Fourth- and sixth-grade students with and without learning disabilities wrote essays about a controversial topic after receiving either a general persuasion goal or an elaborated goal that included subgoals based on elements of argumentative discourse. Students in the elaborated goal condition produced more persuasive essays that were responsive to alternative standpoints than students in the general goal condition. Students with learning disabilities wrote poorer quality and less elaborated arguments than students without disabilities. Measures derived from the structure of students' argumentative strategies were highly predictive of essay quality, and they accounted for the effects of goal condition, grade, and disability status. Nearly all students used the "argument from consequences" strategy to defend their standpoint. The implications for argumentative writing are discussed. (Contains 1 figure and 5 tables.)