctions per essay.

Number of metadiscourse markers (types) divided by the total number of words.

Number of errors per essay.

Japanese essay text

出かける前に二人が地図を見ている間に、サンドイッチを入れたバスケットに犬が入ってしまいました。それに気づかずに二人は楽しそうに出かけて行きました。やがて突然犬がバスケットから飛び出し、二人は驚きました。バスケット の 中を見ると、食べ物はすべて犬に食べられていて、二人は困ってしまいました。(ID_JJJ01_SW1)

The score of the example above was B1. Figure 3 provides an example of holistic and trait scores provided by GPT-4 (with a prompt indicating all measures) via Bing Footnote 6 .

Example of GPT-4 AES and feedback (with a prompt indicating all measures).

Statistical analysis

The aim of this study is to investigate the potential use of LLM for nonnative Japanese AES. It seeks to compare the scoring outcomes obtained from feature-based AES tools, which rely on conventional machine learning technology (i.e. Jess, JWriter), with those generated by AI-driven AES tools utilizing deep learning technology (BERT, GPT, OCLL). To assess the reliability of a computer-assisted annotation tool, the study initially established human-human agreement as the benchmark measure. Subsequently, the performance of the LLM-based method was evaluated by comparing it to human-human agreement.

To assess annotation agreement, the study employed standard measures such as precision, recall, and F-score (Brants 2000 ; Lu 2010 ), along with the quadratically weighted kappa (QWK) to evaluate the consistency and agreement in the annotation process. Assume A and B represent human annotators. When comparing the annotations of the two annotators, the following results are obtained. The evaluation of precision, recall, and F-score metrics was illustrated in equations (13) to (15).

\({\rm{Recall}}(A,B)=\frac{{\rm{Number}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{identical}}\,{\rm{nodes}}\,{\rm{in}}\,A\,{\rm{and}}\,B}{{\rm{Number}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{nodes}}\,{\rm{in}}\,A}\)

\({\rm{Precision}}(A,\,B)=\frac{{\rm{Number}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{identical}}\,{\rm{nodes}}\,{\rm{in}}\,A\,{\rm{and}}\,B}{{\rm{Number}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{nodes}}\,{\rm{in}}\,B}\)

The F-score is the harmonic mean of recall and precision:

\({\rm{F}}-{\rm{score}}=\frac{2* ({\rm{Precision}}* {\rm{Recall}})}{{\rm{Precision}}+{\rm{Recall}}}\)

The highest possible value of an F-score is 1.0, indicating perfect precision and recall, and the lowest possible value is 0, if either precision or recall are zero.

In accordance with Taghipour and Ng ( 2016 ), the calculation of QWK involves two steps:

Step 1: Construct a weight matrix W as follows:

\({W}_{{ij}}=\frac{{(i-j)}^{2}}{{(N-1)}^{2}}\)

i represents the annotation made by the tool, while j represents the annotation made by a human rater. N denotes the total number of possible annotations. Matrix O is subsequently computed, where O_( i, j ) represents the count of data annotated by the tool ( i ) and the human annotator ( j ). On the other hand, E refers to the expected count matrix, which undergoes normalization to ensure that the sum of elements in E matches the sum of elements in O.

Step 2: With matrices O and E, the QWK is obtained as follows:

K = 1- \(\frac{\sum i,j{W}_{i,j}\,{O}_{i,j}}{\sum i,j{W}_{i,j}\,{E}_{i,j}}\)

The value of the quadratic weighted kappa increases as the level of agreement improves. Further, to assess the accuracy of LLM scoring, the proportional reductive mean square error (PRMSE) was employed. The PRMSE approach takes into account the variability observed in human ratings to estimate the rater error, which is then subtracted from the variance of the human labels. This calculation provides an overall measure of agreement between the automated scores and true scores (Haberman et al. 2015 ; Loukina et al. 2020 ; Taghipour and Ng, 2016 ). The computation of PRMSE involves the following steps:

Step 1: Calculate the mean squared errors (MSEs) for the scoring outcomes of the computer-assisted tool (MSE tool) and the human scoring outcomes (MSE human).

Step 2: Determine the PRMSE by comparing the MSE of the computer-assisted tool (MSE tool) with the MSE from human raters (MSE human), using the following formula:

\({\rm{PRMSE}}=1-\frac{({\rm{MSE}}\,{\rm{tool}})\,}{({\rm{MSE}}\,{\rm{human}})\,}=1-\,\frac{{\sum }_{i}^{n}=1{({{\rm{y}}}_{i}-{\hat{{\rm{y}}}}_{{\rm{i}}})}^{2}}{{\sum }_{i}^{n}=1{({{\rm{y}}}_{i}-\hat{{\rm{y}}})}^{2}}\)

In the numerator, ŷi represents the scoring outcome predicted by a specific LLM-driven AES system for a given sample. The term y i − ŷ i represents the difference between this predicted outcome and the mean value of all LLM-driven AES systems’ scoring outcomes. It quantifies the deviation of the specific LLM-driven AES system’s prediction from the average prediction of all LLM-driven AES systems. In the denominator, y i − ŷ represents the difference between the scoring outcome provided by a specific human rater for a given sample and the mean value of all human raters’ scoring outcomes. It measures the discrepancy between the specific human rater’s score and the average score given by all human raters. The PRMSE is then calculated by subtracting the ratio of the MSE tool to the MSE human from 1. PRMSE falls within the range of 0 to 1, with larger values indicating reduced errors in LLM’s scoring compared to those of human raters. In other words, a higher PRMSE implies that LLM’s scoring demonstrates greater accuracy in predicting the true scores (Loukina et al. 2020 ). The interpretation of kappa values, ranging from 0 to 1, is based on the work of Landis and Koch ( 1977 ). Specifically, the following categories are assigned to different ranges of kappa values: −1 indicates complete inconsistency, 0 indicates random agreement, 0.0 ~ 0.20 indicates extremely low level of agreement (slight), 0.21 ~ 0.40 indicates moderate level of agreement (fair), 0.41 ~ 0.60 indicates medium level of agreement (moderate), 0.61 ~ 0.80 indicates high level of agreement (substantial), 0.81 ~ 1 indicates almost perfect level of agreement. All statistical analyses were executed using Python script.

Results and discussion

Annotation reliability of the llm.

This section focuses on assessing the reliability of the LLM’s annotation and scoring capabilities. To evaluate the reliability, several tests were conducted simultaneously, aiming to achieve the following objectives:

Assess the LLM’s ability to differentiate between test takers with varying levels of oral proficiency.

Determine the level of agreement between the annotations and scoring performed by the LLM and those done by human raters.

The evaluation of the results encompassed several metrics, including: precision, recall, F-Score, quadratically-weighted kappa, proportional reduction of mean squared error, Pearson correlation, and multi-faceted Rasch measurement.

Inter-annotator agreement (human–human annotator agreement)

We started with an agreement test of the two human annotators. Two trained annotators were recruited to determine the writing task data measures. A total of 714 scripts, as the test data, was utilized. Each analysis lasted 300–360 min. Inter-annotator agreement was evaluated using the standard measures of precision, recall, and F-score and QWK. Table 7 presents the inter-annotator agreement for the various indicators. As shown, the inter-annotator agreement was fairly high, with F-scores ranging from 1.0 for sentence and word number to 0.666 for grammatical errors.

The findings from the QWK analysis provided further confirmation of the inter-annotator agreement. The QWK values covered a range from 0.950 ( p  = 0.000) for sentence and word number to 0.695 for synonym overlap number (keyword) and grammatical errors ( p  = 0.001).

Agreement of annotation outcomes between human and LLM

To evaluate the consistency between human annotators and LLM annotators (BERT, GPT, OCLL) across the indices, the same test was conducted. The results of the inter-annotator agreement (F-score) between LLM and human annotation are provided in Appendix B-D. The F-scores ranged from 0.706 for Grammatical error # for OCLL-human to a perfect 1.000 for GPT-human, for sentences, clauses, T-units, and words. These findings were further supported by the QWK analysis, which showed agreement levels ranging from 0.807 ( p  = 0.001) for metadiscourse markers for OCLL-human to 0.962 for words ( p  = 0.000) for GPT-human. The findings demonstrated that the LLM annotation achieved a significant level of accuracy in identifying measurement units and counts.

Reliability of LLM-driven AES’s scoring and discriminating proficiency levels

This section examines the reliability of the LLM-driven AES scoring through a comparison of the scoring outcomes produced by human raters and the LLM ( Reliability of LLM-driven AES scoring ). It also assesses the effectiveness of the LLM-based AES system in differentiating participants with varying proficiency levels ( Reliability of LLM-driven AES discriminating proficiency levels ).

Reliability of LLM-driven AES scoring

Table 8 summarizes the QWK coefficient analysis between the scores computed by the human raters and the GPT-4 for the individual essays from I-JAS Footnote 7 . As shown, the QWK of all measures ranged from k  = 0.819 for lexical density (number of lexical words (tokens)/number of words per essay) to k  = 0.644 for word2vec cosine similarity. Table 9 further presents the Pearson correlations between the 16 writing proficiency measures scored by human raters and GPT 4 for the individual essays. The correlations ranged from 0.672 for syntactic complexity to 0.734 for grammatical accuracy. The correlations between the writing proficiency scores assigned by human raters and the BERT-based AES system were found to range from 0.661 for syntactic complexity to 0.713 for grammatical accuracy. The correlations between the writing proficiency scores given by human raters and the OCLL-based AES system ranged from 0.654 for cohesion to 0.721 for grammatical accuracy. These findings indicated an alignment between the assessments made by human raters and both the BERT-based and OCLL-based AES systems in terms of various aspects of writing proficiency.

Reliability of LLM-driven AES discriminating proficiency levels

After validating the reliability of the LLM’s annotation and scoring, the subsequent objective was to evaluate its ability to distinguish between various proficiency levels. For this analysis, a dataset of 686 individual essays was utilized. Table 10 presents a sample of the results, summarizing the means, standard deviations, and the outcomes of the one-way ANOVAs based on the measures assessed by the GPT-4 model. A post hoc multiple comparison test, specifically the Bonferroni test, was conducted to identify any potential differences between pairs of levels.

As the results reveal, seven measures presented linear upward or downward progress across the three proficiency levels. These were marked in bold in Table 10 and comprise one measure of lexical richness, i.e. MATTR (lexical diversity); four measures of syntactic complexity, i.e. MDD (mean dependency distance), MLC (mean length of clause), CNT (complex nominals per T-unit), CPC (coordinate phrases rate); one cohesion measure, i.e. word2vec cosine similarity and GER (grammatical error rate). Regarding the ability of the sixteen measures to distinguish adjacent proficiency levels, the Bonferroni tests indicated that statistically significant differences exist between the primary level and the intermediate level for MLC and GER. One measure of lexical richness, namely LD, along with three measures of syntactic complexity (VPT, CT, DCT, ACC), two measures of cohesion (SOPT, SOPK), and one measure of content elaboration (IMM), exhibited statistically significant differences between proficiency levels. However, these differences did not demonstrate a linear progression between adjacent proficiency levels. No significant difference was observed in lexical sophistication between proficiency levels.

To summarize, our study aimed to evaluate the reliability and differentiation capabilities of the LLM-driven AES method. For the first objective, we assessed the LLM’s ability to differentiate between test takers with varying levels of oral proficiency using precision, recall, F-Score, and quadratically-weighted kappa. Regarding the second objective, we compared the scoring outcomes generated by human raters and the LLM to determine the level of agreement. We employed quadratically-weighted kappa and Pearson correlations to compare the 16 writing proficiency measures for the individual essays. The results confirmed the feasibility of using the LLM for annotation and scoring in AES for nonnative Japanese. As a result, Research Question 1 has been addressed.

Comparison of BERT-, GPT-, OCLL-based AES, and linguistic-feature-based computation methods

This section aims to compare the effectiveness of five AES methods for nonnative Japanese writing, i.e. LLM-driven approaches utilizing BERT, GPT, and OCLL, linguistic feature-based approaches using Jess and JWriter. The comparison was conducted by comparing the ratings obtained from each approach with human ratings. All ratings were derived from the dataset introduced in Dataset . To facilitate the comparison, the agreement between the automated methods and human ratings was assessed using QWK and PRMSE. The performance of each approach was summarized in Table 11 .

The QWK coefficient values indicate that LLMs (GPT, BERT, OCLL) and human rating outcomes demonstrated higher agreement compared to feature-based AES methods (Jess and JWriter) in assessing writing proficiency criteria, including lexical richness, syntactic complexity, content, and grammatical accuracy. Among the LLMs, the GPT-4 driven AES and human rating outcomes showed the highest agreement in all criteria, except for syntactic complexity. The PRMSE values suggest that the GPT-based method outperformed linguistic feature-based methods and other LLM-based approaches. Moreover, an interesting finding emerged during the study: the agreement coefficient between GPT-4 and human scoring was even higher than the agreement between different human raters themselves. This discovery highlights the advantage of GPT-based AES over human rating. Ratings involve a series of processes, including reading the learners’ writing, evaluating the content and language, and assigning scores. Within this chain of processes, various biases can be introduced, stemming from factors such as rater biases, test design, and rating scales. These biases can impact the consistency and objectivity of human ratings. GPT-based AES may benefit from its ability to apply consistent and objective evaluation criteria. By prompting the GPT model with detailed writing scoring rubrics and linguistic features, potential biases in human ratings can be mitigated. The model follows a predefined set of guidelines and does not possess the same subjective biases that human raters may exhibit. This standardization in the evaluation process contributes to the higher agreement observed between GPT-4 and human scoring. Section Prompt strategy of the study delves further into the role of prompts in the application of LLMs to AES. It explores how the choice and implementation of prompts can impact the performance and reliability of LLM-based AES methods. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the strengths of the local model, i.e. the Japanese local model OCLL, which excels in processing certain idiomatic expressions. Nevertheless, our analysis indicated that GPT-4 surpasses local models in AES. This superior performance can be attributed to the larger parameter size of GPT-4, estimated to be between 500 billion and 1 trillion, which exceeds the sizes of both BERT and the local model OCLL.

Prompt strategy

In the context of prompt strategy, Mizumoto and Eguchi ( 2023 ) conducted a study where they applied the GPT-3 model to automatically score English essays in the TOEFL test. They found that the accuracy of the GPT model alone was moderate to fair. However, when they incorporated linguistic measures such as cohesion, syntactic complexity, and lexical features alongside the GPT model, the accuracy significantly improved. This highlights the importance of prompt engineering and providing the model with specific instructions to enhance its performance. In this study, a similar approach was taken to optimize the performance of LLMs. GPT-4, which outperformed BERT and OCLL, was selected as the candidate model. Model 1 was used as the baseline, representing GPT-4 without any additional prompting. Model 2, on the other hand, involved GPT-4 prompted with 16 measures that included scoring criteria, efficient linguistic features for writing assessment, and detailed measurement units and calculation formulas. The remaining models (Models 3 to 18) utilized GPT-4 prompted with individual measures. The performance of these 18 different models was assessed using the output indicators described in Section Criteria (output indicator) . By comparing the performances of these models, the study aimed to understand the impact of prompt engineering on the accuracy and effectiveness of GPT-4 in AES tasks.

Based on the PRMSE scores presented in Fig. 4 , it was observed that Model 1, representing GPT-4 without any additional prompting, achieved a fair level of performance. However, Model 2, which utilized GPT-4 prompted with all measures, outperformed all other models in terms of PRMSE score, achieving a score of 0.681. These results indicate that the inclusion of specific measures and prompts significantly enhanced the performance of GPT-4 in AES. Among the measures, syntactic complexity was found to play a particularly significant role in improving the accuracy of GPT-4 in assessing writing quality. Following that, lexical diversity emerged as another important factor contributing to the model’s effectiveness. The study suggests that a well-prompted GPT-4 can serve as a valuable tool to support human assessors in evaluating writing quality. By utilizing GPT-4 as an automated scoring tool, the evaluation biases associated with human raters can be minimized. This has the potential to empower teachers by allowing them to focus on designing writing tasks and guiding writing strategies, while leveraging the capabilities of GPT-4 for efficient and reliable scoring.

PRMSE scores of the 18 AES models.

This study aimed to investigate two main research questions: the feasibility of utilizing LLMs for AES and the impact of prompt engineering on the application of LLMs in AES.

To address the first objective, the study compared the effectiveness of five different models: GPT, BERT, the Japanese local LLM (OCLL), and two conventional machine learning-based AES tools (Jess and JWriter). The PRMSE values indicated that the GPT-4-based method outperformed other LLMs (BERT, OCLL) and linguistic feature-based computational methods (Jess and JWriter) across various writing proficiency criteria. Furthermore, the agreement coefficient between GPT-4 and human scoring surpassed the agreement among human raters themselves, highlighting the potential of using the GPT-4 tool to enhance AES by reducing biases and subjectivity, saving time, labor, and cost, and providing valuable feedback for self-study. Regarding the second goal, the role of prompt design was investigated by comparing 18 models, including a baseline model, a model prompted with all measures, and 16 models prompted with one measure at a time. GPT-4, which outperformed BERT and OCLL, was selected as the candidate model. The PRMSE scores of the models showed that GPT-4 prompted with all measures achieved the best performance, surpassing the baseline and other models.

