refutation essay examples

30 Refutation Examples

refutation examples and definition, explained below

Refutation refers to the act of proving a statement or theory wrong through the use of logical reasoning and evidence.

Some strategies for refutation, which we may use in an argumentative essay, speech, or debate, include:

Reductio ad Absurdum : Taking an argument to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity.
Counterexamples : Presenting counterexamples , which are practical and real-life examples that contradict the opponent’s claims.
Identifying Logical Fallacies : Highlighting instances in which the opponent’s claims don’t follow logical reasoning.
Highlighting Omissions: Demonstrating that the opponent failed to discuss or consider facts that dispute their claims.

I recommend to all my students that they refute possible counterclaims and contradicting perspectives in their argumentative essays in order to establish an authoritative position, demonstrate awareness of a broad range of perspectives, and add depth to your arguments.

Below is a range of methods of refutation.

Refutation Examples

1. analogical disproof.

This method involves refuting an argument by drawing a parallel to a situation that’s logically similar but absurd or clearly incorrect. Used properly, it can effectively puncture an opponent’s argument, showing that the same logic could lead to preposterous conclusions.

Example: “All birds fly. Penguins are birds, so they should fly.” The analogical disproof might be: “Not all office workers use computers. You’re an office worker, so should you not use a computer?”

2. Test of Consistency

This refutation method tests whether an argument stands consistent under different circumstances or scenarios. If an argument contains contradictions or doesn’t hold true in various contexts, it falls under inconsistency.

Example: Someone posits, “A person should always lend money to friends.” A consistency test might involve asking, “Should a person still lend money if they know their friend will spend it irresponsibly?”

See More: Consistency Examples

3. Rebuttal by Cause and Effect

This approach involves contesting an argument by disputing the assumed relationship between cause and effect. Here, you challenge the validity of the cause, the effect, or the linkage between the two.

Example: To refute, “Violent video games cause aggressive behavior in players,” you might present studies showing no significant increase in aggression among players of violent video games. This disrupts the asserted cause-effect relationship.

See More: Cause and Effect Examples

4. Prioritization of Evidence

This method questions the quality, reliability, or relevance of the evidence presented in an argument. You might challenge evidence’s weight, context, source, or legitimacy to weaken the opponent’s stance.

Example: Against the claim, “Spicy food aids in weight loss because it boosts metabolism,” you could highlight that the studies underpinning that claim are less reliable than studies demonstrating that exercise boosts weight loss.

5. Challenge the Relevance

Challenging the relevance involves disputing how pertinent or directly related the opponent’s points are to the argument at hand. Irrelevant points detract from the main argument and don’t strengthen the position they are intended to support.

Example: If someone argues, “Technology improves quality of life because smartphones have advanced cameras,” you might challenge the relevance by questioning how advanced cameras light to better quality of life.

See More: Relevance Examples

6. Statistical Refutation

Statistical refutation seeks to invalidate an argument by questioning the statistical evidence used. This might involve critiquing how data were collected, interpreted, or applied.

Example: If a study claims, “80% of people feel healthier when they eat chocolate daily,” you could challenge the data by asking who was surveyed and how the question was asked.

7. Appeal to Common Sense

An appeal to common sense challenges a claim by invoking widely accepted truths or knowledge. This strategy can debunk arguments that defy everyday observations or popular wisdom.

Example: If someone says, “to prevent climate change we need to shut down all coal-fired powerplants immediately,” you could refute it by appealing to the common sense notion that shutting them all down right now would cause the entire economy to collapse overnight.

See More: Examples of Common Sense

8. Pointing Out Oversimplification

This method involves highlighting how an opponent’s argument oversimplifies a complex issue. It exposes a lack of depth or nuance in their argument, undermining its credibility.

Example: A statement like “More jobs equals less poverty” could be refuted by pointing out the oversimplification in neglecting factors like cost of living and wage levels.

See More: Oversimplification Examples

9. Dismantling a False Dilemma

A false dilemma presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes or solutions. Dismantling a false dilemma involves introducing alternatives or proving that the two proposed options aren’t the only ones.

Example: Against the assertion, “Either we preserve our traditions, or we embrace progress,” you could challenge that we can preserve traditions and also move forward.

See More: False Dilemma Examples

10. Rebuttal through Definition

Rebuttal through definition involves challenging an argument by critiquing the definitions of the concepts, phenomena, or terms used. Here, you question the way an opponent has defined key elements of their argument.

Example: If an argument purports, “Happiness is having a lot of money,” you might dispute that definition by referencing different measures of happiness that don’t involve wealth, such as relationships or personal growth.

See More: Rebuttal Examples

11. Rebuttal by Precedence

This method employs historical or present precedents to debunk an argument. By illustrating similar situations where the opponent’s proposition didn’t hold true or feasible decisions were made contrary to the claim, the argument can be refuted.

Example: If faced with the claim, “No democracy can survive without a two-party system,” you could counter by citing examples of thriving democracies around the world with more than two significant parties.

12. Challenge the Representativeness

Challenging the representativeness entails scrutinizing whether an argument’s supporting evidence adequately represents the whole. It rejects sweeping generalizations or conclusions based on limited data.

Example: Should someone argue, “Most students dislike school, as proven by a survey from my class,” you could counter by questioning whether your class is representative of all students around the country.

13. Rebuttal through Syllogism

Rebuttal through syllogism uses the opponent’s premises to arrive at a different conclusion. If, through logical reasoning, the proposed conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises given, the argument can be effectively refuted.

Example: To the statement, “All apples are fruit. All fruit grow on trees. Therefore, all trees grow apples,” a syllogistic rebuttal might state, “While all apples grow on trees, not all trees grow apples.”

14. Pointing Out Non-Sequitur

Pointing out non-sequitur involves highlighting that an argument’s conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Non-sequiturs often involve leaps in logic or unwarranted assumptions.

Example: In response to the claim, “He’s a great musician, so he’ll be a fantastic concert organizer,” one might point out the non-sequitur by reminding that a musical talent does not equate managerial skills.

15. Rebuttal by Exception

Rebuttal by exception operates by finding exceptions to the generalization made in an argument. By highlighting exceptions that contradict the claim, the argument’s validity is diminished.

