Untitled Document

The Oxford English Dictionary defines counterargument as “An argument on the opposite side, or against anything.” Imagine that for every argument there is at least one counterargument, or natural antithesis. One practical example of counterargument in Supreme Court decisions occurs when a dissent counters the majority decision. For the purposes of Humcore, developing a fair counterargument to another piece of writing requires you to first read the piece as generously as possible in order to understand how that writer came to her conclusions. Just as you would not want someone to argue vehemently against your position without understanding it, you want to understand first and question second. It may help to imagine that the writer is alive and present in the room with you—and that you are having a conversation with one another. What might you say to acknowledge the other writer’s position? What would be a fair response? How might you verbalize a critique afterwards? For instance, if your friend argues that you do not need to study for your exams in order to pass a class, a strong counterargument might be that you want to do more than simply pass the course (even if you could pass without studying), and that you are aiming for not only a good grade but also for an understanding of the material.

To use an example from lecture, Professor Thomas’s thesis on Maxine Hong Kingston’s China Men is a model for us. His thesis is a subtle counterargument to the idea that American laws have defined Chinese-American lives—he adds to this claim by arguing that there is another side to the story. He argues: “Chinese-American lives may have been determined by American laws, but they also determined the shape of those laws” (Thomas, Lecture Jan. 21, 2007). Notice that Professor Thomas has used a complex thesis statement structure that simultaneously acknowledges the merits of one position while also qualifying it. The title China Men is also a counterargument—Kingston’s counterargument to the term “chinamen”—because her capitalization and separation of the epithet alters it so that it becomes a term of dignity and individualization (Thomas, Lecture Jan. 23, 2007).

So how can we counterargue? We can do any one of the following, or any combination:

Six Strategies for Counterargument

Critique the assumptions behind a writer’s premises by exposing unfair assumptions or unstated premises as false.
Assess the truthfulness of the premises themselves.
Examine the strength or relevance of the evidence used to support the argument.
Interrogate the logic of the argument itself and expose any fallacies.
Stun your readers by proposing a superior alternative argument of your own using the same set of evidence.
Supply additional evidence that supports an alternative conclusion that the original argument did not account for.

In addition to these essential six strategies, it is a good idea to test the argument against two more which many writers overlook.

You may also question the conclusion derived from the premises. Even if the premises are true and you have no qualms with them, the writer may have derived a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises. Identifying any potential fallacies first may in turn help you evaluate how and why the author illogically put forth this conclusion. The chances are that the author needs this conclusion for other parts of the argument to work. Analyze this one part of the writer’s argument in respect to other arguments in the same piece. Finally, check to see whether the writer contradicts himself in other places. The writer may elsewhere undermine their premises, conclusion, or the assumptions behind this particular set of premises. If the writer does so in other places in the document, this may be interesting grounds for your own counterargument.

Your construction of a compelling counterargument will depend on the weaknesses in the writing you analyze as well as the direction of your own argument. Tailor your counterargument to the specific purposes of your essay prompt. When you are developing ideas for your research paper where you will argue for the significance of an instance of public participation through language, it may be useful to look at critics who argue against your own position. This will help you to envision the oppositions to the project you are about to undertake and strengthen the areas of your position that others may view as a weakness. Acknowledging and taking counterarguments seriously is fundamental to good writing, and it allows you to become a part of the scholarly conversation for your particular topic.

Whenever you counterargue—regardless of the aspect of the argument you refute—it is always best to err on the side of generosity. You may give an argument credit by saying that it is “useful” to an extent, though ultimately limited. You may try something of the kind by arguing: “Although X’s assertion that _________ is understandable, Y seems more defensible for A, B, and C reasons.” You can use a formula such as this to ensure that you are both giving the proper credit and providing a well-supported counterargument. This practice of intellectual generosity will help create the impression that you are a credible author and makes for more convincing arguments.

Counterargument does not stop there; it is not simply a way to respond to other materials, but rather, it is also a way to envision the perhaps inevitable outcome of your own writing. The best writers develop the ability to anticipate objections to their own arguments and respond accordingly by tightening their prose, strengthening their claims, and employing a greater degree of logical rigor than they had before. After writing a draft of any essay, you may wish to put it aside for a day, gain distance from it, and then re-read it while imagining that it is someone else’s writing; this will help you to raise arguments against your own writing. Doing so will in turn help you revise as your consider your own audience and its possible objections to your thesis, claims, and warrants.

Finally, try practicing the method of counterargument to lectures as well. If you practice counterargument, you will be developing the skills you need in order to write the counterargument essay. Paradoxal as it may seem, try to generate the most compelling counterargument to each lecture. As you know, this means first synthesizing the material and interpreting the thesis for lecture. What evidence does the lecturer give to support his argument? Can you try to construct a “Yes . . . but” thesis statement that problematizes the argument? What evidence will you use to support your counterargument? If you can offer a good counterargument to lecture, then you have definitely been practicing close reading. We encourage humanistic inquiry, so you are not expected to simply agree with lecture and stop your thinking there.