In conclusion, this study has demonstrated the potential of LLMs in supporting human rating in assessments. By incorporating automation, we can save time and resources while reducing biases and subjectivity inherent in human rating processes. Automated language assessments offer the advantage of accessibility, providing equal opportunities and economic feasibility for individuals who lack access to traditional assessment centers or necessary resources. LLM-based language assessments provide valuable feedback and support to learners, aiding in the enhancement of their language proficiency and the achievement of their goals. This personalized feedback can cater to individual learner needs, facilitating a more tailored and effective language-learning experience.

There are three important areas that merit further exploration. First, prompt engineering requires attention to ensure optimal performance of LLM-based AES across different language types. This study revealed that GPT-4, when prompted with all measures, outperformed models prompted with fewer measures. Therefore, investigating and refining prompt strategies can enhance the effectiveness of LLMs in automated language assessments. Second, it is crucial to explore the application of LLMs in second-language assessment and learning for oral proficiency, as well as their potential in under-resourced languages. Recent advancements in self-supervised machine learning techniques have significantly improved automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems, opening up new possibilities for creating reliable ASR systems, particularly for under-resourced languages with limited data. However, challenges persist in the field of ASR. First, ASR assumes correct word pronunciation for automatic pronunciation evaluation, which proves challenging for learners in the early stages of language acquisition due to diverse accents influenced by their native languages. Accurately segmenting short words becomes problematic in such cases. Second, developing precise audio-text transcriptions for languages with non-native accented speech poses a formidable task. Last, assessing oral proficiency levels involves capturing various linguistic features, including fluency, pronunciation, accuracy, and complexity, which are not easily captured by current NLP technology.

Data availability

The dataset utilized was obtained from the International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language (I-JAS). The data URLs: [ https://www2.ninjal.ac.jp/jll/lsaj/ihome2.html ].

J-CAT and TTBJ are two computerized adaptive tests used to assess Japanese language proficiency.

SPOT is a specific component of the TTBJ test.

J-CAT: https://www.j-cat2.org/html/ja/pages/interpret.html

SPOT: https://ttbj.cegloc.tsukuba.ac.jp/p1.html#SPOT .

The study utilized a prompt-based GPT-4 model, developed by OpenAI, which has an impressive architecture with 1.8 trillion parameters across 120 layers. GPT-4 was trained on a vast dataset of 13 trillion tokens, using two stages: initial training on internet text datasets to predict the next token, and subsequent fine-tuning through reinforcement learning from human feedback.

https://www2.ninjal.ac.jp/jll/lsaj/ihome2-en.html .

http://jhlee.sakura.ne.jp/JEV/ by Japanese Learning Dictionary Support Group 2015.

We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for bringing this matter to our attention.

On February 7, 2023, Microsoft began rolling out a major overhaul to Bing that included a new chatbot feature based on OpenAI’s GPT-4 (Bing.com).

Appendix E-F present the analysis results of the QWK coefficient between the scores computed by the human raters and the BERT, OCLL models.

Attali Y, Burstein J (2006) Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V.2. J. Technol., Learn. Assess., 4

Barkaoui K, Hadidi A (2020) Assessing Change in English Second Language Writing Performance (1st ed.). Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003092346

Bentz C, Tatyana R, Koplenig A, Tanja S (2016) A comparison between morphological complexity. measures: Typological data vs. language corpora. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics for linguistic complexity (CL4LC), 142–153. Osaka, Japan: The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee

Bond TG, Yan Z, Heene M (2021) Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (4th ed). Routledge

Brants T (2000) Inter-annotator agreement for a German newspaper corpus. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’00), Athens, Greece, 31 May-2 June, European Language Resources Association

Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, et al. (2020) Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Online, 6–12 December, Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY

Burstein J (2003) The E-rater scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In Shermis MD and Burstein JC (ed) Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

Čech R, Miroslav K (2018) Morphological richness of text. In Masako F, Václav C (ed) Taming the corpus: From inflection and lexis to interpretation, 63–77. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature

Çöltekin Ç, Taraka, R (2018) Exploiting Universal Dependencies treebanks for measuring morphosyntactic complexity. In Aleksandrs B, Christian B (ed), Proceedings of first workshop on measuring language complexity, 1–7. Torun, Poland

Crossley SA, Cobb T, McNamara DS (2013) Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System 41:965–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Crossley SA, McNamara DS (2016) Say more and be more coherent: How text elaboration and cohesion can increase writing quality. J. Writ. Res. 7:351–370

CyberAgent Inc (2023) Open-Calm series of Japanese language models. Retrieved from: https://www.cyberagent.co.jp/news/detail/id=28817

Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2019) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2–7 June, pp. 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics

Diez-Ortega M, Kyle K (2023) Measuring the development of lexical richness of L2 Spanish: a longitudinal learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1-31

Eckes T (2009) On common ground? How raters perceive scoring criteria in oral proficiency testing. In Brown A, Hill K (ed) Language testing and evaluation 13: Tasks and criteria in performance assessment (pp. 43–73). Peter Lang Publishing

Elliot S (2003) IntelliMetric: from here to validity. In: Shermis MD, Burstein JC (ed) Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

Google Scholar  

Engber CA (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. J. Second Lang. Writ. 4:139–155

Garner J, Crossley SA, Kyle K (2019) N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System 80:176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001

Haberman SJ (2008) When can subscores have value? J. Educat. Behav. Stat., 33:204–229

Haberman SJ, Yao L, Sinharay S (2015) Prediction of true test scores from observed item scores and ancillary data. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 68:363–385

Halliday MAK (1985) Spoken and Written Language. Deakin University Press, Melbourne, Australia

Hirao R, Arai M, Shimanaka H et al. (2020) Automated essay scoring system for nonnative Japanese learners. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pp. 1250–1257. European Language Resources Association

Hunt KW (1966) Recent Measures in Syntactic Development. Elementary English, 43(7), 732–739. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41386067

Ishioka T (2001) About e-rater, a computer-based automatic scoring system for essays [Konpyūta ni yoru essei no jidō saiten shisutemu e − rater ni tsuite]. University Entrance Examination. Forum [Daigaku nyūshi fōramu] 24:71–76

Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short- term memory. Neural Comput. 9(8):1735–1780

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ishioka T, Kameda M (2006) Automated Japanese essay scoring system based on articles written by experts. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, 17–18 July 2006, pp. 233-240. Association for Computational Linguistics, USA

Japan Foundation (2021) Retrieved from: https://www.jpf.gp.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/result/dl/survey2021/all.pdf

Jarvis S (2013a) Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In Jarvis S, Daller M (ed) Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (Vol. 47, pp. 13–44). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.03ch1

Jarvis S (2013b) Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Lang. Learn. 63:87–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00739.x

Jiang J, Quyang J, Liu H (2019) Interlanguage: A perspective of quantitative linguistic typology. Lang. Sci. 74:85–97

Kim M, Crossley SA, Kyle K (2018) Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. Mod. Lang. J. 102(1):120–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12447

Kojima T, Gu S, Reid M et al. (2022) Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 29 November-1 December, Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY

Kyle K, Crossley SA (2015) Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Q 49:757–786

Kyle K, Crossley SA, Berger CM (2018) The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behav. Res. Methods 50:1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kyle K, Crossley SA, Jarvis S (2021) Assessing the validity of lexical diversity using direct judgements. Lang. Assess. Q. 18:154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205

Landauer TK, Laham D, Foltz PW (2003) Automated essay scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In Shermis MD, Burstein JC (ed), Automated Essay Scoring: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 159–174

Laufer B, Nation P (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Appl. Linguist. 16:307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307

Lee J, Hasebe Y (2017) jWriter Learner Text Evaluator, URL: https://jreadability.net/jwriter/

Lee J, Kobayashi N, Sakai T, Sakota K (2015) A Comparison of SPOT and J-CAT Based on Test Analysis [Tesuto bunseki ni motozuku ‘SPOT’ to ‘J-CAT’ no hikaku]. Research on the Acquisition of Second Language Japanese [Dainigengo to shite no nihongo no shūtoku kenkyū] (18) 53–69

Li W, Yan J (2021) Probability distribution of dependency distance based on a Treebank of. Japanese EFL Learners’ Interlanguage. J. Quant. Linguist. 28(2):172–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1754611

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Linacre JM (2002) Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J. Appl. Meas. 3(1):85–106

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Linacre JM (1994) Constructing measurement with a Many-Facet Rasch Model. In Wilson M (ed) Objective measurement: Theory into practice, Volume 2 (pp. 129–144). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Liu H (2008) Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cognitive Sci. 9:159–191

Liu H, Xu C, Liang J (2017) Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Phys. Life Rev. 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002

Loukina A, Madnani N, Cahill A, et al. (2020) Using PRMSE to evaluate automated scoring systems in the presence of label noise. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, Seattle, WA, USA → Online, 10 July, pp. 18–29. Association for Computational Linguistics

Lu X (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 15:474–496

Lu X (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Mod. Lang. J. 96:190–208

Lu X (2017) Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Lang. Test. 34:493–511

Lu X, Hu R (2022) Sense-aware lexical sophistication indices and their relationship to second language writing quality. Behav. Res. Method. 54:1444–1460. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01675-6

Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan (2022) Retrieved from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_30367.html

Mizumoto A, Eguchi M (2023) Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 3:100050

Okgetheng B, Takeuchi K (2024) Estimating Japanese Essay Grading Scores with Large Language Models. Proceedings of 30th Annual Conference of the Language Processing Society in Japan, March 2024

Ortega L (2015) Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In VanPatten B, Williams J (ed) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction

Rae JW, Borgeaud S, Cai T, et al. (2021) Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher. ArXiv, abs/2112.11446

Read J (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942

Rudner LM, Liang T (2002) Automated Essay Scoring Using Bayes’ Theorem. J. Technol., Learning and Assessment, 1 (2)

Sakoda K, Hosoi Y (2020) Accuracy and complexity of Japanese Language usage by SLA learners in different learning environments based on the analysis of I-JAS, a learners’ corpus of Japanese as L2. Math. Linguist. 32(7):403–418. https://doi.org/10.24701/mathling.32.7_403

Suzuki N (1999) Summary of survey results regarding comprehensive essay questions. Final report of “Joint Research on Comprehensive Examinations for the Aim of Evaluating Applicability to Each Specialized Field of Universities” for 1996-2000 [shōronbun sōgō mondai ni kansuru chōsa kekka no gaiyō. Heisei 8 - Heisei 12-nendo daigaku no kaku senmon bun’ya e no tekisei no hyōka o mokuteki to suru sōgō shiken no arikata ni kansuru kyōdō kenkyū’ saishū hōkoku-sho]. University Entrance Examination Section Center Research and Development Department [Daigaku nyūshi sentā kenkyū kaihatsubu], 21–32

Taghipour K, Ng HT (2016) A neural approach to automated essay scoring. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, Texas, 1–5 November, pp. 1882–1891. Association for Computational Linguistics

Takeuchi K, Ohno M, Motojin K, Taguchi M, Inada Y, Iizuka M, Abo T, Ueda H (2021) Development of essay scoring methods based on reference texts with construction of research-available Japanese essay data. In IPSJ J 62(9):1586–1604

Ure J (1971) Lexical density: A computational technique and some findings. In Coultard M (ed) Talking about Text. English Language Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England

Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. (2017) Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, 4–7 December, pp. 5998–6008, Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY

Watanabe H, Taira Y, Inoue Y (1988) Analysis of essay evaluation data [Shōronbun hyōka dēta no kaiseki]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, University of Tokyo [Tōkyōdaigaku kyōiku gakubu kiyō], Vol. 28, 143–164

Yao S, Yu D, Zhao J, et al. (2023) Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

Zenker F, Kyle K (2021) Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assess. Writ. 47:100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100505

Zhang Y, Warstadt A, Li X, et al. (2021) When do you need billions of words of pretraining data? Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Online, pp. 1112-1125. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.90

Download references

This research was funded by National Foundation of Social Sciences (22BYY186) to Wenchao Li.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Japanese Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Wenchao Li is in charge of conceptualization, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization and writing the draft. Haitao Liu is in charge of supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenchao Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental material file #1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, W., Liu, H. Applying large language models for automated essay scoring for non-native Japanese. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 723 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03209-9

Download citation

Received : 02 February 2024

Accepted : 16 May 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03209-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

In a baffling closing argument, Trump attorney Todd Blanche used DA's evidence against his own client

• In closings Tuesday, Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche tried the classic "but if he did do it" defense.
• If Trump did falsify documents, he didn't do it with the required criminal intent, Blanche argued.
• He showed jurors three prosecution exhibits where Trump acknowledged the hush-money reimbursement.

It's the classic defense closing argument: My client didn't do it, ladies and gentlemen — but if he did do it, it wasn't intentional.

This is the argument that former President Donald Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche tried out Tuesday on the hush-money jury in Manhattan.

Yes, Blanche spent the bulk of his arguments denying that Trump committed the crimes he's accused of.

Prosecutors say Trump falsified 34 business records to hide a year's worth of reimbursement payments to his then-attorney Michael Cohen , who had fronted a $130,000 hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump was not involved in any such conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, Blanche told jurors Tuesday — during a three-hour summation where he walked them through a more than 180-part slideshow presentation ahead of the start of their deliberations on Wednesday.

But if he was involved, there was no intent to commit fraud, Blanche argued. How could there be, he asked, when Trump freely and repeatedly acknowledged reimbursing Cohen?

Blanche then showed the jury three exhibits from the prosecution's case.

The exhibits — showing a tax form, a tweet, and a government ethics form — were shown on the courtroom's display screens.

Each bolsters the prosecution's case: Trump knew full well that the $130,000 he paid Cohen in installments throughout 2017 was for reimbursement, not legal fees, as his business-record entries falsely claimed.

"The government has to prove to you that President Trump caused these entries — even if they were false — with an intent to defraud," Blanche told jurors.

"Where is the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?" the lawyer asked the jury.

Prosecutors must demonstrate Trump had an intent to defraud in order for them to prove first-degree falsifying of business records, which Trump is accused of doing 34 times throughout 2017, including when he personally signed nine of Cohen's reimbursement checks.

In his own closing argument, Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorney, said Trump had to have approved the reimbursement scheme.

Cohen would never have fronted the $130,000 without his micromanaging boss' preapproval and guarantee of repayment, Steinglass argued.

"Michael Cohen had 130,000 reasons to get Mr. Trump's sign-off," the prosecutor told jurors.

During his closing argument, Blanche angered the judge by telling jurors that "you cannot send somebody to prison based on what Michael Cohen is saying."

Jurors are supposed to weigh only the facts in their deliberations — not the potential punishment.

"That was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Justice Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court told Blanche after jurors were dismissed for lunch.

"Someone who's been a prosecutor as long as you have, and a defense lawyer as long as you have, knows it's highly inappropriate," the judge said.

"It's simply not allowed, period," the judge added. He gave a curative instruction to the jury, saying that Blanche's comment was "improper" and that if Trump was convicted, "a prison sentence is not required." Falsifying business records carries a sentence of anywhere from zero jail to four years in prison.

Here are the three exhibits that Blanche displayed for jurors as "proof" that Trump had nothing to hide and therefore could not have intended to defraud anyone.

But each is highly incriminating of Trump, prosecutors have argued.

1. A 1099 tax form from 2017

The Trump Organization — and Trump as an individual — reported that it paid Cohen a total of $420,000 in income in 2017.

Related stories

Prosecutors say this is the sum Trump's then-CFO, Allen Weisselberg, calculated would be reimbursed for Cohen's hush-money outlay, plus taxes and other money Trump owed him.

Why would Trump announce to the IRS "if there was some deep-rooted intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?" Blanche asked jurors.

But the 1099s are "false," Steinglass, the prosecutor, told jurors in his closing arguments, which went on for five hours, ending at 8 p.m.

The 1099s demonstrate that Trump "filled out phony forms" to report income for Cohen that did not exist, Steinglass said — "because it wasn't income; it was reimbursement."

2. A 2018 tweet

On May 3, 2018, Trump posted a somewhat garbled tweet that said the payments he'd made to Cohen throughout 2017 were, in his word, "reimbursement."

This tweet was posted just five months after Trump signed the last of nine $35,000 checks to Cohen. Each check was labeled "RETAINER."

3. A government ethics form

Finally, during closing arguments, Blanche showed jurors what's called an Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report for the year 2017. This was the then-president's mandatory disclosure of his assets and liabilities.

