IMRaD and argumentative papers differ in many ways. First of all, they are both formatted in different ways. For example, an argumentative paper is formatted to have an intro, body and conclusion. Whereas the IMRaD's format consists of intro, methods, results, and discussion/conclusion. Another thing that differentiates these two forms of writing would be the way they get their information. In an IMRaD one is creating a study and finding the answers for the questions they have and providing their evidence to prove what they are trying to prove. Unlike an argumentative paper that you must go out and find a number of sources to prove the points you are trying to make. often times these sources are outdated and might not be as accurate as the ones you would find on your own.
A big difference in these two types of papers would be the formality of their writing. Some might say that the IMRaD form is more formal because you must answer the questions it gives you and you don't put your input in on it. Whereas the Argumentative papers, you can steer off a bit and it isn't much of a big problem.
In conclusion, there are several differences in each of these forms of writing. Some are from where the information is provided to how differently the information is written out in the paper as well. I believe that there is one thing they have in common. That is to provide an answer to the question they had when they first started this whole paper. The only difference would be how they received this information and portrayed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment