Transcript of Counter Arguments
Writing Counter Arguments is an argument opposed to your thesis, or part of your thesis. It expresses the view of a person who disagrees with your position. A Counter Argument Done well, it makes the argument stronger. This is because it gives you the chance to respond to your reader’s objections before they have finished reading. It also shows that you are a reasonable person who has considered both sides of the debate. Why would you include a counter-argument in your essay? Why use counter arguments? Actually, Both of these make an essay more persuasive. How should a counter-argument be presented? A counter-argument should be expressed thoroughly and fairly. Do not just write a quick sentence and then immediately rebut it. Give reasons why someone might actually hold that view. A few sentences or even a whole paragraph is not an unreasonable amount of space to give to the counter-argument. Make sure you express the counter-argument fairly AND objectively. Ask yourself if the person who actually holds this position would accept your way of stating it. Put yourself in their shoes and give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t use biased language or stack the deck when presenting their position. Readers see through that sort of thing pretty quickly. if you really believe the position expressed in your thesis, you will not be able to be completely objective in how you express the counter-argument—but you should try. One of the most common purposes of counter-argument is to address positions that many people hold but that you think are mistaken. Therefore you want to be respectful and give them the benefit of the doubt even if you think their views are incorrect. Obviously, They’ll be much more likely to be persuaded. How can a counter-argument be rebutted? to rebut a counter-argument is to show that it is based on faulty assumptions. Either the facts are wrong, the analysis is incorrect, or the values it is based on are not acceptable. Furthermore, some counter-arguments are simply irrelevant, usually because they are actually responding to a different argument. And counter-arguments actually make your argument stronger, One of the most effective ways once you analyze their logic. Wouldn't that weaken your argument? no. the point is to show your reader that you have considered all sides of the question, and to make it easier to answer the counter-argument. It’s easier to respond to a point you have already spelled out—and it’s easier for your reader to follow you. Again, he makes the claim that “To function adequately in civic life … students must learn what causes racism” (143). From James Loewen’s book, Lies My Teacher Told Me. we will explore ideas that you might use as a counter-argument to this claim, in a paper agreeing with Loewen. Then you would rebut, or answer, the counter-argument as a way to In the examples to follow strengthen your own position. Faulty Factual Assumption Faulty Analytical Assumption Faulty Values True but Irrelevant Makes the Argument Stronger Racism is a thing of the past; therefore, students don’t need to bother with it. The factual assumption in this example is that racism is a thing of the past. One response would be to muster facts to show that racism continues to be a problem. There’s a second assumption, which is that students don’t need to bother with what’s in the past. Another response would be to show that students must understand the past as well as the present “to function adequately in civic life.” The analytical assumption is that learning about racism can make you racist. The response would be that understanding the causes of a problem is not the same as causing or creating the problem. Learning about racism might make students more racist. Another assumption in this argument is that it’s not good to make students racist. Loewen’s argument shares this assumption, so you wouldn’t rebut it. This counter-argument is based on an assumed value that your readers probably do not share—namely, the idea that it’s ok for students to be racist. The response would be to point out this value, state why you don’t share it and state why you don’t think your readers do either. Of course, values are both deeply personal and extremely varied, so you’re always going to have some readers who do not share yours. Who cares if students are racist? The key is to base your arguments on values that most readers are likely to share. Many students are, in fact, already familiar with racism. But Loewen is not saying they need to learn about racism, he’s saying they need to learn what causes it. You might be very familiar with racism but still not know what causes it. This is a very common form of counter-argument, one that actually rebuts a different argument. Students are already familiar with racism; they don’t need to study it in school. Note that here, too, there’s a faulty assumption: being familiar with something is not the same as knowing what causes it. The response here would be to show that previous generations did not “function adequately in civic life,” because they had a lot of problems with racism (segregation and more hidden forms of discrimination). Therefore, the fact that they didn’t learn about the causes of racism, together with this other information, actually supports the claim that students do need to learn what causes racism. Previous generations didn’t study the causes of racism, so why should we start now? Here again there’s a faulty assumption, implied but not stated: Previous generations supposedly did function adequately in civic life. The response shows that that assumption is incorrect. Where does the counter-argument go? a counter-argument can go anywhere except the conclusion. This is because there has to be a rebuttal paragraph after the counter-argument, so if the counter-argument is in the conclusion, something has been left out. The short answer is (there are exceptions), the rebuttal is usually not the concluding paragraph, which means that generally the counter-argument is anywhere but the last two paragraphs. In practice I. Introduction there is some compelling reason specific to the particular argument being made, it does not make sense to put the counter-argument in the middle of the case for the thesis. In other words, you would not typically present two points in support of the thesis, then the counter-argument and rebuttal, and then more points in support of the thesis. Unless The Introduction? The middle? The conclusion? can be very effective in introductions, especially if you are arguing against a popularly held view. However, it’s also very common to place them after the presentation of the case for the thesis. In other words, they would go after all of the main points that support the thesis, but before the conclusion—in the third-to-last paragraph, with the rebuttal in the second-to-last. Counter-arguments This is probably the most common position. II. Supporting point #1 III. Supporting point #2
IV. Supporting point #3