Under "Liabilities" — which is the section where Trump must list the money he's borrowed — Trump certified that in 2017, he "fully reimbursed" Cohen an interest-free sum of between $100,000 and $250,000.

"President Trump tweeted what happened when it came out" and then signed a government ethics form that also acknowledged the reimbursement, Blanche told jurors Tuesday.

"That's not evidence of any intent to defraud," Blanche said.

But prosecutors have argued this form shows Trump knew the money he paid Cohen was reimbursement for money lent — the Daniels hush money.

Cohen the 'GLOAT'

Blanche spent most of his summation impugning the credibility of Cohen, whose testimony is key to the prosecution case .

Cohen is "literally like an MVP of liars," the defense lawyer told jurors. Two jurors — a woman in the front row and a man in the back row — smiled when Blanche went on to call Cohen "the GLOAT," for "greatest liar of all time."

The district attorney's reliance on Cohen's testimony demonstrates the weakness of the prosecution's case, Blanche said. He said that Cohen committed "per-ju-ry" — stressing every syllable — on the witness stand and was "the human embodiment of reasonable doubt."

"You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen," he said.

Blanche sidestepped the most pivotal documents in the case, handwritten notes from Weisselberg and the Trump Organization's then-comptroller, Jeffrey McConney , that appeared to explain how Cohen would be repaid for hush money in $35,000 payments, including a "gross up" to cover taxes.

Blanche claimed that if the document was truly proof of an illegal conspiracy, the Trump Organization would have destroyed it instead of keeping it in a filing cabinet — from which they were ultimately turned over to prosecutors.

Steinglass countered that it must have been hard for Blanche to make that argument "with a straight face," saying the illegal conspiracy was laid out "in the document itself."

"These documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh," he said.

At the beginning of the prosecution's closing argument on Tuesday afternoon, Steinglass said that while Cohen may have a track record of dishonesty , he had come clean and "been consistently explaining the facts of this case for six years."

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store," Steinglass said. "The defendant chose Michael Cohen because of his willingness to lie."

Blanche had also criticized prosecutors for spending time teasing out testimony from Daniels, which he said wasn't critical to the criminal charges, related to falsified documents. Prosecutors, the defense lawyer said, just wanted to "embarrass" Trump.

Daniels' vivid and "cringeworthy" details "ring true" and were "uncomfortable," which is why they were so important, Steinglass said. Trump wanted to cover up her story to influence the election, he added.

"That's kind of the point," Steinglass said. "That's the display the defendant didn't want the American people to see."

Trump didn't pay $130,000 to cover up a photo of him and Daniels on a golf course — but to cover up a scandal, Steinglass said.

"Stormy Daniels is the motive," he said.

Watch: The biggest bombshells from Trump's hush money trial

• Main content

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Will Roy Cohn Save Donald Trump’s Hide One Last Time?

By Kai Bird

Mr. Bird is the director of the Leon Levy Center for Biography. He is working on a biography of Roy Cohn.

Sitting still for hours on end in a chilly, drab courtroom, unable to speak his mind, forced to listen to people say objectionable things about him, Donald Trump at a defense table in Manhattan’s Criminal Court may seem as far from his usual domain — the cheering crowds and the trappings of wealth — as could be imagined.

But it was in another courthouse just down the street that Mr. Trump’s wily mentor, Roy Cohn, pulled off one of his greatest legal feats. It was Mr. Cohn who taught Mr. Trump how to manipulate the law, and other people, to his advantage. His ghost now hovers over the former president’s entire legal outlook, influencing proceedings in ways large and small. The outcome in this case may be the final verdict on Mr. Cohn’s brilliant, sinister strategies.

Mr. Trump always admired Mr. Cohn’s bravado and belligerence; Mr. Cohn’s whole worldview seemed to validate the young developer’s crassest instincts. “If you need somebody to get vicious,” Mr. Trump once said, “hire Roy Cohn.” His legal strategy boiled down to: Delay and deny. Don’t hesitate to attack the judge and prosecutor (“I don’t care what the law is; tell me who the judge is” was his most famous line). Address the press every chance you get. And intimidate and ridicule witnesses.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have aggressively sought every delay possible and called for mistrials or new judges on a regular basis. Of the four criminal proceedings Mr. Trump faces, the one wrapping up now is probably the only case that will be heard before Election Day — and if Mr. Trump wins a second term, all bets are off. He attacked Justice Juan Merchan and witnesses so many times that he has been placed under gag orders — and then fined, when he repeatedly failed to honor them. And as for litigating a case through the media, Mr. Trump went Mr. Cohn one better: He founded his own social media organization, Truth Social, and litigates his cases there.

In the Manhattan case, the defense attorney Todd Blanche went for the jugular when cross-examining Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, shouting , “The jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened!” and invoking a disparaging remark that Mr. Cohen had made — about Mr. Blanche himself — with such fidelity that Justice Merchan rebuked him for his profanity. Later, the attorney Susan Necheles sought to shame Stormy Daniels, a porn star, accusing her of “selling” herself and having “a lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.”

Most recently we learned that the former president would not be taking the witness stand and exposing himself to cross-examination, choosing instead to let a stream of prominent Republicans visitors make his case for him on the courthouse steps. That is the strategy that Mr. Cohn lived by.

Roy Cohn was indicted four times by Manhattan’s legendary prosecutor Robert Morgenthau. “I said to him, ‘Roy, just tell me one thing,’” Mr. Trump wrote in “The Art of the Deal.” “‘Did you really do all that stuff?’ He looked at me and smiled. ‘What the hell do you think?’ he said. I never really knew.” The most notorious of these cases involved charges of conspiracy, extortion, blackmail and bribing a former city appraiser inside the Foley Square courthouse. The trial dragged on for 11 weeks.

Mr. Cohn filed a formal affidavit of prejudice against the judge, asking him to recuse himself from the case. Mr. Cohn also claimed that the indictment should be dismissed because it was the result of a “personal vendetta” against him by Mr. Morgenthau. Both motions were denied, but they served to delay the prosecution’s case.

On Dec. 8, 1969, the last day of the proceedings, Mr. Cohn’s lawyer, Joseph Brill, was about to make his summation when he complained of chest pains and was rushed to a hospital. The court adjourned, not knowing what would happen next.

The following afternoon, Mr. Cohn, dressed in a monogrammed shirt and a dark-blue suit with thin stripes, astonished the judge and prosecutors by announcing that he was prepared to make his own summation.

It was an ingenious strategy that in effect allowed him to testify on his own behalf — which he had avoided doing — without having to submit to a cross-examination.

He spoke, brilliantly and without notes, for an hour that day, then for an extraordinary seven hours the next day. Peter King, who would go on to serve as a member of New York’s congressional delegation, was there as a young lawyer in Mr. Cohn’s firm. “It was effective, low-key,” he told me last week. “It was emotional, but in a quiet way. No histrionics. He was like the ultimate perfect summation.” By the end, one female juror was weeping , overcome with emotion.

It took the jury a mere four hours to declare him not guilty. Mr. Cohn turned to the assembled reporters and said simply, “God bless America.”

Mr. Trump has found his own ways to communicate to the jury without submitting to cross-examination, closing his eyes to shut out testimony he cannot abide and even audibly cursing at one point while Stormy Daniels was on the stand.

Of all the lessons Mr. Trump learned from his mentor, the value of treating people transactionally may have been the most important. The former president has run through countless lawyers in his decades of legal proceedings. Many were discarded. Some were not paid. But he held Mr. Cohn in high regard and took his lessons to heart. In 1981, he gave his mentor a pair of huge diamond cuff links as a gesture of profound gratitude. Years later, a friend of Mr. Cohn’s had them appraised. They were worthless fakes.

Kai Bird is the director of the Leon Levy Center for Biography and a co-author with Martin J. Sherwin of “American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.” He is working on a biography of Roy Cohn.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Historic Trump trial comes to a dramatic close, jury deliberations begin Wednesday: recap

Both sides completed their final arguments Tuesday in the historic first criminal case against a former president capping a dramatic six-week trial in which a parade of often high-profile witnesses laid out the evidence that Donald Trump allegedly covered up hush money payments to a porn star to hide another crime.

Jury deliberations will begin Wednesday after instructions from Judge Juan Merchan . The forthcoming verdict – a conviction on all or some of 34 counts of falsifying business records, an acquittal, or a deadlocked jury – could have a major impact on Trump’s campaign against President Joe Biden.

The six-week trial featured 22 witnesses from Trump’s company, campaign, a national tabloid and a porn star. The testimony featured tense moments such as defense lawyer Todd Blanche accusing Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen , of lying on the standand former Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks breaking into tears.

Meanwhile, Merchan threatened to jail Trump if he continued to violate a gag order against talking about witnesses participating in the case. A flock of Republican surrogates showed up to support Trump, and one conspiracy theorist set himself on fire outside the courthouse.

Prosecution cites 'jaw-dropping' evidence against Trump that defense says 'cannot be trusted'

The courtroom drama featured dramatic clashes between lawyers and witnesses, the judge and Trump.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Cohen was a key witness testifying that he submitted invoices for “legal expenses” that Trump knew were to reimburse him for paying $130,000 to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. But Trump lawyer Todd Blanche accused Cohen of lying on the stand when he testified he notified Trump about the payment to Daniels. In closing arguments, Blanche called Cohen the “MVP of liars” and “the embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

Merchan scolded Blanche for an “outrageous” statement in closing arguments that the jury shouldn’t “send someone to prison” based on Cohen’s testimony.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, described the alleged sexual encounter in enough detail that Merchan questioned why defense lawyers didn’t object more to block her testimony. She testified that she noticed gold nail clippers in Trump’s hotel room and he didn’t wear a condom during the encounter. Trump has repeatedly denied he had sex with Daniels and Blanche argued the payment “started out as an extortion” whether the allegation was true or not.

David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc., which owned the National Enquirer, said he agreed in a meeting with Trump and Cohen in August 2015 to be the “eyes and ears” of Trump’s presidential campaign to buy negative stories about the candidate and never publish them.

Pecker acknowledged paying former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story and then refusing to pay for Daniels because Trump hadn’t reimbursed him. Cohen provided a recording , which prosecutor Joshua Steinglass called “jaw-dropping,” of Trump mentioning the $150,000 figure.

But Blanche raised questions about the credibility of the recording because it cuts off suddenly – Cohen said he got another call – and argued that a meeting to influence the campaign “made no sense.”

Trump paid Cohen for a retainer through invoices marked "legal expenses," so he committed no crime of falsifying business records, according to Blanche. "This is not a referendum on your views of President Trump," Blanche told jurors.

The jury will return Wednesday to receive instructions from Merchan and begin deliberations.

− Bart Jansen

Tuesday proceedings end

Judge Juan Merchan declared an end to the day's proceedings at about 8 p.m. EDT.

– Aysha Bagchi

Judge to give jury instructions in morning, proceedings to start slightly later

Judge Juan Merchan said he will give jurors their instructions on the law to apply in the case tomorrow morning. In light of today's proceedings running late, tomorrow's proceedings will start at 10 a.m. EDT, not the normal 9:30 a.m. EDT start time, Merchan said.

'In the name of justice': Prosecutor finishes closing argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has ended his closing argument. He thanked the jurors for their service and for consistently arriving to trial on time.

"I apologize for trading brevity for thoroughness," he said, in reference to his lengthy time summing up the case.

Steinglass argued former President Donald Trump shouldn't get special treatment in this case. "He's had his day in court," Steinglass said. "The law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally. There is no special standard for this defendant."

Steinglass added that Donald Trump can't shoot somebody "during rush hour and get away with it." The defense objected to that comment, and Judge Merchan sustained their objection. The prosecutor appeared to be referring to a boast Trump made early in the 2016 presidential campaign: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

"In the name of justice," Steinglass urged jurors, "I ask you to find the defendant guilty."

'Beating a dead horse' draws laughs as prosecutor's long closing continues

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass used the phrase "beating a dead horse here" to describe his team's argument that Trump conspired to unlawfully interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

That drew some giggling from the courtroom. I saw at least one juror smiling.

'The false business records benefited one person and one person only'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass encouraged jurors to consider who stood to benefit from falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels .

The answer, Steinglass said, is Donald Trump .

"He was the one who stood to gain the most," Steinglass said. "He's the only one who'd care about creating the false business records to conceal the Daniels payoff."

"The false business records benefited one person and one person only – and that's the defendant," Steinglass added.

A fixer like Cohen would want credit for hush money deal: Steinglass

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said another reason to credit Michael Cohen's testimony of Trump's involvement comes down to the common-sense question of how a fixer acts.

A person playing that role for Trump might cover their tracks and avoid a paper trail, but that person also wants credit, Steinglass suggested. "They sure as heck want the principal to know."

Trump's alleged knowledge of prior hush money deals part of a pattern , Steinglass says

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reminded jurors of testimony from former tabloid publisher David Pecker that he updated Trump on two hush money agreements that took place before the Stormy Daniels deal was sealed. Pecker's company paid out money to a Trump Tower doorman and to former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the two deals. Michael Cohen was in communication with Pecker, but Cohen himself paid Daniels.

If you credit Pecker's testimony, Trump knew about those two earlier deals, Steinglass told the jury.

"So why would the defendant be kept in the dark about the Daniels NDA?" Steinglass asked, using an abbreviation for "non-disclosure agreement." 

"That defies common sense," he added.

Hope Hicks cried over her damning testimony: Steinglass

Former Trump aide Hope Hicks made headlines earlier in the trial when she broke down crying on the witness stand. On Tuesday, Steinglass argued Hicks lost her composure after realizing the impact of the damning testimony she'd given against her former boss.

Hicks was testifying about Trump's reaction to a post-2016 election story on the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Hicks said Trump asked for her thoughts on how a story before the election would have compared.

"I think Mr. Trump's opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election," Hicks testified .

More: Donald Trump trial Friday recap: Former Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks emotional on stand

That was at the end the prosecution's questions for Hicks, and she broke down slightly later, as Trump defense lawyer Emil Bove began asking her questions.

"She realized how much this testimony puts the nail in" the case, Steinglass said.

The prosecution has argued that Trump authorized a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in order to better his 2016 election chances. That forms part of the prosecution's argument for charging Trump with felonies.

Trump, a frugal and meticulous boss, would know what his checks were for: Steinglass

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass pointed to testimony that Trump is frugal and meticulous in his work and business life. For instance, former tabloid publisher and long-time Trump friend David Pecker testified that Trump was " very cautious" and "very frugal."

This, Steinglass suggested, is evidence Trump wouldn't have paid Cohen $420,000 – largely in checks he himself signed – without knowing the purpose.

Steinglass also pointed to Trump book excerpts in which the celebrity real estate developer characterized himself as careful about his finances. In one excerpt from "Trump: Think Like a Billionaire," he said: "I always sign my checks, so I know where my money's going."

Prosecutor challenges Trump team's claim that 2017 payments were for legal services

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass ridiculed the argument from defense lawyer Todd Blanche earlier today that Donald Trump's 2017 monthly payments to Michael Cohen were for legal services, not to reimburse hush money. Blanche said Trump Organization records accurately represented the payments.

Why wasn't Cohen "paid a dime in 2018?" Steinglass asked jurors. Because Cohen wasn't being paid for legal work in either 2017 or 2018, Steinglass said.

Steinglass added that Cohen had spent more time being cross-examined at Trump's hush money trial than doing legal work for Trump in 2017, and said Cohen would have been making an hourly rate of $42,000 if the payments were for legal services.

"That'd be a pretty good hourly rate," Steinglass said with sarcasm.

Steinglass also said Cohen was making more money than any government job would ever pay. 

"And don't I know that," the Manhattan line prosecutor added, drawing at least a few chuckles from the courtroom .

More: Would cameras in the courtroom change Donald Trump's New York hush money trial?

Jurors see handwritten notes that allegedly point to a planned tax crime

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass showed jurors a document dealing with Cohen's tranfer of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Keith Davidson, in 2016.

The document has handwritten notes that ex-Trump Organization executive Jeffrey McConney testified belonged to Allen Weisselberg . Weisselberg was the long-time chief financial officer at the Trump Organization. He is currently in jail for committing perjury in Trump's New York civil fraud case.

The notes refer to "grossing" up $180,000 to $360,000. Prosecutors say two reimbursements to Cohen – one for the $130,000 hush money to Daniels and a second for $50,000 related to polling services – were doubled to account for taxes Cohen would have to pay. That, according to prosecutors, reflected a plan to commit tax fraud under New York law .

This seems aimed at showing Trump falsified business records in order to hide a plan to violate New York tax law. That's one of three crimes or potential crimes prosecutors say Trump was trying to cover up by falsifying records. To win a conviction, prosecutors have to show not just that Trump falsified records, but also that he was trying to conceal or commit another crime.