Example: If someone argues, “All politicians are corrupt,” you could refute it by highlighting politicians known for their integrity and conviction.

16. Evidence-Based Counterargument

An evidence-based counterargument refutes a claim by presenting strong, credible, and relevant evidence that contradicts the original argument. This method is most effective when the counter-evidence directly disputes the original claim or its supporting facts.

Example: If a person claims, “Milk should be avoided because it’s unhealthy,” an evidence-based counterargument might bring up numerous scientific studies that indicate the nutritional benefits of milk.

See More: Counterargument Examples

17. Logical Analysis

A logical analysis focuses on the internal coherence and logical validity of an argument. By identifying logical fallacies or missteps in reasoning, you can refute a claim by showing how it fails to adhere to the principles of logic.

Example: A statement like “Every time I eat pizza, it rains, so pizza causes rain” can be refuted through logical analysis by highlighting the improper correlation being made.

18. Reductio ad Absurdum

The Reductio ad Absurdum technique demonstrates the absurdity of an argument by pushing it to its logical extreme, where it produces an absurd or preposterous conclusion. This method effectively challenges the premises or logic of the original claim.

Example: If someone argues, “We should never take any risks,” a Reductio ad Absurdum response might be: “By that logic, no one should ever leave their house because stepping outside is inherently risky.”

19. Counterexamples

Counterexamples are specific instances or examples that contradict a general claim or principle. By showing that the contrary is possible or proven, counterexamples can significantly weaken an argument.

Example: If someone claims, “All athletes are team players,” a compelling counterexample might highlight known instances of successful athletes who are infamous for their individualistic nature.

20. Question the Source

Questioning the source involves casting doubt on the credibility, relevance, or authority of the source supporting an argument. If the source is untrustworthy, the claim it supports is also brought into question.

Example: If the argument is “Vitamin C prevents cold because a juice-ad claims so,” you may question the objectivity of a source that may profit from selling more juice.

See More: Best Sources to Cite in Essays

21. Alternative Explanation

Providing an alternative explanation challenges an argument by proposing a different interpretation or understanding of the topic. This method allows you to dispute a claim by suggesting that another explanation is more plausible, relevant, or comprehensive.

Example: An argument might be, “Increased police presence reduces crime.” An alternative explanation could suggest that a more likely cause of reduced crime is improved social support systems and opportunities.

22. Challenge Assumptions

Challenging assumptions requires questioning the premise or basis of an argument. If the argument is built on flawed or questionable assumptions, exposing these can undermine the argument.

Example: When confronted with the argument “Marriage is essential for happiness,” one might challenge the underlying assumption that happiness necessarily requires marriage, citing examples of fulfilled single individuals.

See More: Assumptions Examples

23. Ethical or Moral Challenge

This type of refutation questions an argument on ethical or moral grounds. If the suggested actions or results of an argument lead to morally questionable outcomes, it can be a valid point of refutation.

Example: If someone says, “We should eliminate all pests for a more comfortable life,” you might counter it by pointing out the ethical concerns regarding biodiversity and the broader ecosystem’s health.

24. Using Comparison to Demonstrate Flawed Arguments

Comparisons involve using parallel scenarios, situations, or cases to refute an argument. By emphasizing the similarities or differences, you can question the validity of the argument.

Example: If the claim is “More expensive colleges provide a better education,” you could compare specific high-quality, affordable colleges with premium, yet underperforming ones to refute this argument.

25. Highlight Omissions

Highlighting omissions refers to pointing out relevant facts, information, or arguments that the opponent has left out of their claim. By illuminating these gaps, you can challenge the reliability or completeness of their argument.

Example: If someone argues, “He must be unsuccessful, he never went to college,” you can point out the omission of successful individuals who did not follow the traditional academic path.

26. Reframe the Debate

Reframing the debate involves changing the perspective or the center of the argument. It allows you to shift focus to a different, often overlooked aspect of the discussion, thus challenging the premises or relevance of the original argument.

Example: When faced with the claim, “Academic achievements determine success in life,” you can reframe the debate by suggesting that emotional intelligence, resilience, or interpersonal skills could be more significant indicators of life success.

27. Historical or Precedent-Based Refutation

This method utilizes historical events or established precedents to refute a claim. By referencing cases that contradict the opponent’s assertion, you can question its validity or applicability.

Example: In response to the claim, “Communism leads to societal chaos,” you could point out Cuba, who maintains law and order, to contradict the argument.

28. Practical Implications

Refuting via practical implications involves evaluating the real-world implications or consequences of an argument. This can be used to highlight unforeseen or negative implications that counter the argument’s intent.

Example: If someone suggests, “Cutting all funding for arts can help resolve government budget issues,” you could mention the practical implication that this could result in lost cultural heritage and inspire public backlash.

29. Question Motives or Bias

This method of refutation questions whether the argument might be influenced by the speaker’s motives or biases. If the speaker seems to benefit from their claim or appears biased, their argument can be viewed suspiciously.

Example: If a smartphone developer declares, “My company’s phones are unbeatable,” question their bias as they stand to gain from promoting their company’s products.

30. Seek Expert Testimony

Seeking expert testimony involves drawing on the knowledge or expertise of recognized authorities on the topic at hand. If expert opinion conflicts with the original statement, the credibility of the argument is undermined.

Example: In an argument about climate change, expert testimony from credible climate scientists refuting a claim of disbelievers can strengthen your refutation.

Understanding refutation will aid in developing stronger arguments and more impactful communication. I recommend to my students that they always refute the strongest claims of their opposition in order to more authoritatively prosecute their own perspective. But remember, in refuting opposing views, you need to be very careful not to fall into poor quality arguments, logical fallacies, or arguments that might otherwise damage your own legitimacy and reputation. Refutation must be clear, systematic, and well-thought-out in order for it to be effective.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Animism Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Magical Thinking Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?

