Adverse Possession

Application is no longer available.

Context

This paper was written for a foundational course in my Philosophy, Politics and Economics minor, Wealth, Power and the Public Good taught by Dr. Joel Shelton. This truly was one of my favorite courses in all four years of my time at Elon, as it took an integrative approach to understanding different legal principles, philosophical concepts, world issues, and how they applied to everyday life. Upon learning the concept of adverse possession, I chose to explore it for my independent research paper in the middle of the course term.

Rhetorical Strategies

In preparing a research paper like this, I incorporated legal precedents from court cases relating to adverse possession to prove my stance on its validity. However, a good argumentative paper discusses both sides of the spectrum. In order to shed light on the other perspective (while emphasizing my own standpoint simultaneously), I often incorporated the rhetorical strategy of hypophora, in which I pose a frequently asked, valid question by the opposing side, and immediately answer it with my own logic. This felt like a good tactic to utilize in a paper like this, for it contains so much nuance in the subjective area of ownership rights. Additionally, one third of the rhetorical triangle frequented in this paper is logos. The continuous references to instincts of human nature through books like "Mine!: How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives" served as vital pillars to arguing for a controversial legal topic.

Reflection

Though at this point in my undergraduate career, I have decided to hold off on attending law school, I vividly remember this course igniting my interest in legal research and argumentative writing. After writing this paper, I spoke with my Dad on the phone about adverse possession on a walk home from class for a half hour, simply arguing back and forth on our opposing stances on the subject. Its conversations like those that fuel my interest to read, research, write, revise, and write all over again. The more I continue to write pieces like this, I feel myself changing as a communicator. However, it is not necessarily in regards to a strengthened endurance of writing or broader vocabulary (though those perks come with time and practice), but rather, a newfound ability to stop, pause and think. When writing an argumentative piece, becoming an expert on both sides is necessary to the execution of a convincing piece. Therefore, its rhetorical practices like this (hypophora, for example) that force me to dig as cognitively deep as positively to understanding the ins and outs of the opposing sides argument. While this would be a great skill to bring into the legal profession, it serves greatly in communications fields, such as a public relations role that may require anticipatory techniques to prepare for potential back-lash in protecting a brand/client. Understanding all sides and what may potentially be thrown your way is vital in those types of crisis management roles (which I could definitely see myself thriving in).