Here are the handwritten notes jurors just saw:

Trump executive's testimony used against former president

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is pointing to the testimony of former Trump Organization financial controller Jeffrey McConney as evidence Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen with a series of 2017 payments that are at the heart of this business records case. Prosecutors say Trump falsified records to conceal that the payments were reimbursements to Cohen for hush money he paid to Stormy Daniels .

McConney testified he was told by former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg that the payments were reimbursing Cohen.

Steinglass told jurors to think about who McConney is as they consider that testimony.

"He has no axe to grind," Steinglass said of McConney. "He has every incentive to help his former boss."

McConney nonetheless said he was told this was a reimbursement, Steinglass noted.

Prosecutor's argument shifts from hush money to alleged cover-up

After a short break in proceedings, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has resumed his closing argument. He explained to the jury that he'd gone over Trump's alleged conspiracy to influence the election. But after the election, he continued, Trump also needed to keep people from knowing about the conspiracy.

Plus, Michael Cohen wanted his money back .

Steinglass is now showing jurors a transcript of Cohen's testimony that Trump approved a scheme to reimburse Cohen over 12 months while misrepresenting the payments as ongoing legal expenses.

Jurors paying attention as long day continues

Judge Juan Merchan excused jurors for a short break at 4:54 p.m. EDT. He then commented that jurors continued to appear attentive, even as proceedings have extended beyond the normal 4:30 p.m. EDT end time.

What the judge said is true. I haven't seen any jurors dozing off or appearing distracted, even as they have heard several hours of arguments from just two lawyers today.

Merchan indicated the jurors have made arrangements to stay late today, and that proceedings could go past 7 p.m. EDT.

'What have we done?': Prosecutor points to election reaction as evidence of Trump's guilt

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass showed jurors a text exchange between Stormy Daniels' former lawyer, Keith Davidson, and former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard . Davidson texted Howard after the 2016 presidential election results started to come in: "What have we done?"

Steinglass suggested Davidson's reaction to news of Trump's victory shows how players involved in the Trump-related hush money deals fully understood their importance to the election.

More: National Enquirer editor said Stormy Daniels' affair story was true: Texts shown to jury

'This is damning': Prosecutor says evidence shows Trump OK'd hush money

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is displaying text messages and call records that he says support Michael Cohen's testimony that Trump authorized the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

Keith Davidson , the former lawyer for Daniels, testified that he believed Cohen didn't have the authority to spend money on his own, Steinglass noted. Even after Cohen told Davidson "I'll just do it myself," Davidson testified, he understood the money would be coming from Donald Trump or a related corporation.

Steinglass also showed a call record indicating Cohen called Trump 10 minutes after hearing that Daniels might be about to share her story with the Daily Mail. Cohen didn't reach him, but Melania Trump texted the next morning asking Cohen to call Trump on his cell phone.

Steinglass also showed jurors a record of a call that he said was half an hour before Cohen filled out the paperwork for the hush money wire transfer.

"This is damning," Steinglass said.

'Pandemonium': Prosecutor says Access Hollywood tape is key context for hush money

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is talking to jurors about the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump discussed kissing women without waiting and grabbing their genitals. The tape was published by The Washington Post on Oct. 7 of 2016 – about a month before the 2016 election.

Steinglass played a response video Trump posted in which he characterized his words on the tape as simply that – words. Steinglass also referred to Trump characterizing his words as "locker-room talk," reminding jurors that Cohen testified that phrase was a suggestion from Melania Trump .

"You gotta remember this race could not have been closer," Steinglass said. The tape and events that followed were capable of costing Trump the whole election, and he knew it, Steinglass said.

Steinglass then played jurors a video recording of Trump at a campaign event on Oct. 14, 2016. Trump talked about lies at the rally, saying if 5% or 10% of people think they're true, "we don't win."

"It caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign," Steinglass said of the tape.

At the same time that Trump was desperately trying to sell the distinction between words and actions, he was trying to muzzle a porn star who had a story to tell about a sexual encounter while Trump was married, Steinglass said.

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was not only words," Steinglass said. "She would have totally undermined his strategy for spinning away the Access Hollywood tape."

The trial goes on, but Tuesday’s protesters are mostly done

Nearly all the demonstrators outside of the courthouse − both pro-Trump and anti-Trump − packed up shortly after 4 p.m. EDT.

They did not stick around for the end of final arguments.

“We’re going to Trump Tower − you coming?” yelled one member of the ex-president’s contingent.Throughout the day, maybe 150 demonstrators of all stripes drifted into and out of the one-block park across the street from the courthouse.

Things occasionally got tense, as adherents of Trump and Biden dropped F bombs on each other; there was also, reportedly, at least one punch thrown.

With each confrontation, however, two or more New York police officers quickly moved in to stop things from getting out of hand.

−David Jackson

Steinglass pushes back on evidence manipulation argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is pushing back on a suggestion from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche that evidence has been manipulated. Blanche targeted, in particular, an audio recording that Michael Cohen said he secretly made of a conversation he had with Trump where the two discussed hush money payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Blanche said there is "a lot of dispute" when it comes to the recording, and that the government hasn't shown it's reliable. The recording cuts off abruptly after Trump and Cohen discuss financing.

"Don't accept this invitation to muddy the waters," Steinglass said to jurors of Blanche's comments. Cohen would have no incentive to manipulate evidence because he had already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, Steinglass said.

Steinglass also said the recording "is nothing short of jaw-dropping," adding Trump talks about not paying with cash.

Here's a transcript of the recording prepared by the prosecution and shown earlier in the trial:

Trump slams Rep. Bob Good, a gag-order-get-around trial attendee, and endorses opponent

House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Bob Good , R-Va., attended the hush money trial on May 16 and, along with several other Republican lawmakers, defended Trump against the judge's gag order .

But on Tuesday morning, Trump endorsed Good's opponent, State Sen.  John McGuire , who also made a quiet appearance at the Manhattan courthouse the same day.

"Bob Good is BAD FOR VIRGINIA, AND BAD FOR THE USA," Trump posted on Truth Social.

Good had initially endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the 2024 primary, but eventually backed Trump when DeSantis dropped out of the race in January.

– Kinsey Crowley

Prosecutor defends public's right to know Stormy Daniels' story

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors they might wonder why they should care if Trump had a sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels in 2006.

Steinglass said that thought is understandable, but it's harder to say that the American people "don't have the right to decide for themselves whether they care or not."

Trump's alleged scheme to prevent negative stories from getting out ahead of the 2016 election "could very well be what got President Trump elected," Steinglass said.

This may be more of a moral argument from Steinglass than a legal one. Ultimately, Judge Juan Merchan will instruct jurors on the law around campaign finance violations. Then jurors will be tasked with deciding if Trump falsified records and, if so, whether he was trying to cover up unlawfully interfering in the 2016 election through the hush money to Daniels.

'We didn't pick him up at the witness store': Prosecutor on Michael Cohen

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass blamed former President Donald Trump for the prosecution's use of Michael Cohen in the criminal hush money case.

"We didn't pick him up at the witness store," Steinglass said of Cohen. "The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on Mr. Trump's behalf."

Trump chose Cohen "for the same qualities" that Trump's lawyers now say should cause the jurors to reject Cohen's testimony, Steinglass added.

Steinglass then showed jurors an excerpt from one of Trump's books in which Trump said: "I value loyalty above everything else."

When will the Trump trial end?

The Trump trial could end this week , depending on how long the jury takes to deliberate.

Closing arguments are scheduled to wrap up Tuesday. Judge Juan Merchan has asked the jury to come in Wednesday, even though the court is typically off that day, so he can hand the case over to them.

While there is technically no limit on how long the jury deliberations can take, experts say three days would be considered a long time.

– Kinsey Crowley 

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass defends Michael Cohen's testimony

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is spending a lot of time defending the same witness Trump lawyer Todd Blanche spent a lot of time attacking today: Michael Cohen .

Steinglass spoke of an Oct. 24, 2016 phone call Blanche has said Cohen got caught lying about on the stand. Cohen said the call to Trump's bodyguard was to get Trump on the phone about the Stormy Daniels hush money deal. After Blanche showed text messages to the bodyguard indicated Cohen wanted to talk about harassing phone calls he was getting from a 14-year-old, Cohen said he believes he also spoke to Trump about the deal.

"Even if you're not convinced" that both things happened in that call, Steinglass told jurors, "a far less sinister explanation" is Cohen got the time of the call wrong.

"This was not the final go-ahead. That would come two days later on October 26th," Steinglass added.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass begins prosecution's closing argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has begun his closing argument. Steinglass indicated earlier today that this is likely to be lengthy: he estimated he needs 4-4.5 hours.

Judge instructs jurors to disregard Trump lawyer's 'prison' comment

Following the lunch break, Judge Juan Merchan instructed jurors to disregard the comment from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche about sending Trump "to prison" if they convict him. Merchan told the jurors they may not consider sentencing at all when they are deliberating in the case.

'Outrageous': Judge rebukes Trump defense lawyer for prison comment

After Trump lawyer Todd Blanche finished his closing and jurors were excused for lunch, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Judge Merchan to give jurors a special instruction about the "ridiculous comment" Blanche made about sending Trump to prison. Merchan already sustained an objection from Steinglass when Blanche told jurors they "cannot send someone to prison" based on Michael Cohen's testimony.

Steinglass noted the charges in the case carry no minimum sentence, so jail or prison time might not happen even if Trump is convicted. It was a "blatant and wholly inappropriate effort" to create sympathy for Trump, Steinglass said.

Blanche said the judge is already slated to give a regular instruction on this point to jurors after the closing arguments are over.

"I'm gonna give a curative instruction," Merchan said. "Saying that was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan added.

"You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate," Merchan told Blanche. "It's hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

'Not a referendum on your views of President Trump': defense finishes closing

"This is not a referendum on your views of President Trump," defense lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors at the end of his closing argument.

Blanche said the trial is not about whom jurors voted for or plan to vote for. Instead, it's only about the evidence they heard in the courtroom, he said.

If jurors stick to that evidence, they will return an "easy" and "quick" not guilty verdict, he said.

'He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally': Trump lawyer on Cohen

In his tenth and final argument for reasonable doubt in the case, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche again attacked Michael Cohen as a liar.

"He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally," Blanche said. Cohen's financial wellbeing will depend on this case, Blanche added. "He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that's not true."

Cohen is the G.O.A.T. of liars, Blanche said, referencing an abbreviation for "greatest of all time."

"He has lied to every single branch of Congress. Both houses. The House and the Senate," Blanche said of Cohen. Cohen has lied to the Department of Justice, to federal judges, to state judges, and to his family, he added. "His words cannot be trusted."

After all those lies, Cohen came to the trial, "raised his right hand, and he lied to each of you," Blanche said.

"You cannot send someone to prison" based on Cohen's testimony, Blanche added. Judge Juan Merchan sustained an objection to that comment.

10 reasons why there is reasonable doubt: Trump lawyer

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche ended his closing argument by offering ten reasons for reasonable doubt in the case.

Blanche argued the evidence didn't show Trump was aware or responsible for invoices, vouchers, and checks that make up the 34 allegedly falsified records in the case.

Blanche also targeted allegations he expects the prosecution to make in its closing about Trump's intent. He said Trump had no intention to defraud, and no intention to commit or conceal another crime. Prosecutors have to prove both those elements of Trump's intent.

Blanche also said there was no illegal agreement to influence the 2016 election through a "catch-and-kill" scheme .

Blanche argued that Stormy Daniels' allegation of an affair with Trump was already public by 2016. Testimony at trial discussed the publication of a rumor about it as far back as 2011.

Blanche also said evidence in the case had been manipulated. He noted, for example, testimony of an Oct. 15, 2016 factory reset of Cohen's phone.

The tenth and final reason for reasonable doubt, Blanche said, is that Cohen – who testified to various aspects of the prosecution's case – is a liar.

'He's literally like an MVP of liars': Trump lawyer on Michael Cohen

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche accused the prosecution of being "perfectly willing" to have a witness commit perjury and lie to the jurors. Judge Juan Merchan sustained an objection to that accusation.

"He's literally like an MVP of liars," Blanche said as he continued to target Cohen.

"He lies to reporters, he lies to federal judges. In fact, he's also a thief. He literally stole," Blanche said, referencing Cohen's own admission to stealing from the Trump Organization by claiming a larger reimbursement than he was owed for a payment unrelated to the Daniels hush money deal.

Blanche then played an audio recording for jurors showing Cohen's animus toward Trump. Cohen described picturing Trump getting booked and finger printed on criminal charges, and having a mug shot taken. It "fills me with delight," Cohen said. Cohen also thanked the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, including its "fearless leader," Alvin Bragg.

'That was a lie, and he got caught red-handed': Trump lawyer on Cohen

Near the end of his closing argument, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche focused on the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen . Blanche told jurors they "only know from one source" what Trump knew in 2016 – Cohen. Prosecutors have alleged Trump knew about and authorized a October 2016 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Blanche elevated his voice as he attacked the former Trump lawyer and fixer, noting text messages indicating that a call from Cohen to Trump's bodyguard on Oct. 24, 2016 was to discuss harassing phone calls Cohen was getting. Cohen had earlier testified the call was to get Trump on the phone to provide an update on the Stormy Daniels hush money deal. After Blanche showed Cohen the text messages on cross-examination, Cohen said he believed the call was also about the deal.

"It was a lie!" Blanche exclaimed to jurors on Tuesday. "This was a lie about the charged conduct involving Ms. Daniels," he said.

"That was a lie, and he got caught red-handed," Blanche continued.

"That is per-jur-y," Blanche said, putting emphasis on each syllable in the last word.

Blanche distances Trump from Daniels hush money and election concerns

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche questioned prosecutors' suggestion that Trump would have paid hush money to Stormy Daniels because of the 2016 election, as well as their claim that Trump actually authorized the payment.

Blanche said no one wants their family to hear these sort of allegations.

Blanche also said the release of the Access Hollywood tape – in which Trump crudely described groping women's genitals – wasn't the "doomsday event" the prosecution made it out to be. "He never thought it was gonna cause him to lose the campaign. And indeed, it didn't," Blanche said. 

"Michael Cohen, however, had a different view," Blanche argued to jurors. He noted Cohen said the tape "was catastrophic."

These arguments from Blanche may have two aims:

• Encouraging jurors to believe Cohen acted alone, and
• Encouraging jurors to believe that, if they conclude Trump authorized the payment, it wasn't for the election, and therefore wasn't an unlawful campaign contribution.

Prosecutors have suggested the tape's release put pressure on the Trump campaign to not let any more stories get out that could hurt Trump's standing with women voters. That, according to prosecutors, was added incentive to quiet Stormy Daniels with a hush money payment.

'No evidence' but Cohen's words that Trump knew about 2016 hush money deal: defense lawyer

There is "no evidence," Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said, "except for Mr. Cohen's words that President Trump knew about that agreement in 2016."

Blanche was referencing the $130,000 hush money deal involving porn star Stormy Daniels.

Blanche pointed to a text exchange between Daniels' then-manager Gina Rodriguez and former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard , in which Rodriguez asked if Howard was working "in favor" of Trump and Howard said he was not. Howard acknowledged in the text exchange that his CEO endorsed Trump.

'Nothing sinister': Blanche defends hush money practice

"There's nothing wrong with a non-disclosure agreement," Blanche told jurors. "There's nothing illegal, there's nothing sinister about it," he added.

Prosecutors in this case don't dispute that claim generally, but they say the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels is different because it allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws .

Judge rejects gag request in Trump’s classified documents case

The federal judge in former President Donald Trump's  classified documents case  rejected an urgent request from prosecutors to prohibit him from  commenting on FBI agents  who seized the records at Mar-a-Lago.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found  Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's request Friday lacked “professional courtesy" for not meeting with Trump’s team first to discuss the defense’s concerns.

Smith's team  had asked  Cannon  on Friday  to prohibit Trump from commenting  about law enforcement agents after Trump claimed the FBI “was authorized to shoot me” and agents were “locked &loaded ready to take me out” when they went to Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s lawyers, who were preparing for final arguments in his New York hush money case, asked to meet Monday before prosecutors filed their motion. After being rejected, defense lawyers on Monday asked Cannon to hold prosecutors in contempt for the request. She rejected that request.

“This is bad-faith behavior, plain and simple,” Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, Emil Bove and Christopher Kise wrote.

– Bart Jansen

'This started out as an extortion': Blanche on Stormy Daniels

Blanche played for jurors a recording of a conversation between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson , the lawyer who negotiated the hush money deal for Stormy Daniels. Davidson says during the recording that Daniels told him he "better settle this God damn story" because if Trump loses the election, "we lose all (expletive) leverage."

Daniels testified at trial that she never yelled at Davidson and, on the recording, it sounded to her like he is making a threat.

You can listen to the recording here:

Blanche suggested to jurors that Daniels has been cashing in on her allegations about Trump, noting she has a book.