Examples and Observations

"Refutation is the part of an essay that disproves the opposing arguments. It is always necessary in a persuasive paper to refute or answer those arguments. A good method for formulating your refutation is to put yourself in the place of your readers, imagining what their objections might be. In the exploration of the issues connected with your subject, you may have encountered possible opposing viewpoints in discussions with classmates or friends. In the refutation, you refute those arguments by proving the opposing basic proposition untrue or showing the reasons to be invalid...In general, there is a question about whether the refutation should come before or after the proof . The arrangement will differ according to the particular subject and the number and strength of the opposing arguments. If the opposing arguments are strong and widely held, they should be answered at the beginning. In this case, the refutation becomes a large part of the proof . . .. At other times when the opposing arguments are weak, the refutation will play only a minor part in the overall proof." -Winifred Bryan Horner, Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition . St. Martin's, 1988

Indirect and Direct Refutation

"Debaters refute through an indirect means when they use counter-argument to attack the case of an opponent. Counter-argument is the demonstration of such a high degree of probability for your conclusions that the opposing view loses its probability and is rejected... Direct refutation attacks the arguments of the opponent with no reference to the constructive development of an opposing view...The most effective refutation, as you can probably guess, is a combination of the two methods so that the strengths of the attack come from both the destruction of the opponents' views and the construction of an opposing view." -Jon M. Ericson, James J. Murphy, and Raymond Bud Zeuschner, The Debater's Guide , 4th ed. Southern Illinois University Press, 2011
"An effective refutation must speak directly to an opposing argument. Often writers or speakers will claim to be refuting the opposition, but rather than doing so directly, will simply make another argument supporting their own side. This is a form of the fallacy of irrelevance through evading the issue." -Donald Lazere, Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen's Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric . Taylor & Francis, 2009

Cicero on Confirmation and Refutation

"[T]he statement of the case . . . must clearly point out the question at issue. Then must be conjointly built up the great bulwarks of your cause, by fortifying your own position, and weakening that of your opponent; for there is only one effectual method of vindicating your own cause, and that includes both the confirmation and refutation. You cannot refute the opposite statements without establishing your own; nor can you, on the other hand, establish your own statements without refuting the opposite; their union is demanded by their nature, their object, and their mode of treatment. The whole speech is, in most cases, brought to a conclusion by some amplification of the different points, or by exciting or mollifying the judges; and every aid must be gathered from the preceding, but more especially from the concluding parts of the address, to act as powerfully as possible upon their minds, and make them zealous converts to your cause." -Cicero, De Oratore , 55 BC

Richard Whately on Refutation

"Refutation of Objections should generally be placed in the midst of the Argument; but nearer the beginning than the end. If indeed very strong objections have obtained much currency, or have been just stated by an opponent, so that what is asserted is likely to be regarded as paradoxical , it may be advisable to begin with a Refutation." -Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric , 1846)

FCC Chairman William Kennard's Refutation

"There will be those who say 'Go slow. Don't upset the status quo.' No doubt we will hear this from competitors who perceive that they have an advantage today and want regulation to protect their advantage. Or we will hear from those who are behind in the race to compete and want to slow down deployment for their own self-interest. Or we will hear from those that just want to resist changing the status quo for no other reason than change brings less certainty than the status quo. They will resist change for that reason alone. So we may well hear from a whole chorus of naysayers. And to all of them, I have only one response: we cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to let the homes and schools and businesses throughout America wait. Not when we have seen the future. We have seen what high capacity broadband can do for education and for our economy. We must act today to create an environment where all competitors have a fair shot at bringing high capacity bandwidth to consumers—especially residential consumers. And especially residential consumers in rural and underserved areas." -William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC, July 27, 1998

Etymology: From the Old English, "beat"

Pronunciation: REF-yoo-TAY-shun

The Parts of a Speech in Classical Rhetoric
Proof in Rhetoric
Confirmation in Speech and Rhetoric
Usage and Examples of a Rebuttal
Arrangement in Composition and Rhetoric
What Is the Straw Man Fallacy?
Rogerian Argument: Definition and Examples
AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
Conceding and Refuting in English
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Argument
What Does "Dissoi Logoi" Mean?
What Is a Rhetorical Device? Definition, List, Examples
5 Steps to Writing a Position Paper
Oration (Classical Rhetoric)
Elenchus (argumentation)
Appeal to Humor as Fallacy

English Current

ESL Lesson Plans, Tests, & Ideas

North American Idioms
Business Idioms
Idioms Quiz
Idiom Requests
Proverbs Quiz & List
Phrasal Verbs Quiz
Basic Phrasal Verbs
North American Idioms App
A(n)/The: Help Understanding Articles
The First & Second Conditional
The Difference between 'So' & 'Too'
The Difference between 'a few/few/a little/little'
The Difference between "Other" & "Another"
Check Your Level
English Vocabulary
Verb Tenses (Intermediate)
Articles (A, An, The) Exercises
Prepositions Exercises
Irregular Verb Exercises
Gerunds & Infinitives Exercises
Discussion Questions
Speech Topics
Argumentative Essay Topics
Top-rated Lessons
Intermediate
Upper-Intermediate
Reading Lessons
View Topic List
Expressions for Everyday Situations
Travel Agency Activity
Present Progressive with Mr. Bean
Work-related Idioms
Adjectives to Describe Employees
Writing for Tone, Tact, and Diplomacy
Speaking Tactfully
Advice on Monetizing an ESL Website
Teaching your First Conversation Class
How to Teach English Conversation
Teaching Different Levels
Teaching Grammar in Conversation Class
Members' Home
Update Billing Info.
Cancel Subscription
North American Proverbs Quiz & List
North American Idioms Quiz
Idioms App (Android)
'Be used to'" / 'Use to' / 'Get used to'
Ergative Verbs and the Passive Voice
Keywords & Verb Tense Exercises
Irregular Verb List & Exercises
Non-Progressive (State) Verbs
Present Perfect vs. Past Simple
Present Simple vs. Present Progressive
Past Perfect vs. Past Simple
Subject Verb Agreement
The Passive Voice
Subject & Object Relative Pronouns
Relative Pronouns Where/When/Whose
Commas in Adjective Clauses
A/An and Word Sounds
'The' with Names of Places
Understanding English Articles
Article Exercises (All Levels)
Yes/No Questions
Wh-Questions
How far vs. How long
Affect vs. Effect
A few vs. few / a little vs. little
Boring vs. Bored
Compliment vs. Complement
Die vs. Dead vs. Death
Expect vs. Suspect
Experiences vs. Experience
Go home vs. Go to home
Had better vs. have to/must
Have to vs. Have got to
I.e. vs. E.g.
In accordance with vs. According to
Lay vs. Lie
Make vs. Do
In the meantime vs. Meanwhile
Need vs. Require
Notice vs. Note
'Other' vs 'Another'
Pain vs. Painful vs. In Pain
Raise vs. Rise
So vs. Such
So vs. So that
Some vs. Some of / Most vs. Most of
Sometimes vs. Sometime
Too vs. Either vs. Neither
Weary vs. Wary
Who vs. Whom
While vs. During
While vs. When
Wish vs. Hope
10 Common Writing Mistakes
34 Common English Mistakes
First & Second Conditionals
Comparative & Superlative Adjectives
Determiners: This/That/These/Those
Check Your English Level
Grammar Quiz (Advanced)
Vocabulary Test - Multiple Questions
Vocabulary Quiz - Choose the Word
Verb Tense Review (Intermediate)
Verb Tense Exercises (All Levels)
Conjunction Exercises
List of Topics
Business English
Games for the ESL Classroom
Pronunciation
Teaching Your First Conversation Class
How to Teach English Conversation Class