V. Supporting point #4 VI. Counter-argument VII. Rebuttal VIII. Conclusion How should the counter-argument be introduced? to alert the reader that the paper is about to express a view different from (typically, the opposite of) the thesis. Since the purpose of the whole paper, including the counter-argument, is to support the thesis, these signals are crucial. the counter-argument will begin with a word, phrase or sentence to indicate that what follows is not the author’s view. These can range from the very simple—sometimes the single word “But” or “However” is sufficient—to quite complex whole sentences. that this is someone else’s view. Typical introductory strategies include the following: But isn’t it true that [state the counter-argument here]? It’s important to use clear signals Without them the paper appears incoherent and contradictory. Generally, The strategy is to make it clear Many people [believe/argue/feel/think/suppose/etc.] that [state the counter-argument here] It is often [thought/imagined/supposed/etc.] that [state the counter-argument here] [It would be easy to/One could easily] [think/believe/imagine/suppose/etc.] that [state the counter-argument here] It might [seem/appear/look/etc.] as if [state the counter-argument here] Another common approach is to use a question: [Doesn’t/Wouldn’t/Isn’t] [state the counter-argument here]? You can also cite specific writers or thinkers who have expressed a view opposite to your own: On the other hand, [author] argues that... However, [author] has written, ... How should the rebuttal be introduced? The essay has just done a 180° turn away from its thesis, and now it is about to do another 180° turn to complete the circle. The reader needs warnings and guidance or they will fall off or get whiplash—you’ll lose them, in other words, because the essay will seem incoherent or contradictory. If the counter-argument requires careful signaling, so does the rebuttal. What this argument [overlooks/fails to consider/does not take into account] is ... This view [seems/looks/sounds/etc.] [convincing/plausible/persuasive/etc.] at first, but ... While this position is popular, it is [not supported by the facts/not logical/impractical/etc.] Although the core of this claim is valid, it suffers from a flaw in its [reasoning/application/etc.] are the mirror image of those for introducing the counter-argument, and they all boil down to the same basic concept: “Yes, but....” They can be as simple as that, or more complex. Common strategies for introducing the rebuttal Here are some examples: Homework
2 Sample Refutation Paragraphs
(Each these samples have 2-paragraph refutation; some essays may only have a 1 paragraph refutation while other essays, like research papers, may require a much longer refutation)
Charter Schools Vs. Public Schools (School Choice)
By Mark Liles
Thesis: School choice turns out to not only be a bad idea; it’s also a violation of our constitution.
Refutation: ...[Introduce Opposing Arguments] Considering the many challenges facing public schools, it’s understandable that many people would be eager to pursue new options. Supporters of school choice point out that under the current public school system, parents with economic means already exercise school choice by moving from areas with failing or dangerous schools to neighborhoods with better, safer schools. Their argument is that school choice would allow all parents the freedom, regardless of income level, to select the school that provides the best education (Chub and Moe). Schools would then have to compete for students by offering higher academic results and greater safety. Schools unable to measure up to the standards of successful schools would fail and possibly close. [Acknowledge Valid Parts] Activists within the school choice movement can be applauded for seeking to improve public education, but the changes they propose would in fact seriously damage public education as a whole.
[Counter Arguments] One of the biggest dangers of school choice is the power behind large corporations specializing in opening and operating charter schools. Two notable companies are Green Dot, which is the leading public school operator in Los Angeles (Green Dot), and KIPP, which operates 65 schools in 19 different states [KIPP]. These companies represent a growing trend of privatization of public schools by large corporations. It is feared that these corporations could grow to a point that public control of education would be lost. Education policy would be left in the hands of entrepreneurial think tanks, corporate boards of directors, and lobbyists who are more interested in profit than educating students [Miller and Gerson]. [Begin Concluding] Education should be left in the hands of professional educators and not business people with MBAs. To do otherwise is not only dangerous, it defies common sense.
What I liked about this refutation: The writer calmly and clearly outlines the true concerns and reasons why people oppose the opinion. He makes sure the reader knows that he is outlining opposing viewpoints because he gives hints like "Supporters of school choice point out that..." or "Their argument is that...". This is a nice way for readers to be aware of what others think.
Also, towards the end of the first paragraph, and throughout the second paragraph, the writer spends time clearly attacking these opposing views. He helps the reader feel like the opposing views might SEEM good on the surface, but they are indeed not good enough. He helps the reader see this with hints like "One of the biggest dangers of school choice is..." or "It is feared that...". This paragraph particularly draws in any hostile readers; the writer cunningly draws them in by complimenting their views when he says "Activists within the school choice movement can be applauded for seeking to improve public education," but he immediately points out the flaws, saying that " the changes they propose would in fact seriously damage public education as a whole." Complimenting the opposing argument really invites all your hesitant readers; they’re not threatened, and they’re now more willing to listen to the arguments.
Finally, at the end of the refutation, there is a clear conclusion.
Safe Traveler Cards
Taken from College Writers pg. 733-734
........[Introduce Opposing Arguments] As attractive as Safe Traveler Cards or national ID cards are, they are not without drawbacks. For one thing, as Easterbrook notes, these cards would expedite security procedures only for travelers who do not mind volunteering such information to obtain a card. Moreover they would not prevent passengers with "clean" backgrounds from bringing weapons or explosives on board, as was the case in the September 11 attacks. Perhaps the biggest drawback is that some people believe that these cards would deprive people of their privacy and that for this reason, their disadvantages outweigh their advantages (168).
........However, there are many who disagree with these contentions. [Acknowledge Valid Parts] While national ID cards could lessen a person's anonymity and privacy, [Counter Argument] this is a small loss that would be offset by a great increase in personal security. To Dershowitz--a self proclaimed civil libertarian--this tradeoff would be well worth it. According to Dershowitz, the national ID card would be only a little more intrusive than a photo ID card or social security card. Best of all, it would reduce or eliminate the need for racial profiling: "Anyone who had the [national ID] card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely" (590). Such cards would enable airport security officials to do instant background checks on everyone. [Begin Concluding] The personal information in the system would stay in the system and never be made public. The only information on the card would be a person's "name, address, photo, and [finger]print" (Dershowitz 591).