Skill 9:  Refuting Alternative Arguments

Astrong argument will usually critically evaluate alternative perspectives orpoints of view. By doing so authors show readers that they have consideredother possibilities and not simply presented the first argument that enteredtheir heads. This approach usually strengthens an argument as it suggests thatthe author has researched the subject or has considered all angles.

What is a refutation?

Very few arguments are beyond dispute and any pointworth arguing will give rise to opposing points of view. We should realize thatsince alert readers will think of counterarguments, it is wise to anticipateobjections and try to refute them. Thus arefutation attempts to point out problems with the opposing views, to showwhere an opponent’s argument breaks down. Normally a refutation uses athree-part organization, though not necessarily in this exact order:

• The opponent’s argument – the main opposing argument we will refute;

• Our position – Our view regarding the issue being argued;

• Our refutation – The specifics of our counterargument.

The following example demonstrates thisorganization.

• It has been argued that children who attend childcare centers at an earlyage miss out on important early learning that occurs in parent-childinteraction. These children, so this argument goes, may be educationallydisadvantaged later in life. (The opponent’s argument)

• However, childcare centers may actually assist children in their earlylearning. (Our position)

• They give children an opportunity to mix with other children and to developsocial skills at an early age. Indeed a whole range of learning occurs inchildcare center. (Our refutation)

Activity

Examine the following arguments and identify therefutation.

1. 1.   It has been arguedthat automobile cause more deaths than handguns and that if one opposeshandguns on the ground that doing so would save the lives of innocent people,one would soon find oneself wanting to outlaw the automobile. But this argumentis certainly faulty because it has conveniently ignored the fact that our societyregulates the operation of motor vehicles by requiring drivers to have alicense, a greater restriction than many states impose on gun ownership. Besides,a gun is a lethal weapon designed to kill, whereas an automobile or truck is avehicle designed for transportation. Private ownership and use in both casesentails the risk of death to the innocent. But there is no inconsistency in asociety’s refusal to tolerate this risk in the case of guns and its willingnessto do so in the case of automobiles.

2. 2.   Let’s assume yourposition – namely, that there ought to be no legal restrictions whatever on thesale and ownership of guns. That means that you’d permit every neighborhoodhardware store to sell pistols and rifles to whoever walks in the door. Butthat’s not all. You apparently also would permit selling machine guns tochildren, antitank weapons to lunatics, small-bore cannon to the nearsighted,as well as guns and the ammunition to go with them to anyone with a criminalrecord. But this is utterly preposterous. No one could favor such a dangerouspolicy. So the only question worth debating is what kind o gun control isnecessary.

3. 3.   Modernization bringstechnology that consumes energy and leads to such things as air pollution andclimate change. Modernization breaks up the social ties that bound peopletogether in traditional societies, so much so that people no longer feel asconnected to one another. This can lead to such problems as crime and thebreak-up of family groups. However, positive effects that modernization hasbrought us are equally undeniable. We have to admit that modernization improvesour lives in many tangible ways. It is certainly safer to live in a world inwhich we have doctors who can cure infections and in which women are not verylikely to die in childbirth. It is more convenient to live in a world where wehave access to many material goods that make our lives more comfortable andmore fun. Thus it is not a matter of whether we should do away withmodernization, rather, the problem confronting us is how to achieve a harmonybetween modernization and tradition.

How to refute?

Experienced writers refute opposing views briefly,realizing that they don’t need to devastate their opponents. A good rebuttal isa small, tactful argument aimed at a weak spot in the opposing argument. Werefute in a way that is fair to those with whom we disagree.

1. Point out the counterargument’s limits by putting the opposing view in alarger context. Show that the counterargumentleaves something important out of the picture.

Example:

It has been argued that setting aside rooms forsmokers does not mean that the harmful effects of smoking are limited tosmokers alone. This position contends that most public buildings are air-conditionedand therefore harmful tobacco smoke produced in one room will spread to otherrooms through the air-conditioning system. However, as Jane Black, thespokesperson for Smokers for a Democratic Society explains, forbidding smokers frompursuing their habit in public places is an infringement of their democraticrights and is discriminatory. Moreover, banning smoking in all public places isanother example of the way the government uses health and safety issues as a coverfor introducing increasingly tight control over people’s lives.

2.Tell the other side of the story. Offer an opposing interpretation of the evidence, or counter withstronger, more reliable, more convincing evidence.

Example:

An opposing view states that Dr. Smith’s studyclearly shows that video games do not lead to violence. But Dr. Smith isbiased. His research is funded entirely by the video game industry, accordingto a 2001 investigation by the Parent’s Defense League… So you can see that theother side has no credible evidence refuting the link between video games andviolence, and they haven’t established any reason to reject our proposal.