Argumentative Essays: The Counter-Argument & Refutation

An argumentative essay presents an argument for or against a topic. For example, if your topic is working from home , then your essay would either argue in favor of working from home (this is the for side) or against working from home.

Like most essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction that ends with the writer's position (or stance) in the thesis statement .

Introduction Paragraph

(Background information....)

Thesis statement : Employers should give their workers the option to work from home in order to improve employee well-being and reduce office costs.

This thesis statement shows that the two points I plan to explain in my body paragraphs are 1) working from home improves well-being, and 2) it allows companies to reduce costs. Each topic will have its own paragraph. Here's an example of a very basic essay outline with these ideas:

Background information

Body Paragraph 1

Topic Sentence : Workers who work from home have improved well-being .
Evidence from academic sources

Body Paragraph 2

Topic Sentence : Furthermore, companies can reduce their expenses by allowing employees to work at home .
Summary of key points
Restatement of thesis statement

Does this look like a strong essay? Not really . There are no academic sources (research) used, and also...

You Need to Also Respond to the Counter-Arguments!

The above essay outline is very basic. The argument it presents can be made much stronger if you consider the counter-argument , and then try to respond (refute) its points.

The counter-argument presents the main points on the other side of the debate. Because we are arguing FOR working from home, this means the counter-argument is AGAINST working from home. The best way to find the counter-argument is by reading research on the topic to learn about the other side of the debate. The counter-argument for this topic might include these points:

Distractions at home > could make it hard to concentrate
Dishonest/lazy people > might work less because no one is watching

Next, we have to try to respond to the counter-argument in the refutation (or rebuttal/response) paragraph .

The Refutation/Response Paragraph

The purpose of this paragraph is to address the points of the counter-argument and to explain why they are false, somewhat false, or unimportant. So how can we respond to the above counter-argument? With research !

A study by Bloom (2013) followed workers at a call center in China who tried working from home for nine months. Its key results were as follows:

The performance of people who worked from home increased by 13%
These workers took fewer breaks and sick-days
They also worked more minutes per shift

In other words, this study shows that the counter-argument might be false. (Note: To have an even stronger essay, present data from more than one study.) Now we have a refutation.

Where Do We Put the Counter-Argument and Refutation?

Commonly, these sections can go at the beginning of the essay (after the introduction), or at the end of the essay (before the conclusion). Let's put it at the beginning. Now our essay looks like this:

Counter-argument Paragraph

Dishonest/lazy people might work less because no one is watching

Refutation/Response Paragraph

Study: Productivity increased by 14%
(+ other details)

Body Paragraph 3

Topic Sentence : In addition, people who work from home have improved well-being .

Body Paragraph 4

The outline is stronger now because it includes the counter-argument and refutation. Note that the essay still needs more details and research to become more convincing.

Working from home may increase productivity.

Extra Advice on Argumentative Essays

It's not a compare and contrast essay.

An argumentative essay focuses on one topic (e.g. cats) and argues for or against it. An argumentative essay should not have two topics (e.g. cats vs dogs). When you compare two ideas, you are writing a compare and contrast essay. An argumentative essay has one topic (cats). If you are FOR cats as pets, a simplistic outline for an argumentative essay could look something like this:

Thesis: Cats are the best pet.
are unloving
cause allergy issues
This is a benefit > Many working people do not have time for a needy pet
If you have an allergy, do not buy a cat.
But for most people (without allergies), cats are great
Supporting Details

Use Language in Counter-Argument That Shows Its Not Your Position

The counter-argument is not your position. To make this clear, use language such as this in your counter-argument:

Opponents might argue that cats are unloving.
People who dislike cats would argue that cats are unloving.
Critics of cats could argue that cats are unloving.
It could be argued that cats are unloving.

These underlined phrases make it clear that you are presenting someone else's argument , not your own.

Choose the Side with the Strongest Support

Do not choose your side based on your own personal opinion. Instead, do some research and learn the truth about the topic. After you have read the arguments for and against, choose the side with the strongest support as your position.

Do Not Include Too Many Counter-arguments

Include the main (two or three) points in the counter-argument. If you include too many points, refuting these points becomes quite difficult.

If you have any questions, leave a comment below.

- Matthew Barton / Creator of Englishcurrent.com

Additional Resources :

Writing a Counter-Argument & Refutation (Richland College)
Language for Counter-Argument and Refutation Paragraphs (Brown's Student Learning Tools)

EnglishCurrent is happily hosted on Dreamhost . If you found this page helpful, consider a donation to our hosting bill to show your support!

23 comments on “ Argumentative Essays: The Counter-Argument & Refutation ”

Thank you professor. It is really helpful.

Can you also put the counter argument in the third paragraph

It depends on what your instructor wants. Generally, a good argumentative essay needs to have a counter-argument and refutation somewhere. Most teachers will probably let you put them anywhere (e.g. in the start, middle, or end) and be happy as long as they are present. But ask your teacher to be sure.

Thank you for the information Professor

how could I address a counter argument for “plastic bags and its consumption should be banned”?