"This started out as an extortion. There's no doubt about that. And it ended very well for Ms. Daniels, financially speaking," Blanche said.

'He was shocked': Defense's take on secret recording by Cohen of Trump

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche reminded jurors of a recording they heard during the trial, which Michael Cohen testified involved a discussion between him and Trump about a hush money deal with former Playboy model Karen McDougal .

Cohen testified that he secretly recorded Trump in order to reassure David Pecker, whose media company paid McDougal $150,000, that he would get his money back.

"There is a lot of dispute about that recording. A lot," Blanche told jurors Tuesday. He added that the government hasn't shown the recording is reliable.

Blanche played a portion of the recording that he said featured the voice of Rhona Graff , Trump's former executive assistant. He then told jurors the government didn't ask her a single question about the recording, even though she testified.

"The recording cuts off, as you know," Blanche said. He said there is "no doubt" the recording features discussion of David Pecker and his media company, but said there is "a lot of doubt" about whether it discussed McDougal.

When Trump asks about financing in the recording, "he has no idea" what Cohen is talking about, Blanche said. Cohen and Trump are "literally talking past each other about what is going on," he said.

"He was shocked," Blanche added, speaking about his client.

Biden and Trump campaigns conduct dueling news conferences

Another political first for the Trump hush money trial: Dueling news conferences by the presidential campaigns.First, the Biden team produced surrogates who denounced Trump to reporters stationed across the street from the courthouse.

“He wants to sow total chaos,” said Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro. The Biden campaign said their news conference wasn’t about the hush money trial per se, but about Trump himself, particularly his role in the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 .

Other speakers included two Capitol police officers who were injured in the Jan. 6 riot, Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn.

“Those supporters were fueled by Trump’s lies,” Fanone said.

After watching the Biden proceedings from a distance, a trio of Trump aides took to the microphones to accuse the Biden people of political desperation over the trial.

“Why is Joe Biden now making this a campaign event?” said Trump senior adviser Jason Miller .

This was the first time that top Trump and Biden officials faced off in the same place at the same time, but it won’t be the last; there’s a June 27 debate coming up in Atlanta.

– David Jackson

'Makes no sense': Blanche attacks election conspiracy claim

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors he doesn't think they need to address whether Trump participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. That allegation from prosecutors has to do with why Trump has been charged with felony counts of falsifying records – but it's irrelevant to the charges if jurors conclude Trump never falsified records to begin with.

Still, Blanche challenged the suggestion that Trump engaged in an election-related conspiracy. He said "sophisticated people" like Trump and David Pecker – the former head of the National Enquirer's parent company – couldn't have believed they were able to influence the election through the publication's limited circulation when "millions and millions of people voted in the 2016 election."

The idea that an August 2015 meeting was going to influence the election "makes no sense," Blanche added. Pecker and Cohen both testified to having a meeting with Trump at Trump Tower that month to discuss how they could snap up potentially damaging stories to Trump's campaign and also publish negative stories about Trump's political opponents.

Actor Robert DeNiro calls Trump a ‘clown’ and ‘buffoon’ outside courthouse

Actor Robert DeNiro , flanked by former Capitol Police officers who defended the building on Jan. 6, 2021, called former President Donald Trump a “clown,” a “buffoon” and a “joke” outside the courthouse where Trump is on trial.

“He wants to sow total chaos,” said DeNiro, a surrogate for President Joe Biden who grew up in New York City. “He’ll use violence against anyone who stands in the way of his megalomania and greed. But it’s a coward’s violence.”

DeNiro noted Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and for misstating the value of his real estate. But DeNiro said over the shouts of hecklers and the honking of a car on the street outside the courthouse that Trump must be defeated or he would never leave the White House again.

“When Trump ran in 2016, it was like a joke, this buffoon running for president,” DeNiro said. “With Trump, we have a second chance and no one is laughing now. This is the time to stop him by voting him out once and for all.”

DeNiro was joined by Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone , two of the Capitol police officers who were injured defending the building when a mob of Trump supporters rioted and interrupted Congress certifying Biden’s 2020 win against Trump.

“These guys are the true heroes,” DeNiro said. “They stood and put their lives on the line for these lowlifes, for Trump.”

Blanche says Trump didn't have an intent to defraud

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said he expects Judge Merchan to instruct jurors that, to find Trump guilty, they must conclude he falsified records and that he had an intent to defraud when he did so.

Blanche pointed to a 2018 tweet by Trump, in which Trump mentioned a retainer agreement with Cohen. A legal retainer is a compensation agreement that reserves a lawyer or pays for future services. Cohen submitted several invoices in 2017 – which form part of the allegedly falsified records in the case – referencing a retainer. Cohen testified no retainer actually existed.

Blanche said Trump wouldn't have posted that tweet if he had any intent to defraud.

Blanche says almost no evidence of planned tax crime

To find Trump guilty of the 34 felony counts in the case, the jurors must find not only that Trump falsified the 34 records, but also that he did so in order to commit or conceal another crime.

One of the theories the prosecution advanced about that purpose before trial was that the falsified records were covering up a plan to violate New York tax laws . The prosecution has also said there was a plan to violate New York election laws, and that the allegedly falsified records were hiding the violation of federal campaign finance laws through the hush money to Stormy Daniels.

The only evidence of a tax purpose for how payments to Cohen were recorded, according to Blanche, was former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg saying the payments were grossed up. "Is there any other proof of that? Any other evidence? No, there's none," Blanche asked and answered.

'Case Turns On Cohen': Trump lawyer attacks Michael Cohen's credibility

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche displayed a portion of the transcript of Michael Cohen's testimony with a header above it titled: "Case Turns On Cohen."

The transcript excerpt featured Cohen saying he was in a meeting with Trump and former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg , when Weisselberg allegedly said they would pay Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money, as well as for another expense and a bonus, over 12 months.

Cohen didn't even pretend to be part of that conversation, Blanche said – seeming to attack the lack of testimony from Cohen about what he himself said in the meeting. Blanche characterized it as weak evidence from the government about Trump's role in the alleged repayment scheme.

Blanche says lack of testimony from Trump sons Eric and Don Jr. is reason to acquit

Blanche argued that the lack of testimony from Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump – who are seated in the audience today – is a reason to acquit Trump. The two Trump sons were running Trump business operations during their father's presidency, and allegedly signed two checks that make up two of the 34 records that their father is allegedly responsible for falsifying.

"That is reasonable doubt," Blanche said.

The Trump defense team, like the prosecution, didn't call the two Trump sons to the stand, although it did call two other witnesses.

"We have no burden to do anything," Blanche said, emphasizing the prosecution chose to call Michael Cohen but not the sons.

Supreme Court rejects appeal from Stormy Daniels' former lawyer Michael Avenatti

Outside of the Manhattan courtroom today, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Stormy Daniels ' former lawyer Michael Avenatti .

The disgraced California lawyer represented Daniels in her 2018 lawsuits against Trump .

The Supreme Court denied the appeal of his 2020 conviction for an extortion scheme in which he tried to get up to $25 million from shoemaker Nike .

Avenatti is also serving sentences on two other convictions tied to stealing profits from Daniels' book, cheating clients out of millions of dollars, and failing to pay taxes.

– Kinsey Crowley &  Maureen Groppe

'That's a red flag': Blanche argues lack of evidence on vouchers

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors there is "no evidence" Trump knew anything about the Trump Organization's voucher system. "No evidence - not a single word," Blanche added.

This is a reference to a portion of the 34 records that Trump is allegedly responsible for falsifying. The vouchers were the digital entries in general ledgers at the Trump Organization that labeled payments to Michael Cohen as legal expenses.

Blanche said he doesn't know how the government is going to address the alleged lack of evidence, but told jurors to be skeptical if prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reads quotes from a decades-old Trump book. During the trial, the prosecution brought in two book publishers who read excerpts from Trump's books.

"You should be suspicious. That's a red flag," Blanche said.

'The bookings were accurate': Trump lawyer defends records

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche noted his client was in the White House at the time of the alleged records falsifications, arguing there wasn't evidence that Trump "had anything to do" with how payments to Michael Cohen were recorded on a ledger.

Cohen testified that Trump was in a meeting with him and former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg about how to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. "He approved it," Cohen told jurors about Trump. According to prosecutors, the reimbursement payments were falsely recorded as 2017 legal expenses.

Blanche defended the accuracy of the records on Tuesday.

"The bookings were accurate and there was absolutely no intent to defraud," Blanche said.

'This case is about documents': Trump lawyer to jurors

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche noted to jurors that Trump doesn't face any charges for allegedly having a sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels in 2006 – an allegation Trump denies.

"This case is about documents. It's a paper case," Blanche said. "This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago," he added.

Still, Blanche took the time to dispute Daniels' story, saying Trump has "unequivocally and repeatedly" denied the alleged encounter happened.

Biden campaign to hold courthouse news conference

Another interested party is visiting the scene outside the Trump trial courthouse: The Joe Biden presidential campaign.

“The Biden-Harris campaign will hold a press conference with special guests outside of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse,” said an e-mailed announcement.

Among the spectators awaiting the Biden campaign news conference: Officials with the Trump campaign, who said they will be responding afterward.

'President Trump is innocent': Trump lawyer attacks prosecution's case

"President Trump is innocent," defense lawyer Todd Blanche said early into his closing argument. "He did not commit any crimes," Blanche added. "The district attorney has not met their burden of proof – period."

Blanche told the jurors they "should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen," referring to Trump's former lawyer, who was the prosecution's star witness. Blanche also said the jurors should want more than the testimony of Deborah Tarasoff , a Trump Organization employee who testified about invoices and checks that are at the core of the 34 felony counts Trump faces.

Blanche also referenced Stormy Daniels without using her name – telling jurors they should want more than a woman saying something happened in 2006. Daniels said she and Trump had a sexual encounter that year, after meeting at a celebrity golf tournament.

Blanche also told jurors they should want more than the testimony of former Daniels lawyers Keith Davidson, who testified about her $130,000 hush money deal. Davidson was "just trying to extort money" from Trump ahead of the 2016 election, Blanche said.

The consequence of those defects in the prosecution's case, Blanche said, "is a not guilty verdict, period."

Trump proclaims innocence before attending closing arguments

Former President Donald Trump continued to profess his innocence before closing arguments in his New York hush money trial, arguing “there is no crime” and “hopefully it doesn’t work out for them.”

Trump is charged with falsifying business records to hide his reimbursement to former lawyer Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels, to prevent another salacious story before the 2016 election.

Trump, who didn’t testify in his own defense, argued to reporters outside the courtroom that there is nothing wrong with securing a nondisclosure agreement. Trump also argued any personal payment couldn’t have violated campaign finance law.

“It’s a very sad day,” Trump said. “This is a dark day for America.”

Low-key demonstrations outside the NYC courthouse

About 50-60 people shuttled into and out of the small park across from the courthouse as lawyers inside prepared their final arguments.

Most of the early witnesses were anti-Trump, but a contingent of more than 20 supporters showed up to support the former president as he traveled to the courthouse.

“We wanted to let him know that people in New York support him,” said a Trump flag-carrying man with a white beard and a red suit who identified himself as “Hungry Santa” (he produced a business card with that name).Other demonstrators made clear they did not support Trump.

Brad McCormick, 38, an educational consultant from Brigantine, N.J., hawked copies of a game book called “Trump Madness.” Readers are presented with outrageous quotes on a variety of topics, and asked if Trump really said those things (in many cases, the answer is yes).

McCormick also said he came to the courthouse out of a “sense of duty.”

“You’ve got to do something,” he said.

Tiffany Trump, Don Jr., Eric attend closing arguments

Three of former President Donald Trump’s children – Donald Jr., Eric and Tiffany – accompanied him to the closing arguments Tuesday in his New York hush money trial.

Trump’s daughter in law, Lara Trump, who is co-chair of the Republican National Committee, also attended.

A parade of SUVs delivered Trump’s entourage to the local courthouse on the sunny, 70-degree morning, a day after the Memorial Day holiday.

Trump lawyer begins by thanking jurors

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche began his closing argument by thanking the jurors, noting that they have consistently arrived on time for the trial.

Prosecution plans lengthy closing argument

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche estimated his side's closing argument will last about 2.5 hours. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said the length of his argument may change based on what comes up in the defense's argument, but gave an estimate of 4-4.5 hours.

Judge Merchan said those estimates mean arguments and instructions may not conclude by the normal end time of 4:30 p.m. EDT and he will check whether jurors are able to stay later.

Judge Merchan arrives in courtroom

Judge Juan Merchan entered the courtroom at 9:31 a.m. EDT. Merchan said he sent his proposed jury instructions to both trial teams on Thursday.

Trump arrives in courtroom

Former President Donald Trump arrived in the courtroom at 9:25 a.m. EDT. We are still waiting for the judge and jury.

Alvin Bragg in attendance for closing arguments

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg entered the courtroom at 9:24 a.m. EDT. Bragg has attended some previous days of trial. He is seated in the second row of benches behind the prosecution team.

Prosecution arrives for closing arguments

The prosecution team entered the courtroom at about 9:14 a.m. EDT. We are still waiting on Trump's trial team as well as the judge and the jury.

What time does the Trump trial start today?

Proceedings are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

What to expect in closing arguments

Closing arguments offer each side a chance to go over evidence from the trial and make arguments about the inferences and conclusions that may fairly be drawn from that evidence.

Prosecutors may point to checks with Trump's signatures, excerpts from Trump's books, and recordings introduced at trial in order to bolster the testimony of star witness Michael Cohen, who testified that Trump authorized him to pay Stormy Daniels hush money in 2016 and approved a plan to cover it up in 2017.

The defense is likely to attack the credibility of Cohen, including by highlighting that he previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. Trump's team may also point to the high burden of proof prosecutors face: prosecutors must prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who goes first in closing arguments?

Under New York law , the defense team gives its closing argument first, followed by the prosecution. After both sides have spoken to the jurors, Judge Juan Merchan will instruct them on the law to apply in the case.

Trump rails against trial, quotes scripture

Former President Donald Trump posted a series of messages Monday, on the eve of closing arguments in his New York hush money trial, railing against the case as election interference and quoting scripture.

Besides criticizing Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump questioned why the prosecution gets the final word before jury deliberations. Typically in summing up the evidence in a case, prosecutors make their statements, defense lawyers speak and prosecutors get a final rebuttal because they have the burden of proving their case.

“Big advantage, very unfair,” Trump said in an all-caps post on Truth Social.

Trump also quoted a passage from the book of John in the Bible about personal sacrifice. Trump and his supporters have described his four criminal cases as political persecution.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” the post said.

Could Trump go to prison?

Each count against Trump carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison and no minimum amount of jail or prison time. If Trump is convicted on all counts, Merchan will be tasked with deciding on a sentence for each count, and also deciding whether the sentences will coincide with each other or be run one after the other. However, New York law caps sentences for Class E felonies such as those Trump is charged with  at 20 years .

Legal experts told USA TODAY it's possible Trump could get just probation, even if he were convicted on every count. Most predicted any incarceration sentence on each count would run simultaneously with the others, so Trump wouldn't be ordered to serve more than four years behind bars. Experts also said Trump would likely be free while his expected appeal ran its course.

What is Trump on trial for?

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal or commit another crime. The records – including checks, vouchers, and invoices – all relate to payments to former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in 2017. Prosecutors say the payments were reimbursing Cohen for $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, but the records were falsified to make the payments look like 2017 legal expenses.

Prosecutors say Trump was covering up the violation of federal campaign finance laws through the hush money, which was handed over less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election. They also say Trump was trying to hide a plan to violate New York tax and election laws.

Trump has pleaded not guilty, and Trump defense lawyer Todd Blanche has denied the payments were reimbursing the hush money.

Why does Trump's team say the case should be dismissed?

Judge Juan Merchan may issue a ruling today on Trump's request to toss out the entire case ahead of jury deliberations.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told Merchan that prosecutors haven't put on enough evidence for the case to go to the jury because the business records at issue weren't false. He said documents show Trump was paying Michael Cohen for ongoing legal services in 2017. Blanche also said the prosecution's case shouldn't be able to stand given Cohen's history of lying, including – according to the Trump defense lawyer – during this trial.

BREAKING: Senate Republicans block bill to protect Americans' access to contraception

Highlights: Closing arguments wrap in Trump hush money trial

Coverage on this live blog has ended. Follow the latest news here.

What to know about the hush money trial

• Prosecutors finished delivering their closing statements in the trial shortly before 8 p.m. Former President Donald Trump's lawyers presented their arguments this morning .
• Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who spoke for more than four hours, argued that Trump falsified business records to cover up what was essentially an illegal campaign contribution meant to help him get elected in 2016.
• Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
• Court adjourned for the day at 8 p.m. and will resume at 10 a.m., when the judge will give instructions to the jury before it begins deliberations.

