A counterargument is a reasoning used to counter a previously stated idea. It involves not only questioning an argument , but also providing reasons to explain why it is invalid.
It is a constitutive element of dialectics and is fundamental in areas such as law, politics, and diplomacy.
It should be noted that an argument can be refuted in many ways and therefore there is a possibility that there is more than one counterargument to the same argument.
To understand how a counterargument works, it’s important to remember how arguments are composed. They are reasonings composed of premises (a series of ideas considered true) and a conclusion (an idea derived from the previous ones).
An example of an argument could be:
- Premise 1.The dogs in this kennel are of the Irish Setter breed.
- Premise 2.The puppy I have at home is from that breeder.
- Conclusion. The puppy I have at home is an Irish Setter.
- See also: Types of arguments
Types of counterarguments
A counterargument can be:
- Objection. An argument may be objectionable when the conclusion is incompatible with one of the premises from which it is derived. For example, considering the previous argument , a counterargument could be made: It’s not true; the dogs at that kennel are poodles.
When an objection is made, the link between the premises and the conclusion of the given argument is broken, and the discussion returns to the beginning.
- Recusal. In an argument, the relationship between premises and conclusions is based on the assumption that a principle connects them in some way. This principle is called a warrant.
Warrants are general conditional statements that are not strictly components of the argument (they are not the premises), but which the arguer must state if requested (when the question “what does that have to do with anything?” is asked, the link between premises and conclusions must be made clear).
In the aforementioned case, the warrant could be: dogs that come from the same kennel tend to be of the same breed (if P → Q, because G).
There are four forms of recusal:
– Rejection of principle . This occurs when the guarantee is discredited as a valid rule that supports the connection between premises and conclusion. Therefore, the transition from premises to conclusion is disjointed. For example:
Argument:
Premise 1. Students who study hard get the best grades.
Premise 2. I ‘m going to study hard for the next exam.
Conclusion . I’ll get the best grade on the next exam.
Guarantee . Studying hard ensures good performance on tests.
Counterargument: Those who get better grades are very intelligent students or have good memories. Therefore, studying hard is not a way to get good grades.
– Exceptional challenge . This occurs when the guarantee is granted as a valid rule, but it is not applicable in the specific case being argued, due to exceptional reasons. For example:
Argument: A survey was conducted, and thirty students said they preferred language arts to mathematics. Only twenty students said otherwise. Therefore, the majority of students prefer language arts to mathematics.
Counterargument: On the day the survey was conducted, there were thirty students absent, so the survey has a considerable margin of error.
– Reservation . This occurs when the guarantee is considered applicable or not to the case. The inference is questionable, and its applicability is questioned. For example:
Argument: Currency devaluation makes wages less profitable than in other countries…
Counterargument: . ..unless companies raise wages so they remain internationally competitive.
– Counteranalogy . This occurs when an argument is invalidated by proposing an analogous one. This argument must have the same structure as the argument it seeks to dismantle, and its invalidity must be indisputable. That is, it must be an equivalent argument. For example: Eating junk food every day and expecting to have no cholesterol is like trying to exercise without getting tired. / Applying repression to contain youthful rebellion is like trying to put out a fire by pouring fuel on it.
- Rebuttal. A counterargument does not invalidate the argument but rather proposes other reasons to reach a conclusion opposite to the argument it seeks to dismantle, or at least to allow them to be accepted as equal reasons. In rebuttal, the weighting of opposing reasons becomes important; that is, it is important to determine that some have greater weight or relevance than others. There are three forms of rebuttal:
– Contradictory rebuttal (A but B) . When the premises and conclusion of the argument being refuted are accepted, but a more compelling alternative premise, incompatible with them, is offered. For example:
Argument:
Premise 1: Pneumonia is treated by giving the patient penicillin.
Premise 2: The patient has pneumonia.
Conclusion: The patient should be treated with penicillin.
Counterargument: The patient is allergic to penicillin and cannot undergo this treatment.
– Mitigating rebuttal (A though B) . This occurs when the procedure is reversed. The initial argument is countered with a less powerful alternative premise, so that when the argument and counterargument are contrasted, the conclusion remains the same. Although the counterargument is not strong enough to counter the initial argument, it somehow weakens it. For example:
Plot: Cirilo is not a trustworthy person. He has repeatedly lied and deceived his parents to get his way.
Counterargument: Although it is true that he has apologized for his past mistakes and promised that he would not do it again.
– Invalidating rebuttal (A and also B) . This occurs when the premises of the argument and counterargument are understood to have the same or very similar weight. This casts doubt on whether the premises of the initial argument can be inferred from its conclusion. For example:
Argument: The job offer abroad that Benjamin received is the best because it will offer him excellent pay and quality of life.
Counterargument: But it is also true that he will have to stay away from his family and friends for an indefinite period of time.
Structure of the counterargument
When crafting a counterargument, the goal is to achieve the greatest possible effectiveness in the most obvious and direct way, with the intention of saving the interlocutor effort and ensuring that the power of the counterargument is not diluted in a confusing or indirect statement.
Therefore, objections are prioritized over recusals, and recusals over refutations.
- The objectionis the most obvious procedure because it involves demonstrating the falsity of the argument.
- Recusal—in which the warrant, not the premises of the arguments, is discredited and evaluated according to their reliability—is a more costly strategy .
- The refutationis the series of counterarguments with the least weight, because it involves the weighing of reasons whose outcome is not certain.