For what reasons do they say they should be banned? You need to address the reasons themselves and show that these reasons are invalid/weak.

Thank you for this useful article. I understand very well.

Thank you for the useful article, this helps me a lot!

Thank you for this useful article which helps me in my study.

Thank you, professor Mylene 102-04

it was very useful for writing essay

Very useful reference body support to began writing a good essay. Thank you!

Really very helpful. Thanks Regards Mayank

Thank you, professor, it is very helpful to write an essay.

It is really helpful thank you

It was a very helpful set of learning materials. I will follow it and use it in my essay writing. Thank you, professor. Regards Isha

Thanks Professor

This was really helpful as it lays the difference between argumentative essay and compare and contrast essay.. Thanks for the clarification.

This is such a helpful guide in composing an argumentative essay. Thank you, professor.

This was really helpful proof, thankyou!

Thanks this was really helpful to me

This was very helpful for us to generate a good form of essay

thank you so much for this useful information.

Definition of Refutation

The literary term refutation refers to that part of an argument where a speaker or a writer encounters contradicting points of view. Alternatively, refutation can be described as the negation of an argument, opinion, testimony, doctrine, or theory, through contradicting evidence . It normally constitutes a part of an essay that disproves the opposing arguments.

An important distinction to be appreciated is the difference between refutation and counter-argument. In the case of counter-argument, the writer acknowledges that there is substance in the contradicting argument, yet he provides evidence for his alleged stance. On the other hand, refutation goes a bit further by presenting evidence that in turn negates the opposing arguments.

In a circumstance in which the writer happens to agree with certain aspects of the opposing argument, he makes a concession . However, writers and speakers rarely employ concession, as it can very easily undermine their own stance.

Types of Refutation

There are various ways through which the tool of refutation can be employed. The three most common modes used for the purpose of incorporating the device of refutation in an argument are : (1) refutation through evidence, (2) refutation through logic, and (3) refutation through exposing the discrepancies of opposing argument.

Refutation through Evidence

For an argument to be counted as one of the valid examples of refutation through evidence, it needs to be an argument backed up by some form of evidence. In the absence of clear bases or justifications it cannot be declared valid. Therefore, a writer can refute a contradicting argument if he can provide evidence that conclusively negates it, or by presenting more recent or credible evidence.

Refutation through Logic

Refutation examples through logic are quite tricky to construct. It involves deconstructing the opposing argument, and presenting it in such a way as to highlight the discrepancies present within the argument. Most skilled writers check the validity of their arguments before publishing them. This makes refutation through logic all the more difficult. There is no denying the fact then that refutation through logic constitutes a difficult task at hand. However, writers have employed this tool in their respective writings.

Refutation through Exposing Discrepancies

The method involves showing that one of the contradicting arguments lacks the core ingredient of centrality to the issue as the opposition had intended to project. Also, the writer can logically present his argument as being superior to the one presented by the opposition, by showing that the opposition’s argument lacks the crucial link to the topic. Further, the writer can highlight the insignificance of the opposition’s argument by exposing the deficiencies found within the opposing argument.

Examples of Refutation in Literature

Example #1: elements of rhetoric (by richard whately).

“If indeed very strong objections have obtained much currency, or have been just stated by an opponent, so that what is asserted is likely to be regarded as paradoxical, it may be advisable to begin with a Refutation.”

As can be seen from the excerpt quoted above, refutation of an objection should be placed in the midst of an argument. However, the nearer it is to the beginning the more effective it is likely to be.

Example #2: Remarks made to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Seattle, Washington (By William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC)

“So we may well hear from a whole chorus of naysayers. And to all of them I have only one response: we cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to let the homes and schools and businesses throughout America wait. Not when we have seen the future. We have seen what high capacity broadband can do for education and for our economy. We must act today to create an environment where all competitors have a fair shot at bringing high capacity bandwidth to consumers—especially residential consumers. And especially residential consumers in rural and underserved areas.”

This excerpt serves to illustrate the effectiveness of early refutation. The early placement of refutation within the extract has had an enhanced persuasive impact on the audience .

Function of Refutation

The tool of refutation has a crucial significance in writing. It is important in determining whether the speaker or writer has successfully persuaded his readers or not. Mostly, the device of refutation is employed when one is dealing with a controversial topic. It allows the reader to prefer one argument over another. The use of the device is frequently witnessed in intricate arguments.

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays

4-minute read

27th May 2023

Rebuttals are an essential part of a strong argument. But what are they, exactly, and how can you use them effectively? Read on to find out.

What Is a Rebuttal?

When writing an argumentative essay , there’s always an opposing point of view. You can’t present an argument without the possibility of someone disagreeing.

Sure, you could just focus on your argument and ignore the other perspective, but that weakens your essay. Coming up with possible alternative points of view, or counterarguments, and being prepared to address them, gives you an edge. A rebuttal is your response to these opposing viewpoints.

How Do Rebuttals Work?

With a rebuttal, you can take the fighting power away from any opposition to your idea before they have a chance to attack. For a rebuttal to work, it needs to follow the same formula as the other key points in your essay: it should be researched, developed, and presented with evidence.

Rebuttals in Action

Suppose you’re writing an essay arguing that strawberries are the best fruit. A potential counterargument could be that strawberries don’t work as well in baked goods as other berries do, as they can get soggy and lose some of their flavor. Your rebuttal would state this point and then explain why it’s not valid:

Read on for a few simple steps to formulating an effective rebuttal.

Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument

A strong rebuttal is only possible when there’s a strong counterargument. You may be convinced of your idea but try to place yourself on the other side. Rather than addressing weak opposing views that are easy to fend off, try to come up with the strongest claims that could be made.

In your essay, explain the counterargument and agree with it. That’s right, agree with it – to an extent. State why there’s some truth to it and validate the concerns it presents.

Step 2. Point Out Its Flaws

Now that you’ve presented a counterargument, poke holes in it . To do so, analyze the argument carefully and notice if there are any biases or caveats that weaken it. Looking at the claim that strawberries don’t work well in baked goods, a weakness could be that this argument only applies when strawberries are baked in a pie.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Step 3. Present New Points

Once you reveal the counterargument’s weakness, present a new perspective, and provide supporting evidence to show that your argument is still the correct one. This means providing new points that the opposer may not have considered when presenting their claim.