In the counterargument essay, your section leader will select a passage from Professor Thomas’s materials for analysis. He will be using George Washington Cable’s “The Freedman’s Case in Equity,” Henry Grady’s “In Plain Black and White,” and the Plessy v. Ferguson readings to model counterargument in lecture. It is very important that you take note of the steps Professor Thomas takes when he demonstrates counterarguments. Eleven years before the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, Cable and Grady debated the “race problem.” Professor Thomas will highlight the ways in which Grady’s reply challenges Cable’s ethos, logos, and pathos.

For instance, Grady attacks Cable’s ethos in terms of his ability to speak as a true southerner. In 1882, Cable wrote: “’To be in New England would be enough for me. I was there once,--a year ago,--and it seemed as if I had never been home till then’” (quoted in “In Plain Black and White” 909). Though Cable was born in the South, he suggests that his true homeland is in the North. To Grady, this statement indicates that Cable cannot adequately represent the position of southerners’: “It will be suggested that a man so out of harmony with his neighbors as to say, even after he had fought side by side with them on the battle-field, that he never felt at home until he had left them, cannot speak understandingly of their views on so vital a subject that under discussion” (909). Grady questions Cable’s credibility and authority on the “race question” on the basis of Cable’s lack of identification with the South as his true homeland. Grady reasons that this position means that Cable cannot truly sympathize with the South.

Cable opposes Southerners’ “conviction that the man of African tincture was, not by his master’s arbitrary assertion merely, but by nature and unalterably, an alien” (“The Freedman’s Case in Equity” 410-11, emphasis mine). But Grady argues that the separation of the races is inevitable. He contends:

We hold that there is an instinct, ineradicable and positive, that will keep the races apart, that would keep the races apart if the problem were transferred to Illinois or Maine. . . . We add in perfect frankness, however, that if no such instinct existed, or if the South had reasonable doubt of its existence, it would, by every means in its power, so strengthen the race prejudice that it would do the work and hold the stubbornness and strength of instinct. (912)

“Separate but equal” is the logical result of this argument: the races will separate either by instinct or by powerful prejudices, which would have the weight of instinct anyhow.

In your counterargument essay, you will need to trace the logic and structure of the assigned passage and ultimately develop a superior counterargument. For this essay, we have given you a four-part structure to follow because it separates each important step in the process of counterargument. After you reproduce the assigned passage at the top of your essay, follow these steps:

Interpret—In this section of your essay, begin by paraphrasing the main argument of the assigned passage. Next, state what the structure of the argument is. This means including in detailed form what the premises and conclusions are. You will need to include both the explicit premises—those that are directly stated—and the implicit premises—those that are simply implied but are not directly stated. It is often the case that implicit premises are the ones with which an opponent would disagree. Which claims are supported with evidence? Which claims are simply stated as true, without evidence?

Evaluate—Now that you have carefully analyzed the logic and structure of the main argument, you can begin evaluating the argument. You may want to dedicate a part of this section towards further clarifying what is assumed in the main argument of the passage. Analyze the implications of those assumptions. You can use the “six strategies” below to help you do this as well as the list of logical fallacies in the “Logical Fallacies” chapter.

Respond—Offer your own counterargument to the main argument of the passage. Using the same set of evidence, arrive at a different conclusion from the main argument that is at least as good. What do you think the evidence suggests? What premises can you establish for your counterargument? As you think about your counterargument, keep in mind what your opponent would say in response. This will help you generate a stronger counterargument. You will want to develop your own original argument rather than summarizing Professor Thomas’s arguments. Originality is evaluated under the “Conceptual” category of the essay grading rubric. Earning an “A” in the conceptual category means that the essay’s “ideas [are] original, often insightful, going beyond ideas discussed in lecture and class.” You may want to use some of ways to “acknowledge” counterarguments from the list below.

In order to counterargue persuasively, you should test an argument in terms of both validity and soundness. An argument is said to be valid if the premises are related in such a way that the conclusion can be logically derived accordingly. Put another way, the premises of an argument do not need to be true in order for the argument as a whole to be logically valid. “Validity” simply indicates that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true.

All elephants are green.             Premise 1
Sara is an elephant.                   Premise 2
Sara is green.                            Conclusion

The test of logical validity is not the actual truth of the premises but rather the idea that if the premises were true then the conclusion must also be logically true.

By contrast, an argument is sound only if the argument can be logically derived from the premises and if the premises are true. Here is an example:

Birds are not mammals.             Premise 1
A robin is a type of bird.            Premise 2
A robin is not a mammal.          Conclusion

An argument that is sound is necessarily logically valid but carries the additional strength of certainly true premises.