Judge lays out timeline for the rest of the week

Gary Grumbach

Zoë Richards

Tomorrow's trial proceedings are expected to get underway at 10 a.m., instead of the regular 9:30 a.m., with Judge Juan Merchan saying he expects jury instructions to last about an hour.

After that, the case will be in the hands of the jury.

Merchan said tomorrow's proceedings will conclude at 4:30 p.m., but he left the door open for the rest of the week, noting that if proceedings are needed on Thursday and Friday, the timing will be determined by how deliberations are progressing.

Trump makes no comments after leaving courtroom

Katherine Koretski

Trump did not make any comments as he left the Manhattan courtroom after the prosecution delivered closing arguments that went until just before 8 p.m.

Trump, who has often spoken outside the courtroom, instead raised his fist as he left.

Closing arguments are done; court to resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has finished his closing argument, which began shortly after 2 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they will start tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Merchan told jurors that jury instructions will take around an hour before deliberations begin. He said the plan is to go until 4:30 p.m. for the day.

Prosecutor gets fired up during end of closing argument

Phil Helsel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began accelerating and emphasizing his delivery to jurors during closing arguments with minutes to go before an 8 p.m. deadline.

Steinglass reiterated to the jurors that it is a crime to willfully create inaccurate tax forms and that Trump’s intent to defraud in this case is clear. He argued that why else would Stormy Daniels be paid in what he described as an elaborate scheme, instead of all at once.

Steinglass argued that that and other steps show Trump wanted the issue to be kept quiet until after the election.

“The name of the game was concealment,” he said.

Defense objects to prosecutor's remarks about Trump and Fifth Avenue

Jillian Frankel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass urged the jury to hold Trump accountable, suggesting by way of analogy that he can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue during rush hour and get away with it.

Trump's defense team objected to the comment, which Judge Juan Merchan sustained.

Mixed level of visible engagement among jurors at this late hour

Laura Jarrett

At least one juror appears to be visibly engaged in prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’ presentation — offering an affirming smile.

Others, however, appear considerably less focused and can be seen twisting their hair and rubbing their faces.

The jury is approaching an 11-hour day at the courthouse.

Prosecutor talks about difference between reasonable doubt and certainty

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it does not need to evaluate each piece of evidence alone and in a vacuum but as part of a whole that he argues proves Trump’s guilt.

“You will see that the people have proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

During his remarks, the defense objected. Judge Juan Merchan sustained the objection.

“I’ll instruct them on the law and the evidence,” Merchan said.

Prosecutor launches into rapid-fire recap of Trump’s involvement in Daniels and McDougal stories

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is recapping all of the evidence intended to show Trump’s direct involvement in the settlements with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, beginning with an August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

A screen the prosecution displayed during closing arguments read “Mr. Trump involved every step of the way” as Steinglass went through a timeline of events.

Joshua Steinglass passes 4-hour mark in his closing arguments

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has passed the four-hour mark since he began giving the prosecution’s closing argument in Trump’s trial.

Steinglass began giving the prosecution’s closing arguments at around 2:07 p.m., but there have been several breaks since then.

Today's trial proceedings to continue until 8 p.m., judge says

After he returned to the bench, Judge Juan Merchan indicated to the attorneys that the court will push forward until 8 p.m. but will need to wrap up after that.

That would make an 11-hour day for the jury.

Last recess of the day

Judge Juan Merchan announced at 6:52 p.m. what he said will be the last recess of the day.

It's expected to last just a few minutes.

Merchan earlier said that the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

'A bold-faced lie': Prosecutor revisits Robert Costello's testimony

Given the hour, it was initially unclear why prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began revisiting the testimony of Robert Costello , a Trump ally and lawyer who has clashed with Michael Cohen.

But the prosecution's display of an email exchange between Costello and Cohen hinted that the DA's office aims to portray Trump’s attitude toward Cohen changing only after his former attorney's compliance was in doubt, not because of anything else Cohen did.

Recounting Costello's testimony, Steinglass argued that Costello's assertion that he was acting in Cohen’s best interest and that he didn’t care at all about the defendant’s interest "was a bold-faced lie.”

‘You guys good to go a little bit longer?’ prosecutor asks, as 7 p.m. draws near

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked jurors, “You guys good to go a little bit longer?” and said “Alright!” after a bench meeting to discuss scheduling at around 6:30 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan earlier today said the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

Prosecutor refers to 'devastating' testimony by Hope Hicks

Given the largely chronological order of the prosecution's closing arguments, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass could be nearing the end of his remarks.

He discussed what he called Hope Hicks’ “devastating” testimony earlier in the trial, adding that she burst into tears because she realized the impact of what she had told the court.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche objected to that characterization, but Judge Juan Merchan allowed it.

Prosecutor argues Trump wanted to be 'involved in everything'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass mocked former Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout’s testimony in which she said Trump was often so busy that sometimes he absent-mindedly signed presidential proclamations.

Steinglass, who dismissed Westerhout's remarks as a narrative Trump’s team encouraged, said that overall she gave the opposite impression — that the former president remained very attentive to outlays of his personal expenses, and that his most frequent contacts included his former attorney Michael Cohen and a former top executive of his company, Allen Weisselberg. Westerhout's testimony also conveyed that Trump continued to be the sole signatory on his own accounts, even though he easily could have added other signatories, Steinglass argued.

Trump wanted to maintain control — and “he insists on signing his own checks," Steinglass said, adding that Trump boasted about his frugality and micromanagement in his books, which Steinglass read excerpts from.

Steinglass also rejected the defense's argument that Trump was too busy to be involved in certain financial transactions.

“He’s in charge of a company for 40 years. The defendant’s entire business philosophy was to be involved in everything,” Steinglass said.

Prosecutor: Cohen's time being cross-examined exceeded his legal work for Trump in 2017

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that Michael Cohen did very few hours of legal work for Trump on 2017, and that “these payments had nothing to do with the retainer agreement and nothing to do with services rendered in 2017.”

“Cohen spent more time being cross-examined in this trial than he did doing legal work for Donald Trump in 2017,” Steinglass said. He also told the jury that none of the Trump invoices went through the Trump Organization’s legal department because they weren’t for legal services rendered.

Steinglass also commented on how Cohen was paid pretty well, and had the title of personal attorney for the president.

“He was making way more money than any government job would ever pay, and don’t I know that,” Steinglass joked.

Some jurors cracked smiles and small laughs when Steinglass joked about government salaries compared to what Cohen was making.

Prosecutor says ‘these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh’ at defense's argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that “these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh” at an argument presented by Trump’s defense.

Steinglass was referring to a comments by defense attorney Todd Blanche that the records were not false because, if they were false, they would have been destroyed.

Steinglass also argued that the 1099s forms on which Trump reported payments to Michael Cohen of $105,000 and $315,000 were another “unlawful means” through which the conspiracy was acted upon.

EXCLUSIVE: Elise Stefanik requests probe into Merchan's selection as judge

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., issued a complaint letter today to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and an inspector general for the New York State Unified Court System, requesting an investigation into Judge Juan Merchan’s selection to preside over Trump’s hush money case.

Stefanik pointed to Merchan’s role as presiding judge for a pair of other cases related to Trump and his allies, saying, “The probability of three specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is infinitesimally small.”

“One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all,” Stefanik wrote. “The simple answer to why Acting Justice Merchan has been assigned to these cases would seem to be that whoever made the assignment intentionally selected Acting Justice Merchan to handle them to increase the chance that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and Steven Bannon would ultimately be convicted.”

The letter marks a continued effort by Trump allies to attack people involved with the case by filing complaints. The board overseeing the judges has made clear that Merchan didn’t need to recuse himself over issues that some of his critics have called a conflict of interest.

Trump posts on Truth Social during break in courtroom action

Vaughn Hillyard

During the court's roughly 20-minute break, Trump on his Truth Social platform disparaged the proceedings as "boring" and a " filibuster ."

Trump's Truth Social account has been active today with posts referring to his criminal trial and the closing arguments, which have continued as the prosecution continues its argument into this evening.

Judge says closing arguments to continue into the evening

Adam Edelman

Judge Juan Merchan announced a short courtroom break and said the plan is to go until at least 7 p.m. and "finish this out if we can."

“I was watching the jurors, they look pretty alert to me. I don’t think we’re losing anyone. So I think right now we’re going to try to finish this out if we can," he told the attorneys.

“Let’s see what we can do," Merchan continued, adding that they will revisit the timeline at 7 p.m.

Prosecutor argues Trump didn't sign confidentiality agreement for a reason

Kyla Guilfoil

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass tried to turn one of defense attorney Todd Blanche’s better arguments on its head.

Steinglass said that Trump didn’t sign the agreement because that was the point: The agreement was no less enforceable without his signature.

The timing of the payment on Oct. 27, 2016, Steinglass argued, further showed that Trump's primary concern was not his family but the election.

Prosecutor seems to say for first time there were 2 calls between Cohen and Weisselberg in late October 2016

Rebecca Shabad is in Washington, D.C.

Joshua Steinglass mentioned that in the phone records they have, prosecutors saw six calls between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg over three years, two of which were in late October 2016, right before the Stormy Daniels deal was reached.

This appears to be the first time the calls have been mentioned in the case.

Steinglass also emphasized that Trump and Cohen spoke twice on the morning of Oct. 26, 2016, right before Cohen went to First Republic to submit paperwork to open his new account and to send the wire transfer to Keith Davidson on Daniels’ behalf.

Prosecutor walks through Michael Cohen's bank papers

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now going through the false claims and omissions in former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s paperwork to First Republic to open an account in the name of his new LLC.

Those forms could serve as the “unlawful means” through which the alleged conspiracy to promote Trump’s election was acted on.

Prosecutor: Stormy Daniels' testimony shows Trump was 'not just words'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going at Trump now, referring to Story Daniels' testimony to argue that Trump is "not just words."

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that Trump was not just words" at a time when Trump was trying to distinguish between his words and the actions of both Clintons, Steinglass said.

He also noted that Daniels' story got little to no traction until the day after the "Access Hollywood" tape became national news, with phone traffic exploding among Keith Davidson, Dylan Howard, Michael Cohen and Trump.

Prosecutor describes ramifications of the 'Access Hollywood' tape

After a brief break, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass resumed his closing argument by describing the "Access Hollywood" tape, which multiple witnesses during the trial described as catastrophic for Trump's 2016 campaign.

Steinglass said the tape eclipsed coverage of a Category 4 hurricane, according to Hope Hicks; debate prep at Trump Tower was disrupted as campaign leadership discussed how to respond; and elected Republicans raced to disavow Trump's comments on the tape, with some withdrawing their endorsements.

Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout testified that senior Republican National Committee officials were even discussing dropping Trump from the 2016 ticket, Steinglass said.

“The video was vulgar, to say the least," he added.

Prosecution's closing arguments are one-third of the way done

Asked by Judge Juan Merchan "how much longer" the prosecution's closing arguments would take, Joshua Steinglass replied that there was still a lot to get through.

"We’re about a third of the way through," he said.

The prosecution's closing arguments began today shortly before 2:15 p.m.

Prosecutor says Cohen-Trump call shows effort to influence 2016 election

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jurors that it's their decision what the tape between Michael Cohen and Trump from Sept. 6, 2016, said.

Steinglass said it showed Trump suggested paying in cash — whether it means no financing, lump sum, it doesn’t matter, he said. Steinglass said they were trying to take steps that would not get noticed.

“This tape unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor defends Michael Cohen's phone records

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is making arguments to defend Michael Cohen's phone records after the defense questioned their integrity.

Steinglass said that Cohen had no idea the Manhattan district attorney's office would ask for phone records again in January of last year, and there would be no conceivable reason for him to delete evidence of a crime he’d already been convicted and served time for.

Prosecution using graphics to illustrate points during closing arguments

The graphics that the Manhattan district attorney's team is using during their summation are high-tech and modern.

In presenting them, prosecutors are isolating certain calls and using zoom functions to highlight them. The graphics offer a clean and accessible way for the attorneys to illustrate their points to the jury.

Prosecutor: Call between David Pecker and Trump makes it 'impossible' to claim Cohen acted independently

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass discussed a call between David Pecker and Trump in which Pecker apprised him that Michael Cohen had told Trump about Karen McDougal coming forward.

"This call makes it impossible for the defense to claim that Cohen was acting on his own here," Steinglass said.

He said the transaction was an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign — and not only did Trump know about it, Steinglass said, but he participated as well.

Prosecutor details Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going through the Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme in minute detail — call by call, text by text and day by day.

Virtually no testimony is needed to illustrate the negotiations — and to the extent that testimony is used, it’s not from key witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. It's from David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer.

Analysis: Steinglass pokes hole in defense's argument around National Enquirer

Steinglass makes a very good point about the Dino Sajuddin story and corresponding payment.

Sajuddin is the former Trump Tower doorman who claims Trump fathered a child out of wedlock, a claim the former president has denied.

Given that everyone believed Sajuddin's claim to be false, purchasing the story was not something David Pecker did because of his fiduciary duty to shareholders; there was no reason to do it other than to benefit the 2016 Trump campaign.

Steinglass calls 2015 meeting at Trump Tower a 'subversion of democracy'

Steinglass characterized a meeting at Trump Tower almost a decade ago as a “subversion of democracy.”

He said the entire purpose of the August 2015 meeting was to “pull the wool over [voters’] eyes” before they made their decisions.

He also pointed out that while NDAs are not unlawful, nor are contracts illegal, a contract to kill your wife is illegal, and therefore an NDA designed to prevent certain information from becoming public during a political campaign is also illegal.

Steinglass tells jurors to think of Cohen as a 'tour guide'

Daniel Arkin

Trump's lawyers repeatedly attempted to make Cohen's trustworthiness and motives a focal point of the trial — a strategy that Steinglass flat-out rejected in his summations. "This case is not about Michael Cohen," Steinglass told the jury. "This case is about Donald Trump."

Steinglass encouraged the jury to instead think of Cohen as a "tour guide" through the evidence introduced during the proceedings, including what the state has presented as falsified business records aimed at covering up an election law violation. Cohen, according to Steinglass, "provides context and color to the documents" — but he is not the trial's main character.

Steinglass begins touching on campaign finance violations

Steinglass is teasing the crux of the prosecution’s argument, saying, “Once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that’s election law — that’s federal election campaign finance violation.”

“We’ll get back to that,” he adds.

Prosecution argues there is a 'mountain of evidence' against Trump

Steinglass is fighting back against the defense's rhetoric that the only evidence in this case came from Michael Cohen's testimony.

The prosecutor told the jury that Judge Merchan will say Cohen is an accomplice because he participated in these crimes, but you cannot convict Trump on Cohen’s word alone — unless there is corroborating evidence.

Steinglass said that there is a mountain of evidence in the case, saying "it’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one.”

Steinglass looks to counter questions on details of Cohen's stories

Steinglass is now using an imaginary conversation to explain Cohen’s retelling of some of the stories or dates he’d recounted to the jury that Trump’s lawyers had questioned.

“These guys know each other well, they speak in code. A better explanation is that Cohen could have gotten the time and place of the call wrong. This is one date in many, he spoke to the defendant 20 times in the month of October,” Steinglass said.

“Let’s say you had dinner at a restaurant with an old friend and the friend says they were getting married. Later you find a receipt and think that was the night they told you they were getting married, but found out the friend was actually in California on that night. That does not mean that you are lying about the fact that you had dinner with the friend or about the fact that your friend told you they were getting married,” Steinglass said.

Steinglass: We didn't pick Cohen at the 'witness store'

Steinglass is forcefully pushing back on the Trump team's attempts to tarnish Cohen's character and motives, reminding the jury that the ex-fixer was once a valued member of the former president's inner circle: "We didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject."

Cohen's top quality was loyalty to his former boss, Steinglass said. Cohen was "drawn to the defendant like a moth to a flame, and he wasn't the only one. David Pecker saw Mr. Trump as a mentor; Mr. Trump saw David Pecker as a useful tool."

On Trump attacks on Cohen: 'That is what some people might call chutzpah'

Steinglass is explaining that Cohen had lied at Trump’s direction and that Trump was now using those lies to harm Cohen’s credibility in the trial.

“The defense also tells you you should reject his testimony because he lied and took pleas in federal court. He has had some trouble accepting responsibility,” Steinglass said. “For bank fraud conviction and his tax law violation, he said he admitted to you that he did the things. He pleaded guilty.”

“He feels like he was treated unfairly and as a first offender he should have been able to pay a fine and back taxes and he believes the Trump Justice Department did him dirty. Whether that is true or not, he accepted responsibility and went to prison for it,” Steinglass added.

“You should consider all of this for his credibility” he continued. “The lies he told to Congress had to do with the Mueller investigation and the Russia probe, and what he lied about was the number of dealings the defendant had with Russia, and the only benefit was he stayed in the defendant’s good graces.”