Offering new ideas that weaken a counterargument makes you come off as authoritative and informed, which will make your readers more likely to agree with you.

Summary: Rebuttals

Rebuttals are essential when presenting an argument. Even if a counterargument is stronger than your point, you can construct an effective rebuttal that stands a chance against it.

We hope this guide helps you to structure and format your argumentative essay . And once you’ve finished writing, send a copy to our expert editors. We’ll ensure perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, referencing, and more. Try it out for free today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a rebuttal in an essay.

A rebuttal is a response to a counterargument. It presents the potential counterclaim, discusses why it could be valid, and then explains why the original argument is still correct.

How do you form an effective rebuttal?

To use rebuttals effectively, come up with a strong counterclaim and respectfully point out its weaknesses. Then present new ideas that fill those gaps and strengthen your point.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

21 Argument, Counterargument, & Refutation

In academic writing, we often use an Argument essay structure. Argument essays have these familiar components, just like other types of essays:

Introduction
Body Paragraphs

But Argument essays also contain these particular elements:

Debatable thesis statement in the Introduction
Argument – paragraphs which show support for the author’s thesis (for example: reasons, evidence, data, statistics)
Counterargument – at least one paragraph which explains the opposite point of view
Concession – a sentence or two acknowledging that there could be some truth to the Counterargument
Refutation (also called Rebuttal) – sentences which explain why the Counterargument is not as strong as the original Argument

Consult Introductions & Titles for more on writing debatable thesis statements and Paragraphs ~ Developing Support for more about developing your Argument.

Imagine that you are writing about vaping. After reading several articles and talking with friends about vaping, you decide that you are strongly opposed to it.

Which working thesis statement would be better?

Vaping should be illegal because it can lead to serious health problems.

Many students do not like vaping.

Because the first option provides a debatable position, it is a better starting point for an Argument essay.

Next, you would need to draft several paragraphs to explain your position. These paragraphs could include facts that you learned in your research, such as statistics about vapers’ health problems, the cost of vaping, its effects on youth, its harmful effects on people nearby, and so on, as an appeal to logos . If you have a personal story about the effects of vaping, you might include that as well, either in a Body Paragraph or in your Introduction, as an appeal to pathos .

A strong Argument essay would not be complete with only your reasons in support of your position. You should also include a Counterargument, which will show your readers that you have carefully researched and considered both sides of your topic. This shows that you are taking a measured, scholarly approach to the topic – not an overly-emotional approach, or an approach which considers only one side. This helps to establish your ethos as the author. It shows your readers that you are thinking clearly and deeply about the topic, and your Concession (“this may be true”) acknowledges that you understand other opinions are possible.

Here are some ways to introduce a Counterargument:

Some people believe that vaping is not as harmful as smoking cigarettes.
Critics argue that vaping is safer than conventional cigarettes.
On the other hand, one study has shown that vaping can help people quit smoking cigarettes.

Your paragraph would then go on to explain more about this position; you would give evidence here from your research about the point of view that opposes your own opinion.

Here are some ways to begin a Concession and Refutation:

While this may be true for some adults, the risks of vaping for adolescents outweigh its benefits.
Although these critics may have been correct before, new evidence shows that vaping is, in some cases, even more harmful than smoking.
This may have been accurate for adults wishing to quit smoking; however, there are other methods available to help people stop using cigarettes.

Your paragraph would then continue your Refutation by explaining more reasons why the Counterargument is weak. This also serves to explain why your original Argument is strong. This is a good opportunity to prove to your readers that your original Argument is the most worthy, and to persuade them to agree with you.

Activity ~ Practice with Counterarguments, Concessions, and Refutations

A. Examine the following thesis statements with a partner. Is each one debatable?

B. Write your own Counterargument, Concession, and Refutation for each thesis statement.

Thesis Statements:

Online classes are a better option than face-to-face classes for college students who have full-time jobs.
Students who engage in cyberbullying should be expelled from school.
Unvaccinated children pose risks to those around them.
Governments should be allowed to regulate internet access within their countries.

Is this chapter:

…too easy, or you would like more detail? Read “ Further Your Understanding: Refutation and Rebuttal ” from Lumen’s Writing Skills Lab.

Note: links open in new tabs.

reasoning, logic

emotion, feeling, beliefs

moral character, credibility, trust, authority

goes against; believes the opposite of something

ENGLISH 087: Academic Advanced Writing Copyright © 2020 by Nancy Hutchison is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.18: Further Your Understanding- Refutation and Rebuttal

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 58393
Lumen Learning

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Learning Objectives

Evaluate strategies for rebuttal and refutation of counterargument

Now let’s take a look at examples of rebuttal and refutation and consider how students follow these guidelines to approach counterarguments to their viewpoints:

They accurately represent opposing viewpoints
They use a respectful, non-incendiary tone
They use reliable information
They use qualifying words

Felix is writing his argument paper on why his university should not have cut funding to the school’s library. His arguable thesis reads as follows: Because Northern State University has a mission statement that includes becoming a Research 1 (R1) institution, full funding should be restored to the library to ensure faculty and students have adequate resources to enhance their research agendas.

Felix has done his research, and he knows that a couple of the main counterarguments are that the school needs funds to renovate the student union and to construct a new building for the Engineering Department. Thus, he can anticipate counterarguments and include them in his paper. While Felix cannot prove beyond doubt that the school should use more funding for the library instead of using it to address other needs, he can try to make the case.

Read over Felix’s passage below to see how he strengthens his case, and note the annotations to help you see parts of the formula in action.

Download the PDF of these examples

A passage from Felix's paper showing how he introduces the opposing argument, builds common ground, then offers a rebuttal.

Now let’s take a look at another example:

Janae is also writing her argument paper on why NSU should not have cut funding to the library. During her research, though, she found evidence that some people on campus feel that the library has been careless with previous funding by mismanaging a $200,000 direct donation. Janae looked closer into the library budget, however, and found that the $200,000 donation was used to establish an emergency account for future years when funding did not meet their anticipated needs. Janae included as a source an editorial from the school newspaper written by a non-library faculty member who argued that since the library squandered $200,000, it should lose funding in favor of the student union and new Engineering building.

