Context
In this installment of our research exploration, we’ll examine opposing arguments surrounding our defined issue and critique their soundness and validity. Our ability to identify the fallacies, misconceptions, and misinformation within opposing arguments not only demonstrates our knowledge on the issue, but also prepares us to refute–or counter–these arguments with evidence-based support. With our refutation, we can show our readers that our argument is more persuasive, effective, logical, and/or credible than other arguments.
Directions
Select one source that contains an argument you disagree with, or multiple sources that, when combined, present a specific, clearly defined, and unified argumentative position you disagree with. Next,
offer a detailed, objective summary of the argument with which you disagree in your own words, and then
build a refutation of its argument. In your refutation, disprove the argument you’re contending against and/or expose the faultiness of the argument. Support your position with research you agree with.
Strategies for Selecting an Argument
There are two possible methods to select the argument you will refute:
Strategy 1
Find one, single source containing an argument opposed to some portion of your essay which you believe to be wrong.
Clearly summarize the relevant argument from this source.
Demonstrate why this argument is wrong by exposing its errors in fact and/or logic.
Strategy 2
Find one single, coherent argument about a specific position that is evident in several different sources.
Clearly summarize that position with support from these sources. Aim to provide specific common claims or premises that you can refute within these sources.
Develop your response, complete with supporting evidence, to expose its errors in fact and/or logic.
Kinds of Arguments
In addition to the kinds of arguments Gula mentions in Nonsense, there are other arguments you can consider refuting. These include the following:
An argument that claims your issue is not a issue, or not a severe enough to attract our notice
An argument that misunderstands the nature, elements or basis of the issue
An argument which proposes a historical element that’s actually wrong or incomplete
An argument which is correct in most of its arguments, but still wrong in some important way
An argument that proposes a solution which you think is wrong, irrelevant, ineffective or absurd
You may choose to refute the main argument of a source, or you may want to concede that the conclusions an author reaches are correct, but their evaluation is wrong, or you may concede most of an author’s argument, and agree with them in general, but choose to disagree with one specific point. By the way, it’s OK to concede with some elements of the opposing argument. As we can infer from Gula’s guidance, it would be remiss to simply focus on their weaknesses and not acknowledge the opposing argument’s strengths.
Goals
Articulate both the explicit and implicit premises and conclusions of the author/authors before you begin your refutation. In other words, understand what you’re up against before you attempt to break down the opposing argument.
Summarize your target author’s/authors’ argument and focus your reader’s attention on its claims without discussing why they are faulty in your introduction.
Develop a thesis that states the opposing argument and your own specific refutation.
State a specific target claim from the opposing argument within your topic sentences. Follow up your topic sentences with why the original claim is mistaken/faulty.
Describe the relevant fallacies, logical problems and errors of fact of the target claim (which in turn support your own claim against it). Refute the target claim by using and citing a variety of textual evidence from your research such as summary, quotation, and paraphrase.
Conclude with the significance of your own position on the defined issue.
Develop audience awareness and write for readers who are not familiar with the texts.
Guidelines
Minimum of 5 full pages (not including Works Cited page)
MLA format (Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, including Works Cited page)
Write your essay in third person
Required Texts
At least 2 academic/scholarly sources from the IVC Library (can be the same sources from Mini Bibs 1-3, if applicable)
At least 1 of these sources must contain the argument you’re refuting
Any of the current chapters we read so far from Gula’s Nonsense and/or van der Linden’s Foolproof
Recommended: apply concepts from this unit’s assigned readings, though it’s worth noting that the concepts we learned from Nonsense during the Essay 2 unit may help you identify and break down the “nonsense” in the opposing argument
Optional Texts (if choosing to include, select only one)
1 source from the internet or social media or
1 image source from the internet or social media
Points to Keep in Mind
Avoid simply listing the fallacies of the source that contains the argument you’re refuting. Instead, aim to reject the source’s central argument by disproving its support. More importantly, show your readers how the argument and its claims are neither sound nor valid.
Your refutation should be directed against a secondary source or collection of related secondary sources that present the same argument.
The articles you’re refuting are published texts, which implies that someone recognizes the author(s) as an expert, and in some cases written by recognized authorities; this means that you should take their arguments seriously, and be respectful.
You do not need to reference all the concepts we learned from Nonsense and/or Foolproof. Reference the concepts that are the most relevant to your refutation.
You also do not need to use both Nonsense and Foolproof; referencing only one of them is fine.
Criteria
Unity and focus through a controlling thesis and topic sentence claims
Development of a thesis through support and elaboration
Coherence and organization with clear connections and a logically structured intro, body, and conclusion
Style using sophisticated diction, a variety of sentence structures, and a strong authorial voice
Conventions of Standard Written English through sound grammar and correct mechanics
Conventions of essay format by following MLA conventions such as citations, endnotes, and Works Cited