3.Address logical fallacies in the counterargument. Check for faulty reasoning or emotional manipulation.

Example:

It has been argued that since almost all heroinaddicts were marijuana smokers before becoming heroin addicts, marijuanasmokers tend to become heroin addicts. However, it’s not difficult to see thatthis argument is faulty. Can we say that since almost all heroin addicts weremilk drinkers before becoming heroin addicts, milk drinkers tend to becomeheroin addicts?

How to signal a refutation?

We should make it clearly that we are presentingarguments to show that we understand the issue from other sides, that we haveanticipated the opposing arguments and wish to criticize them. In order tosignal this we need to use special phrases to problematize the opposingstatements by making them appear to be debatable opinions and not facts. Signalwords vary depending on the situations in which we use them.

When we can think of the opposing opinion but havenot seen it written anywhere, we can use the following expressions:

When we have seen the opposing opinion written inanother text, we can use expressions like these:

Activity 1:

Read the following arguments, underline the signalwords of the opposing argument and point out the refutation strategies used.

1. 1.   It has been arguedthat if you have nothing to hide then you should have no concern for yourprivacy. However, the word “hide” presupposes that nobody can have a goodmotive for wishing to protect information about their lives. This is obviouslyfalse. People have a legitimate interest in avoiding disclosure of a widevariety of personal circumstances that are none of anyone’s business. If youwere raped, would you want the full details published in the newspapers thenext day? I don’t think so. People also have a broader interest in regulatinghow they are represented in public. If someone doesn’t like you, they willdredge up all sorts of facts and portray them in a bad light. If only for thisreason, it is reasonable to avoid giving everyone unlimited access to yourlife.

1. 2.   One common argumentagainst homeschooling is that homeschooling creates isolation for the child. Insteadof being surrounded by children  theirown age, many homeschooled children are lucky to see other students their ageonce a week, usually during sports or music practices, family gatherings, orreligious events. As a result, homeschooled children can find it difficultinteracting with new people, understanding social norms, or knowing aboutcurrent trends among children their age. However homeschoolers can acquiresocial experience in many different ways, from volunteering at a homelessshelter or senior home, to meeting with children of other homeschooled familiesfor a trip or picnic. These opportunities offer children natural ways to relateto other people.

Activity2

Read the following argument, pay attention to theway of refuting the alternative arguments. And draw a mindmap to illustrate howthe argument is constructed.

Is there anyone out there?

In some countries, the idea that there is life onother planets would make people laugh or sneer. In others, the inhabitants notonly believe in life elsewhere in the universe but make efforts to communicatewith it. There are certainly doubters and believers on this issue. Onetraditional argument for the existence of extraterrestrial life, known as theplenitude theory, is that there are so many star systems in the universe thatit is unlikely that only earth would bear intelligent life. Indeed, it could beconsidered the folly of human arrogance to think that we are the onlyintelligent life in all of space. Not so, argue those who subscribe tocontingency theory. Their argument, and it is a compelling one, is that life isa happy accident, a serendipity. They claim that the processes which led to theevolution of life are so complicated that it is extraordinary they occurredeven once. They consider it extremely unlikely that the same set of processescould ever occur again. Thus, we have very divergent theories on whether thereis life out there or not. It is unlikely that there is extraterrestrial life.For over 100 years, radio waves have been used to track space for signs of lifeand so far have uncovered nothing. If there was intelligent life out there, itis probable that we would have identified some sign of it by now. The mostconvincing current argument for extraterrestrial life comes from convergencetheory. Convergence theory refers to situations when two different species arefaced with a problem and independently arrive at the same solution. Forexample, both bats and birds evolved wings in order to fly. Similarly, octopusand squid have camera-like eyes. The species evolved separately, arriving atthese adaptations independently. This suggests that although there may beinfinite possibilities in the universe, nature tends to repeat itself. Morris(2004) has argued that where nature has produced something once, it is likelyto produce it again. However, Morris himself recognizes that even the basicconditions for life may be rare in the universe. Nature may be willing but theconditions might not be right. It is probable that the exacting conditionsrequired for life are unlikely to be found more than once. It is unlikely thatother planets will be exactly the right distance from their sun, with the rightgravity, the right combination of chemicals and physics, with water andatmosphere. Although convergence theory indicates that nature tends toreproduce the same outcomes, and plenitude theory argues that the multiplicityof star systems increases the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, the argumentsare not convincing. The conditions for life itself are so fragile and complexthat it is remarkable that life occurred even once, much less that it could berepeated elsewhere.