What is the difference between a counter assertion and a counter argument

Barnet, S. Critical thinking, reading, and writing. Make an appointment. Meet our consultants. Student resources. Bridge Test. SPEAK test. Faculty resources. Counterarguments A counterargument involves acknowledging standpoints that go against your argument and then re-affirming your argument. When you encounter dissenting opinions, try to figure out why smart and rational people would hold those positions.

What evidence do they look at? How do they interpret that evidence? Why might they disagree with your point of view? To move yourself out of this emotional realm and back into the realm of the well-reasoned argument, try taking a strategy from debate tournaments. Debaters prepare for tournaments by gathering information on both sides of a topic.

When you encounter these dissenting opinions, get curious. Try to figure out why smart and rational people would hold those positions.

What life experiences might lead them to disagree with your point of view? For example, a person who has grown up hunting in a community that has never experienced gun violence might have a very different perspective on gun control than someone whose child was the victim of a shooting. Then, when you begin structuring your argument, imagine how your skeptical reader might react to your thesis statement and each of your claims.

Imagine that this reader is smart, informed, has thought carefully about the issue, and has reached a totally different conclusion. Try to persuade this reader; work hard to demonstrate why your position is more convincing than the alternatives.

So, how might one go about making such fundamental decisions? Introducing opposing viewpoints is necessary, but do not stop there. The burden of proof is on you, as the author of the argument. If you fail to neutralize a common objection, readers will have an excuse to reject your argument. The strongest arguments are those which carefully consider all perspectives in an attempt to find the most reasonable view of the issue.

Your readers will deeply appreciate your efforts because they show respect for both the seriousness of your mission and for the readers themselves. Enjoy the process!

You can boost your credibility by acknowledging specific sources who disagree with your position, then effectively refuting their arguments. Your job during the research phase is to find counterarguments and material to refute them, and in the drafting phase to construct your argument in a way that incorporates these objections and counterarguments.

You can boost your credibility by acknowledging specific sources who disagree with your position. However, if you cite counterarguments from experts in the field, and then work to refute those arguments effectively, you can lend authority to your own argument.

If you consistently come from your side of the issue, you may miss articles by some of the stronger opponents. Follow the path of each objection to discover its roots. Gather quotes summarizing their viewpoints and then go digging to find statistics and other research that both back and counter their claims.

If your mind is changed in the process, so be it! You can change your thesis and claims and argue for the other side of the issue.

If there are no counter-examples to a particular argument, then it is valid, as it is then impossible to find a situation in which the premises of the argument are true and the conclusion is false. That means that in every situation in which the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, and this is what we need to know to conclude that an argument is valid.

This is an important link between the concepts of validity and counter-example:. Can a counter-example be used to show that a non-deductive argument is weak? It can, but only if the counter-example itself represents a plausible way things might have been. Since a non-deductive argument acknowledges that the conclusion might be false when the premises are true, but only in exceptional circumstances, you need to find a counter-example that is not so exceptional.

That is, you need to find a reasonable situation in which the premises are all true and the conclusion false. If you want to attack a non-deductive argument with a counter-example and do real damage, your counter-example must describe a situation which not only makes the premises true and the conclusion false, but is also quite likely to come about.

Smoking marijuana is no more dangerous to your health or to society than drinking alcohol is. And drinking alcohol is legal. Therefore, smoking marijuana should probably become legal. Notice that we have introduced what we considered to be an essential suppressed premise in the standard form. Now, can we find a plausible counter-example? The negation of the conclusion is consistent with the premises.

Indeed, we might as well say that alcohol should become illegal, precisely because the impact of drinking on the society is similar to the impact of smoking marijuana — maybe even worse! This constitutes a counter-example, because it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, and given the premises provided, neither situation seems more plausible than the other.

Implausible counter-examples are counter-examples all the same, but they can only show that a deductive argument is invalid. However, only a plausible counter-example can show that a non-deductive argument is weak.

You might also think of the search for a counter-example as a method that helps you determine whether an argument is deductive or non-deductive. If finding a counter-example to an argument makes us want to say that argument is no good, then the argument must be deductive, because in deductive arguments the premises are intended to give conclusive support for the conclusion.

On the other hand, if generating a counter-example does not incline us to give up the argument, then it is a non-deductive argument because non-deductive arguments have conclusions which are only meant to be strongly suggested by their premises, and leave it open that the conclusion may be false. If the only counter-examples you can find are far-fetched stories, then you may have an indication to think that the argument is non-deductive.

Wolfgang robbed the safe. Wolfgang was seen by several witnesses near the scene of the burglary when it was committed. Your Assertion: Violent media existed before video games. Concession and Counter-Argument: Some might argue that video games cause children to shoot people. However , violent media existed before video games, and in order to blame video games, we would have to ignore the historical outrage at things like movies, comic books, rock and roll, and Dungeons and Dragons.

In this second scenario, you are given your assertion. This is slightly more difficult, but the goal here is to come up with a reasonable concession, and then to use the objection to structure a concession, and the assertion to structure a reasonable counter.