See Janae’s example in the passage below, and again, read over the annotations to see how she uses parts of the formula:

A passage from Janae's paper showing her paragraph along with some comments in the sidebar that point out her respectful language.

Notice how each student has a different goal and approach, yet they both still use parts of the formula to help them accomplish their rhetorical aims.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/20287

Contributors and Attributions

Rebuttal and Refutation. Provided by : University of Mississippi. Project : PLATO Project. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Unit 6: Argumentative Essay Writing

41 Counterargument and Refutation Development

In an argumentative essay, you need to convince your audience that your opinion is the most valid opinion. To do so, your essay needs to be balanced—it needs an opposing (opposite) viewpoint, known as a counter-argument . Even though you are arguing one side of an issue, you must include what someone from the other side would say. After your opponent’s view, include a refutation to demonstrate why the other point of view is wrong.

Identifying Counterarguments

There are many ways to identify alternative perspectives.

Have an imaginary dialogue with a "devil's advocate."
Discuss your topic with a classmate or group of classmates.
Interview someone who holds the opposite opinion.
Read about the topic to learn more about different perspectives.

Example Argument

In the conversation below the writer talks to someone with the opposite opinion. Roberto thinks professors should incorporate Facebook into their teaching. Fatima argues the opposing side. This discussion helps the writer identify a counterargument.

Roberto: I think professors should incorporate Facebook into their teaching . Students could connect with each other in and out of the classroom. ( Position and pro-argument )

Fatima : Hmmm… that could work, but I don’t think it’s a very good idea . Not all students are on Facebook. Some students don’t want to create accounts and share their private information. ( Counterargument )

Roberto: Well…. students could create an account that’s just for the course.

Fatima : Maybe, but some students won’t want to use their personal accounts and would find it troublesome to create an additional “temporary class account.” Plus, I think more young people prefer Instagram.

Example Counterargument paragraph

Roberto used information from the conversation and evidence from sources to write the counterargument paragraph. This paragraph concludes with a concession of validity and is followed by the refutation.

Example Refutation paragraph

Counterargument and refutation stems.

Below are the stems organized in a table.

Watch this video

The video refers to counterarguments as “counterclaims” and refutations as “rebuttals.

From: Karen Baxley

someone who presents a counterargument; someone who pretends to be against the issue for the sake of discussing the issue

Share This Book

Literary Devices

Literary devices, terms, and elements, definition of refutation.

A refutation is a statement that proves, or attempts to prove, that another statement is false. Refutations occur in arguments, whether informal or formal. Formal refutations require evidence or logic that contradicts the original statement the speaker wants to disprove. These types of refutations require logos (an appeal to logic or reason). Informal refutations, however, may deal more with pathos (an appeal to emotion). These types of refutations would not probably hold up in a court of law or official debate, yet they are common in speeches and normal conversation when someone doesn’t have enough evidence to prove his or her point, or want to strike a different chord with the audience.

The definition of refutation developed in the mid-1500s from the Latin word refutationem , which means “disproof of a claim or argument.”

Common Examples of Refutation

Some famous orators have included informal refutations in their speeches as appeals to the emotions of their audiences. The following examples of refutations also include hypophora examples, in which the speaker poses a question or opinion and immediately answers it.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

—Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream” speech

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

—Barack Obama, 2004 DNC Keynote address

Significance of Refutation in Literature

Refutation examples are most commonly found in formal logical arguments. Therefore, they are not so common in works of literature, as literature generally does not have as much of a point to prove as a debate might. However, some examples of refutation can be found in courtroom scenes in literature. We’ll take a look below at three of the most famous courtroom scenes in all of literature and see how refutations work in these scenes.

Examples of Refutation in Literature

PORTIA And you must cut this flesh from off his breast: The law allows it, and the court awards it. SHYLOCK Most learned judge! A sentence! Come, prepare! PORTIA Tarry a little; there is something else. This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood; The words expressly are ‘a pound of flesh:’ Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh; But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate Unto the state of Venice.

( The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare)

Portia dresses herself as a male lawyer in William Shakespeare’s drama The Merchant of Venice , and very carefully constructs her argument. At issue is a bond that a man named Antonio has not paid to a money lender named Shylock; in their contract Antonio has promised that Shylock may take a pound of his flesh if the bond goes unpaid. The matter goes to court, and Portia logically argues that, while Shylock is entitled to a pound of flesh, he may not spill any of Antonio’s blood. Portia successfully refutes Shylock’s claim to this pound of flesh and, in so doing, saves Antonio.

What did her father do? We don’t know, but there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led most exclusively with his left. We do know in part what Mr. Ewell did: he did what any God-fearing, preserving, respectable white man would do under circumstances—he swore a warrant, no doubt signing with his left hand, and Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses—his right hand.

( To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee)

Atticus Finch, the father of Harper Lee’s narrator in To Kill a Mockingbird , is a well-respected defense attorney in the town of Maycomb. However, he is in a difficult case as he represents an African-American man named Tom Robinson against a charge of rape. The difficulty is not in the evidence, but instead in the prejudice against Tom. Indeed, Atticus is easily able to provide a refutation example in this passage. Atticus argues that the girl Mayella was beaten by someone who would use his left hand, and Tom is unable to use his left hand. However, he knows this logical refutation that includes tangible evidence is not enough to overcome the emotional prejudice against Tom.

GILES: My proof is there! Pointing to the paper : If Jacob hangs for a witch he forfeit up his property—that’s law! And there is none but Putnam with the coin to buy so great a piece. This man is killing his neighbors for their land! DANFORTH: But proof, sir, proof. GILES: Pointing at his deposition : The proof is there! I have it from an honest man who heard Putnam say it! The day his daughter cried out on Jacobs, he said she’d given him a fair gift of land.

( The Crucible by Arthur Miller)

The case in Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible concerns accusations of witchcraft against many of the inhabitants of the citizens of Salem. It is difficult to argue against these accusations, as there is almost no evidence that a person could show to prove he or she was not a witch. Instead, the character of Giles attempts to make an example of refutation by proving what someone else might have to gain by other citizens being accused and later killed for being witches. Giles’s refutation is that a man named Putnam stands to inherit the land, and therefore has supported false accusations for his own monetary gain. Unfortunately, as in To Kill a Mockingbird , this evidence toward a logical reason why there might be such a witch hunt cannot overcome the emotional fear of witches in the community.