“Those lies that he told are being used by the same defendant to undermine his credibility,” Steinglass said. 

“That is what some people might call chutzpah,” he added, using a Yiddish word meaning audacity.

Prosecution is careful to repeatedly call Trump 'the defendent'

There’s subtle but notable rhetorical move happening in this closing by the prosecution.

Steinglass is repeatedly referring to Trump as “the defendant” instead of “Mr. Trump” or “the former president.” This contrasts greatly from the defense's language, as Trump's lawyers almost always refer to him as "the president."

It will be important to watch for Steinglass to argue at some point that no one is above the law, even the former president of the United States -- something we’ve seen other state and federal prosecutors say about Trump over the last year.

Steinglass focuses on inconsistencies in defense argument

Steinglass zeroed in on an example of what the prosecution considers an inconsistency in the defense team's case. He told the jury that if the $420,000 payment for Cohen was for legal services, as the defense argued, Cohen could not have stolen $60,000 from the Trump Organization, as the defense also argued. It's either one or the other, the prosecutor argues — not both.

Steinglass: 'I'm not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen'

Steinglass is trying to reason with the jury, telling the jurors that they don't need to feel bad for Cohen, but they should understand where Cohen is coming from.

“I am not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed," Steinglass said.

“But you can hardly blame him that he’s making money for the one thing he has left," he added, referencing Cohen's knowledge of the inner workings of the Trump organization.

Steinglass admits that Daniels’ testimony was “messy” — but 'Stormy Daniels is the motive'

Steinglass is laying out how “the defense has gone to great lengths to shame Stormy Daniels, saying that she changed her story” but adds that “her false denials have been thoroughly discussed and explained.”

“She lived 2017 in pure silence, Michael Cohen came out and said sex never happened” and Daniels “felt compelled to set the record straight,” he said.

Steinglass said that “parts of her testimony” were “cringeworthy” and “uncomfortable.”

But details like “what the suite” at Harrah’s “looked like” and how the toiletry bag appeared “ring true.”

“They’re the kind of details you’d expect someone to remember,” Steinglass explained, adding that, “fortunately, she was not asked or did she volunteer specific details of the sexual act itself.”

“It certainly is true you don’t have to prove that sex took place — that is not an element of the crime, the defendant knew what happened and reinforces the incentive to buy her silence,” explained Steinglass.

“Her story is messy,” he said. “But that’s kind of the point. That’s the display the defendant didn’t want the American voter to see.”

“If her testimony were so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to discredit her?” he added. “In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive.”

Steinglass undercuts defense argument that Trump was totally in the dark on Daniels payment

Steinglass displayed quotes from one of the state's exhibits: a phone call in which Cohen — well before he started cooperating with prosecutors — tells Davidson that Trump hates the fact that his team settled with Daniels.

The quotes undercut the defense team's insistence that Trump knew nothing about the hush money payments to Daniels.

Steinglass to jury: You don't need to believe Cohen to find there was a conspiracy

Steinglass defended the state's witnesses against the Trump team's accusations of lying, but he added that the jury does not necessarily need to believe every word of Cohen's testimony to find that there was a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.

"You don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," Steinglass said, referring to the state's accusation of a conspiracy.

He added that Hope Hicks, Rhona Graff, Madeleine Westerhout, Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff were all witnesses who like Trump but confirmed Cohen's testimony.

Steinglass: 'You don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records'

Steinglass is appealing to the jury by explaining to them that it doesn't really matter why Trump broke the law, as long as they feel he did break the law. The argument appears to be a response to the claim by Blanche, during his own closing arguments, that Stormy Daniels had attempted to extort Trump.

"In the end it doesn’t really matter, because you don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records because you think you’ve been victimized," he said.

"In other words, extortion is not a defense for falsifying business records," he added.

"You've got to use your common sense, here," Steinglass continued. "Consider the utterly damning testimony of David Pecker."

Steinglass rebuts defense arguments about phone records

"The defense seems to be questioning our integrity,” Steinglass told the jury near the top of his summation.

But, he argued, it was the defense that didn't properly depict phone records.

The call summaries were made to help guide you, the prosecutor explained to the jury. The phone records are all in evidence and you can look through them at your leisure, he added.

It’s also an interesting accusation, Steinglass points out, given that the defense’s summary of calls between Cohen and Costello double-counts their calls. He also reminds them that not every phone call is accounted for in their phone records. Cohen had 11 phone numbers for Trump; they had records corresponding to two of them.

Prosecution kicks off closing arguments

The prosecution is now kicking off its closing arguments. Joshua Steinglass will give them.

Merchan told jury to disregard Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan, who chastised Blanche for imploring jurors not to send Trump to prison, told the jury that the lawyer's comment was "improper, and you must disregard it."

"If there is a verdict of guilty," the judge added, "it will be up to me to impose a sentence."

He went on to explain that a "prison sentence is not required in the event of a guilty verdict."

We are back

Merchan is at the bench. Trump is seated at the defense table.

Trump's family shows support outside the courthouse

Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump along with Eric's wife, Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, slammed the proceedings in remarks to reporters outside the courthouse during the lunch break.

"Michael Cohen is the embodiment of reasonable doubt," Donald Jr. said. "This entire case hinges on someone who has quite literally lied to every single person and body he's ever been in front of in his life before."

Both he and Eric Trump echoed their father's often repeated characterization of the trial, calling it a "political witch hunt" and a "sham."

Eric went on to say that the district attorney's office is ignoring crimes across the city and using the trial to attack Trump.

"They're sitting there, they're laughing, they're giggling," Eric said. "This was their moment. This is how they embarrass Donald Trump."

Laura Trump added that the trial has been "banana republic-type stuff."

"This is a case about politics, pure and simple," she said.  

After walking away from the news conference, Donald Trump Jr. added that Democrats "talk about democracy but are laughing about it like it's a soundbite," and claimed they are “trying to scare anyone who has any kind of belief that doesn’t go 100% with what they believe.”

Merchan says he will give curative instructions after Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan appeared to chastise Blanche after the defense lawyer implored jurors not to send Trump to prison — an unlikely outcome in this case

"I think that statement was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan said after jurors were excused for their daily lunch break, later adding: "It's simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

Merchan told the court that he plans to give jurors a curative instruction — in other words, general direction that is aimed at clearing up an erroneous statement.

Prosecutor slams Blanche's 'prison' comment

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor who is expected to deliver the state's closing arguments, blasted Blanche's comment to the jury about prison time as a "blatant and wholly inappropriate move" by the defense.

Steinglass asked Merchan to provide a curative instruction, a direction given by a judge to correct an erroneous statement.

Trump lawyer tells jurors that 'this isn't a referendum on your views of' Trump

Summer Concepcion

Toward the end of his closing arguments, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors that the verdict “isn’t a referendum on your views of” Trump, or “a referendum on the ballot box,” stressing the importance of basing their decision on evidence that emerged throughout the trial.

“If you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very very quick and easy not guilty verdict. Thank you,” he said.

‘You are gangsters!’: Robert De Niro clashes with Trump supporters in New York

Katherine Doyle

Amanda Terkel Politics Managing Editor

President Joe Biden’s campaign held a news conference outside the Manhattan courtroom where  Donald Trump is on trial  in his hush money case, with actor Robert De Niro and  two officers who defended the Capitol  from the Jan. 6 mob warning about the dangers of re-electing the former president.

“The Twin Towers fell just over here, just over there. This part of the city was like a ghost town, but we vowed we would not allow terrorists to change our way of life. ... I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country, and eventually he can destroy the world,” De Niro said.

Afterward, on the way back to his car, De Niro mixed it up with some pro-Trump protesters, who yelled that he’s a “wannabe,” “paid sell-out” to the Democratic National Committee, “nobody” and a “little punk” whose “movies suck.”

“You’re not going to intimidate,” De Niro replied. “That’s what Trump does. ... We are going to fight back. We’re trying to be gentlemen in this world, the Democrats. You are gangsters. You are gangsters!”

Read the full story here.

Blanche finishes summation

Blanche finished his summation at 12:49 p.m. ET, about three hours after he began the closing arguments.

Blanche refers to jail time

Blanche told the jurors: "You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen."

It's worth noting that it's unlikely the former president will be sentenced to prison in this case.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'GLOAT'

Blanche says that Michael Cohen is the "greatest liar of all time."

“Michael Cohen is the GLOAT. He’s literally the greatest liar of all time," Blanche said, a play on the sports term GOAT "greatest of all time. “He has lied to every single branch of Congress.”

He added, “He has lied to the Department of Justice.”

Blanche outlines 10 reasons why he believes jury should have reasonable doubt

Blanche presented jurors with a list:

• The invoices. Blanche argues Cohen created the invoices, Trump had no intent to defraud, and prosecutors did not present evidence that Trump knew about them.
• Valentine's Day 2017 vouchers. Blanche argues there is no proof Trump ever saw the vouchers.
• No evidence of intent to defraud.
• No evidence to commit or conceal a crime. "There is no falsification of business records, period," Blanche argued.
• No evidence Trump was involved in illegal agreement to influence election.
• AMI would have run Sajudin's story. Dino Sajudin is the former Trump Tower doorman who tried to sell a story about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock.
• McDougal did not want her story published .
• Daniels' story was already public .
• Alleged manipulation of evidence .
• Cohen is the "embodiment of reasonable doubt." "He lied to you repeatedly," Blanche said. "He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true."

Blanche insists there was no felony because even if there was a conspiracy, it wasn't through 'unlawful means'

Blanche is insisting that there can be no felony falsification of business records because even if there was a conspiracy to influence the election, it was not carried out through any “unlawful means.”

To support his “no unlawful means” argument, Blanche said there is no proof Trump ever knew, for example, about certain paperwork Michael Cohen submitted to his bank or paperwork prepared to transfer Karen McDougal’s life rights from AMI to Trump.

Trump’s knowledge, however, is not required. All that matters legally is that a member of the conspiracy undertook those “unlawful means.”

Trump lawyer plays audio of Cohen screaming on his podcast

After playing audio of Cohen excitedly talking about the prospect of Trump being convicted, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche then played two excerpts of Cohen screaming on his podcast in a tone virtually unrecognizable to anyone who has encountered him only here.

This was more effective than most moments today.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'MVP of liars'

Blanche said that Michael Cohen has lied to his family, including his wife and kids, his banker, the Federal Election Commission, reporters, Congress, prosecutors, business associates and bosses.

"He's literally like the MVP of liars," Blanche said.

Blanche raises his voice in accusing Cohen of lying

Blanche began shouting as he again accused Cohen of lying under oath. He reminded jurors that Cohen testified that he called Trump on Oct. 24, 2016, to provide an update on the Daniels situation, "It was a lie!" he said, pointing out that the call was actually to Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller.

"That was a lie and he got caught red-handed,” Blanche added.

Blanche accuses the prosecution of using Stormy Daniels to inflame jury

Over objections by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, Blanche is accusing the prosecution of calling Stormy Daniels as a witness at trial, but not calling her as a grand jury witness.

Blanche is arguing it was intended to inflame the jury’s emotions and to embarrass the former president.

The jury didn't appear to react to that statement.

Trump lawyer portrays Trump as the victim of the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape

Jonathan Allen

Blanche may be the first person to portray Trump as the victim of the “Access Hollywood” tape .

Though Blanche says it was not “so catastrophic” as to motivate Trump to break the law — more precisely, that there’s “no evidence” that it was — he says this of the release of the video Oct. 7, 2016: “This was an extremely personal event for President Trump. Nobody wants their family to be subjected to that sort of thing.”

(The video had Trump on a hot mic discussing getting away with assaulting women because he was famous.)

Blanche accuses Daniels of 'extortion,' and the prosecution stays mum (for now)

Blanche just said of Daniels’ nondisclosure agreement: “This started out as an extortion and it ended up very well for Ms. Daniels, there’s no doubt about that.”

The prosecution has not objected to Blanche’s repeated use of the word “extortion,” which suggests a crime was committed. That could be a strategic choice, because what they say in refuting that characterization during their own summation could be more memorable and powerful than a sustained objection.

Blanche claims that threats against Stormy Daniels never happened

Blanche said that Stormy Daniels decided to go public with her story supposedly because she was trying to protect herself from threats in a parking lot that she received five years earlier.

Blanche said, however, that there are recordings that show that's not true. He said Michael Avenatti, Gina Rodriguez and Daniels were lying about these threats.

“They never happened," Blanche said. “The recording makes clear that Ms. Daniels lied to you.”

Blanche has resumed his summation

The morning break is over and Trump's defense team is continuing with its closing arguments.

Blanche said he expects about 30 to 40 more minutes.

Trial takes a break

The trial took a quick break starting at 11:35 a.m.

Blanche questions why no one in Trump campaign addressed Stormy Daniels issue in April 2016

Blanche questions why no one in the campaign did anything about Stormy Daniels in April 2016 when her manager reached out about it.

But Blanche's point ignores the impact that the leak of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016 had on the campaign. Trump's campaign was beleaguered by accusations of sexism as a result of the tape, so Daniels' claim may have had more of an impact.

Fight appears to break out between pro-Trump supporters outside the courthouse

Elizabeth Maline

A fight appears to have broken out between pro-Trump supporters in Columbus Park across the street from the courthouse.

New York City Police Department officers were seen hopping over the fence into the park to respond to the clash.

Blanche tries to impress upon jury that Cohen's recording of Trump call is unreliable

Blanche wants the jury to believe that Michael Cohen's recording of the call with Trump is unreliable because it cuts off early.

But more than that, Blanche is trying to tell the jury that the transcript of what they have is unreliable because while the recording discussed AMI and Pecker, there is doubt that they are talking about Karen McDougal, whose name is never mentioned, or any payment of $150,000, which cannot be heard on the tape.

Blanche says they were “talking past each other,” and that Cohen’s invocation of “financing” shocked Trump, who had no idea what was going on, and that Cohen’s interpretation of “cash” to mean actual bills is a fiction designed to make the conversation sound more sinister.

Trump team responds outside courthouse immediately following Biden campaign

Moments after the Biden campaign finished its remarks outside the courthouse, Trump campaign members went to the microphone to speak.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to the campaign, called the Biden campaign's decision to have Robert De Niro — whom he called a "washed-up actor" — speak today as a way to "try to change the subject" from Biden's "falling" poll numbers.

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, called the Biden team's conference "a full-blown confession that this trial is a witch hunt."

"This is a disgrace. President Trump has been locked up in that courtroom for six weeks," Leavitt said. "But guess what, the American people see through this witch hunt, this scam, and that's why President Trump continues to rise in the polls."

Leavitt added that Biden is "weak" and "pathetic" and is using "elitist, out-of-touch Hollywood actors like Robert De Niro who have no idea the real problems that people in this city and across this country are facing." 

Blanche accuses Cohen of lying about Pecker lunch. Pecker didn't dispute it, though.

Blanche is continuing his effort to convince jurors that Cohen is a shameless liar. "Remember when Cohen told you he had lunch with Pecker?" Blanche told the jury. "Pecker said he was really frustrated that he was not getting paid for the McDougal story. Ladies and gentlemen, that lunch did not happen. Cohen made it up."

However, Blanche and Trump's other lawyers never entered any evidence backing up that claim — and Pecker during his testimony did not dispute that the lunch happened.

Blanche appears to want to have it both ways regarding David Pecker

Blanche appears to want it both ways regarding Pecker.

On one hand, he has characterized David Pecker as a “truth teller” and someone who, because of Pecker's immunity deal with the Manhattan DA, had no incentive to lie.

But Blanche also tells the jury that Pecker’s explanation that if the story from Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajuddin had been true, he would have published it — but only after the election — is not entirely credible because such a major story would have been published immediately.

Blanche argues the effort to silence Karen McDougal wasn't a 'catch and kill'

Blanche argued that the effort to silence Karen McDougal "is not a catch and kill either" because she didn't want her story published.

Blanche said McDougal wanted to kick-start her career, be on the cover of magazines and write articles. He said it wasn't McDougal's intention to publish her story.

"She didn't want her story published," he said.

Former Capitol police officers campaign for Biden outside courthouse

Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, and Michael Fanone, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, spoke in support of the Biden campaign outside of the courthouse today.

Fanone, who suffered a brain injury and a heart attack in the assault, recounted the attack adding that "if Jan. 6 didn't happen, we wouldn't be here right now, I'd still be at work."

Dunn went on to say that Trump is "the greatest threat to our democracy and to the safety of communities across the country today."

"Trump does whatever will get him votes and helps Donald Trump," he said.

Blanche mixes up details in 'catch and kill' cases

Reporting from Manhattan criminal court

Blanche has been walking through each of the stories that were caught and killed. But he is mixing up details. He mentioned, for example, that Karen McDougal’s business manager was Gina Rodriguez. But Rodriguez worked for Stormy Daniels, not McDougal.

Analysis: Blanche's assertions about the Enquirer don't really hold up to scrutiny

Blanche is arguing that the Enquirer’s reach was not wide enough to influence the election. But especially in today’s social media-fueled age, the idea that a story’s reach is limited to the publication’s own distribution is simply untrue. More significantly, however, the Enquirer’s influence here was in preventing certain stories from ever seeing the light of day.

Blanche pushes back on idea that the Enquirer could influence an election

Blanche, attempting to undercut one of the key planks of the prosecution's narrative, told the jury that it's absurd to believe that positive stories in the National Enquirer could affect the outcome of an American election.

"The idea that even sophisticated people like President Trump and David Pecker believed that positive stories in the National Enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous," Blanche said, referring to the former publisher of the tabloid magazine. He went on to say that many of the articles published in the Enquirer were recycled from other outlets.

Pecker testified earlier in the trial that he purchased potentially damaging stories about Trump and then made sure they never saw the light of day — a practice known as "catch and kill." He also testified that his editorial team attempted to run more glowing stories about Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Robert De Niro condemns Trump in fiery remarks outside courthouse: 'He could destroy the world'

Actor Robert De Niro spoke to the press as a surrogate for the Biden campaign outside the courthouse, railing against Trump.

"I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it," De Niro, a native New Yorker, said.

"Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country and eventually he could destroy the world," he continued.

De Niro, who has also appeared in ads for the Biden campaign, condemned Trump for the violence that occurred Jan. 6 at the Capitol, arguing that if Trump wins in November, "he will never leave."

At the end of De Niro's remarks, a Trump supporter in the crowd called the two former police officers standing with De Niro — both present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — "traitors."

The actor engaged in a back-and-forth with the man in the crowd, defending the officers, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone.

"They stood there. They didn’t have to," De Niro said. "They stood there and fought for us. They fought for you, buddy. You’re able to stand right here."

"They are the true heroes. I’m honored to be with these two heroes today," De Niro continued.

Blanche says every campaign is a 'conspiracy to promote a candidate'

Blanche said that the prosecution wants the jury to believe that the entire scheme was to promote Trump's successful candidacy in 2016.

“Even if you find that’s true, that’s still not enough. It doesn’t matter — as I said to you in the opening statement — it doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to win the election," Blanche said. “Every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidate.”

Blanche hammers on the question of Trump's intent to defraud

Blanche asked the jury: "Where is the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?" He then showed a slide labeled "No Intent to Defraud."

The exact language of the charges against Trump in this case accuse the former president of breaking various laws with the "intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof."

Biden campaign arrives with Robert De Niro outside courthouse

Biden campaign members have arrived outside the courthouse with actor Robert De Niro and Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was attacked in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Blanche again suggests Cohen was bitter

Blanche asked the jurors whether they "believe for a second that, after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016, when he thought he worked so hard," Cohen would then "want to work for free" for Trump.

"Was that the man who testified," Blanche asked rhetorically, "or was that a lie?"

Cohen did indeed testify that he was upset after he did not receive a holiday season bonus after the 2016 presidential election, but he repeatedly rejected the defense team's suggestions that bitterness and vindictiveness drove him to cooperate with prosecutors.

Blanche then argued it was "absurd" that Trump would agree to pay Cohen $420,000 even though the former president owed him only $130,000.

Blanche suggests Trump, as president, was too busy to be part of 'scheme'

Blanche repeatedly refers to Trump being in the White House when the repayments were made. He was very busy, Blanche said. That he was somehow in on a “scheme” to conceal a repayment is “absurd,” he added

His argument also reminds the jury this is no normal defendant: It’s the former president of the United States.

It’s an interesting line to to walk: Trump is so careful about his finances that he would never overpay, but he was also so busy in the White House that he was sometimes careless and wouldn’t know what he was paying for.

Blanche says prosecutors asked jury to believe Michael Cohen

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said, “What the people have done, what the government did for the last five weeks, at the end of the day, is ask you to believe the man who testified two weeks ago, Michael Cohen.”

Blanche rejects assertion that Trump had full knowledge

Blanche told jurors it was "a stretch" that Trump always "had full knowledge of what was happening" inside the Trump Organization and his other business enterprises.

"That is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen," he said.

Trump lawyer says there's nothing 'sinister or criminal' about the word 'retainer'

Blanche commented on the fact that retainer was listed as the reason for the reimbursement checks from Trump to Cohen.

"There's nothing sinister or criminal about that word," Blanche said.

Blanche said it wasn't put there by Trump or Allen Weisselberg but by Trump Organization accounting employee Deb Tarasoff, who testified earlier in the trial.

What was missing from the chart put up on the screen

When Blanche put up a visual aid for the jurors showing invoices, vouchers and checks, the most glaringly noticeable line on any of the documents was the very familiar, thick-lettered signature of Donald Trump.

Blanche calls attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump weren't called as witnesses

As Blanche is calling attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump were not called as witnesses, they are sitting in the front row of the courtroom behind their dad.

“The burden is always on the government, they make decisions about who to call," Blanche said, adding, “They did not call Don or Eric.”

The jury did not look over at the Trump children.

Blanche tries to steer jury away from old Trump books

Blanche tells the jury to be wary if the prosecution starts reading from an old Trump book to help prove how involved the former president was in his company’s accounting system.

Those books were co-written by ghostwriters, Blanche says, implying the ghostwriters did the due diligence of figuring out the system in lieu of Trump’s personal knowledge.

Blanche tries to address toughest evidence before prosecution gets to it

Blanche is working hard to try to pre-empt certain arguments the jury is likely to hear from the prosecution after he sits down. Because he goes first and the prosecution will have the last word -- per New York law -- he can’t afford not to address the toughest evidence for his client. 

Blanche pushes back on hush money argument

Blanche appeared to suggest that Cohen received retainer payments not because of the hush money arrangement but because he was Trump's personal attorney.

"There’s a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one, and that’s certainly the case here. That the story Mr. Cohen told you on that witness stand is not true.” 

Cohen was paid $35,000 a month by Trump to be his attorney, Blanche said.

Blanche planting the seeds of reasonable doubt

Blanche is doing two things simultaneously to plant seeds of reasonable doubt early in this closing argument — establish that the internal records at the heart of this case weren't falsified and that Michael Cohen is a liar.

Blanche argues Michael Cohen was working as Trump's personal lawyer

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen was serving as Trump's personal attorney, which he said was not in dispute.

“He talked to every reporter that he could, pushing the fact that he was going to be the personal attorney to President Trump," Blanche said. “This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump’s personal attorney. Period.”

Biden's campaign set to hold press conference outside the courthouse

President Joe Biden's campaign is scheduled to hold a news conference outside the court this morning at 10:15 ET.

The news conference is set to include the campaign team and "special guests," although the news release didn't say who they would be.

Trump lawyer argues invoices were false and there was no intent to defraud

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that the invoices weren't false and there was no intent to defraud — and that if the jurors are so convinced, they don't have to go further.

As a matter of law, Blanche is correct, but it is also the case that the requisite intent to defraud is defined as including the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

Put another way, if the jurors believe the documents are false, they do have to confront whether Trump intended to conceal the underlying alleged conspiracy.

Jury sees chart that won't be put into evidence

Blanche displayed a chart on the courtroom screen showing what it presented as various financial records, including Cohen's invoices (which were then turned into vouchers, and then turned into checks).

The chart will not be put into evidence, so the jury can't refer back to it — and the general public may never see it publicly produced.

Trump lawyer accuses Michael Cohen of lying for likely the first of many times today

It's 9:48 a.m. and Trump lawyer Todd Blanche just accused Michael Cohen of lying — the first of many times we're likely to hear that claim today.

Blanche: 'This is a paper case'

Blanche continues his sentiment that the testimony that the jury has heard thus far is not enough to convict Trump. Instead, Blanche argues the true evidence for this case lies in documents.

"This case is about documents, it’s a paper case," Blanche said.

Blanche went on to argue that the case is not about Stormy Daniels, but instead about the payments Trump made to Michael Cohen.

“Were those bookings done with an intent to defraud? That’s why you’re here. And the answer to that — to those questions is absolutely positively not," Blanche said.

"The bookings were accurate, and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. And beyond that, there was no conspiracy," he continued.

Blanche tries to undercut Cohen and Daniels testimony

Blanche tells the jury members that “they should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. ... You should want and expect more than the word of a woman who claims something happened in 2006.”

He continues by saying they should want and expect more than the testimony of Keith Davidson, who was trying to extort Trump. Notably, the district attorney's office does not object to the characterization of what happened as attempted or actual extortion.

Trump lawyer reiterates to jury that his client is innocent

Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury that they, as a group of citizens, decide the facts and decide whether Trump is guilty or not guilty. He said he wanted to repeat what he told them five weeks ago.

“President Trump is innocent," Blanche said. "He did not commit any crimes, and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof. Period.”

Blanche starts his closing arguments

Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche began giving his closing arguments at about 9:40 a.m. ET. He said that he expects he'll need 2½ hours to deliver the end of the defense's case.

He briefly put up a PowerPoint presentation and then took it down.

Merchan to jurors: You are the judges of the facts

Merchan is giving jurors an overview of what they're going to hear today from lawyers on both sides of the case. He explained that the summations "provide each lawyer the opportunity to review the evidence and give you the conclusions that can be drawn."

"You are the finders of fact, and it is for you and for you alone to determine the facts from the evidence," the judge told the jury.

He reminded the jury that the "lawyers are not witnesses," adding that nothing they say in their summations constitutes "evidence."

"You and you alone are the judges of the facts in this case," Merchan said.

Judge tells prosecution and defense: Don't go into the law

Before the jury entered, Judge Merchan told both the prosecution and defense teams that they shouldn't explain the law to the jurors during summation.

"Please do not go into the law. Stay away from the law," he said. "That'll be my job. I'll take care of it."

District attorney staff members are watching from the overflow room

As proceedings begin today, more than eight secondary members of the prosecution team have come into the overflow room to watch the trial.

The members present appear to be senior leadership from the district attorney’s office, including First Assistant District Attorney Meg Reiss and former Executive Assistant District Attorney Peter Pope, who led the investigation of this case leading to the grand jury’s indictment.

The staff members are seated in the jury box in the overflow room -- an area we have not seen used before for seating.

How long will summations last?

Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, estimates he'll need around 2½ hours to deliver his closing argument. He goes first.

Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, says he'll need "somewhere in the vicinity of 4 to 4½ hours."

Trump says 'this is a dark day in America' before heading into courtroom for closing arguments

Shortly before heading into the courtroom for closing arguments, Trump repeated his claims that he was forced to attend courtroom proceedings in the hush money trial because of President Joe Biden, without providing evidence.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee griped that the trial is “election hunting, election interfering” because it is an effort to go after Biden’s political opponent.

Trump again accused Judge Merchan of being “highly conflicted” and “corrupt” and read aloud quotes from legal analysts who support his assertions that the former president did not commit wrongdoing in the case.

Trump also complained about Merchan’s gag order that bars him from making disparaging comments against his family members and others involved in the case, saying that it’s an “unconstitutional thing” to impose on a presidential candidate.

“This is not a trial that should happen. It’s a very sad day. This is a dark day in America,” he said. “We have a rigged court case that should have never been brought, and it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.”

Jury instructions set in stone

Judge Merchan says that he provided the jury instructions to the defense and prosecution on Thursday afternoon and that neither side has commented on them. They are now final.

Merchan is on the stand and they're ready on go

The judge has taken his seat and proceedings are about to get underway.

The prosecution and defense in Trump’s criminal hush money trial will begin making their closing arguments to the jury today as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase. NBC’s Laura Jarrett reports and Hallie Jackson provides analysis for "TODAY."

‘Phony’ checks and hush money payments: Breaking down Trump’s 34 charges in his New York criminal trial

JoElla Carman

Trump faces 34 felony counts in the New York hush money trial that is expected to potentially wrap up as early as this week.

Here's what to know about the charges.

Biden campaign preps for a Trump trial verdict: From the Politics Desk

Monica Alba

Natasha Korecki

Mike Memoli

President Joe Biden has largely steered clear of Trump’s legal woes. But with a verdict in the  hush money trial  coming as soon as this week, Biden’s campaign is exploring a shift to a new, more aggressive posture, according to two people familiar with the strategy. 

Regardless of the outcome, top Biden campaign officials plan to stress to voters that Trump will be on the ballot in the fall and that no potential court proceeding will change that fact.

A person familiar with the discussions summed it up this way: “Donald Trump’s legal troubles are not going to keep him out of the White House. Only one thing will do that: voting this November for Joe Biden.” 

Trump has departed for the courthouse

Brittany Kubicko

The former president has left Trump Tower for the courthouse downtown.

Rudy Giuliani's son argues with anti-Israel protester outside court

Former New York gubernatorial candidate Andrew Giuliani started a heated argument with a protester who was shouting antisemitic tropes outside the courthouse this morning.

Giuliani, a former Trump White House official and the son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, followed the demonstrator who was wearing a ski mask around a protest zone and yelled at the man about the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel.

The protester carried a sign with numbers representing Gazans who have been killed in the ensuing conflict and voiced canards about Jews controlling the U.S. government and the entertainment industry.

Trump's guests in court today

Jake Traylor

Matt Korade

Several of Trump's children will be in court for closing arguments, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, who is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, as well as Tiffany Trump, the former president's only daughter with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and her husband, Michael Boulos.

Also in attendance will be Trump's longtime friend Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor who testified as a defense expert in Trump’s Manhattan civil fraud trial , Will Scharf, a lawyer for Trump who is running for attorney general in Missouri against Republican incumbent Andrew Bailey, and Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor for National Review Online.

Trump lawyer says she has 'zero confidence' Judge Merchan will issue jury instructions 'in an appropriate manner'

Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba on Sunday expressed concerns about jury instructions in the hush money trial against the former president and the jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend.

“Generally, as an attorney, as an American who understands the law and how to apply to laws to facts, there are no facts that support this alleged crime,” Habba said during an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures.” “We’re not even sure what the crime is. So it’s a books and records issue.”

Habba echoed Trump’s claims that Merchan is “severely conflicted” without evidence, noting the judge’s gag order that bars Trump from issuing disparaging comments on his family members and others involved in the case. Trump has repeatedly accused Merchan of being “conflicted,” often citing his daughter’s work at a digital fundraising and advertising firm that often collaborates with Democratic politicians.

“This judge is the judge that determines the jury instructions. The jury instructions are the road map for non-attorneys and jurors to follow the law,” she said. “It’s going to be critical, and frankly, at this point, I have zero confidence in the fact that this person, who should not be sitting on the bench right now, will do the right thing and give jury instructions that are in an appropriate manner without any persuasion towards the prosecution.”

Habba then raised concerns about jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend, arguing that they could be swayed by family and friends who have certain opinions.

“They should have been sequestered because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America, and for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news TVs on the background at the pool party — I have serious concerns,” she said.

Trump blasts Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg in Truth Social posts over the weekend

Alexandra Marquez is based in Washington, D.C.

Isabelle Schmeler

In a series of social media posts over the holiday weekend, Trump attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges in this case against him, attacked Judge Juan Merchan and said the case was about a "legal expense" and a "bookkeeping error."

"I have a great case, but with a rigged and conflicted judge," Trump said in one post, before adding in another one, "The City of New York’s D.A., Alvin Bragg, is trying to prosecute a Federal case, which cannot be done, and where there is NO CRIME."

One post blasted the case for blowing a "legal expense" out of proportion, saying, "Let’s put the President in jail for 150 years because a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer was called, by a bookkeeper."

Another post yesterday accused Merchan, without evidence, of being a "corrupt and conflicted" judge and claimed that Bragg is backed by liberal billionaire megadonor George Soros, who has been a target of antisemitic conspiracy theories .

Trump’s lawyers are preparing for the final stretch of the former president’s hush money trial in New York. NBC News’ Gabe Gutierrez reports on Trump’s busy weekend ahead of closing arguments in court.

Closing arguments set to begin in Trump’s criminal trial

Dareh Gregorian

Closing arguments will begin today in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump , as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase.

After the prosecution and the defense deliver their concluding arguments, the judge will give instructions to the jury. Then, the 12 ordinary New Yorkers who sit on the jury will begin deliberations on whether or not the former president is guilty of the charges against him.

After 20 days in a courtroom, here's what you missed in the Trump hush money trial

Ahead of this week's closing arguments, catch up on what you missed over the last few weeks of the first criminal trial of a former president.

In sometimes explosive testimony, former Trump "fixer" Michael Cohen said that he did call Trump a "Cheeto-dusted" villain but admitted to past lies and theft upon questioning by Trump's attorneys.

Despite promising to testify, Trump did not ultimately take the stand and pushed back on media reports that he fell asleep multiple times during the trial. On his Truth Social account, the former president claimed he was simply resting his “beautiful blue eyes” while listening “intensely” to the proceedings.