Test Your Knowledge of Refutation

1. Which of the following statements is the best refutation definition? A. A piece of evidence supporting a certain argument. B. A statement that proves another claim is false. C. A statement that is untrue. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #1″] Answer: B is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

2. Which of the following is NOT a method in which someone would want to make a refutation to an argument? A. An intentional fallacy. B. An appeal to reason. C. A piece of evidence. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #2″] Answer: A is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

3. Consider the following passage from the courtroom scene in William Shakespeare’s play The Winter’s Tale in which Hermione has been accused of adultery by her husband, Leontes:

HERMIONE: Since what I am to say must be but that Which contradicts my accusation and The testimony on my part no other But what comes from myself, it shall scarce boot me To say ‘not guilty:’ mine integrity Being counted falsehood, shall, as I express it, Be so received. But thus: if powers divine Behold our human actions, as they do, I doubt not then but innocence shall make False accusation blush and tyranny Tremble at patience.

How is Hermione attempting to refute the accusation that she has been unfaithful to her husband? A. She has tangible proof to show to the court that will guarantee her innocence. B. She is constructing a logical case that no one will be able to deny. C. She is appealing to emotion, since she only has her own word to hold up against her husband’s. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #3″] Answer: C is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

3. Consider the following passage from Arthur Miller’s The Crucible:

PROCTOR: He takes out a paper, and turns to Danforth : This is Mary Warren’s deposition….She swears now that she never saw Satan; nor any spirit, vague or clear, that Satan may have sent to hurt her. And she declares her friends are lying now.

Which of the following methods is Proctor trying to use to issue a refutation to the charges of witchcraft? A. Evidence in the form of a deposition. B. Emotional proof that none of the girls could have been telling the truth. C. A false piece of proof that the court will likely throw out in favor of better evidence. [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #4″] Answer: A is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Rebuttals and Refutations

introduction to rebuttal and refutation of counterargument.

An integral part of composing a strong argument is including a counterargument. This can be difficult, especially if a writer is arguing for a position s/he already agrees with. In such cases, writers can sometimes make good points to support their stances; however, their arguments are vulnerable unless they anticipate and address counterarguments. When a writer does this, it is often referred to as rebuttal or refutation. Some scholars of rhetoric differentiate the two words in terms of whether you can actually disprove a claim or just argue against it; however, in this section, we will use the terms as basically interchangeable to help get you more used to their function in argument. When writers are able to skillfully rebut or refute a view that runs counter to their claims, it strengthens their work. Rebuttal and refutation are common in all types of arguments, including academic arguments. As you complete more advanced work in college, you will be expected to address counterargument often. And while you might not always need to or be able to prove that other points of view are wrong, you may at least need to try to argue against them.

Formula for Refutation and Rebuttal

Though writers may handle rebuttal and refutation in different ways, there is a formula for success in academic argument. Here are the key parts of that formula:

Accurately represent opposing viewpoints

If you don’t accurately and thoroughly represent opposing viewpoints in your own writing, some of your potential audience will automatically be turned off. Good rebuttal and refutation begins with a solid understanding of all possible points of view on your topic. That may mean you even need to acknowledge and accommodate opposing points of view. Acknowledging other views shows you are aware of ideas that run counter to your claims. You will almost always be expected to at least acknowledge such views in your work. You may also, though, need to accommodate opposing views, especially if many people see them as reasonable. If, for example, you were writing a piece arguing that students should take a gap year between high school and college, it would benefit your work to acknowledge that a gap year isn’t realistic for or even desired by all students. You may further accommodate this other view by explaining how some students may thrive in the structure that school provides and would gain by going directly from high school to college. Remember that even if you cannot prove positions that counter your own are wrong, you can still use rebuttal and refutation to show why they might be problematic, flawed, or just not as good as another possible position for some people.

Illustration showing a green map of the world overlaid with the "coexist" icon and human figures in various colors.

Use a respectful, non-incendiary tone

It doesn’t help the writer’s cause to offend, upset, or alienate potential readers, even those who hold differing views. Treating all potential readers with respect and avoiding words or phrases that belittle people and/or their views will help you get your points across more effectively. For example, if you are writing a paper on why America would benefit from a third viable major political party, it will not help your cause to write that “Republicans are dumb, and Democrats are whiny.” First, those claims are too general. But even if they weren’t, they won’t help your cause. If you choose to break down the perceived problems with members of political parties, you must do so in a way that is as respectful as possible. Calling someone a name or insulting them (directly or indirectly) is very rarely a successful strategy in argument.

Use reliable information in your rebuttal/refutation

Always be sure to carefully check the ideas or claims you make in rebutting a counterargument. The brain is not an infallible computer, and there are instances when we think we know information is accurate but it isn’t. Sometimes we know a lot about a particular subject but we get information confused or time has changed things a bit. Additionally, we may be tempted to use a source that backs up our ideas perfectly, but it might not be the most reputable, credible, or up-to-date place for information. Don’t assume you just have all of the information to shoot down counterarguments. Use your knowledge, but also do thorough research, double- and triple-check information, and look for sources that are likely to carry weight with readers. For example, it is widely assumed that bulls are attracted to the color red; however, in reality, bulls are colorblind, so what many people assume as fact is incorrect. Be thorough so you have confidence in your claims when you are rebutting/refuting and likewise when you are attempting to prevent yourself from being open to rebuttal/refutation.

Use qualifying words when applicable

Qualifying words are terms such as “many,” “most,” “some,” “might,” “rarely,” “doubtful,” “often,” etc. You get the point. These are words that don’t lock you into a claim that could be easily refuted and that can help you more easily rebut counterarguments. For example, if someone says, “Nobody dies of tuberculosis anymore,” we might get the point that it isn’t as common as it used to be. Still, it isn’t an accurate statement, and a more precise way to phrase such a claim would be to qualify it: “Not many people die each year in America from tuberculosis.” You might not always need to use qualifying terms. If you are making a point that is absolute, feel free to make it strongly; however, if there is a need to give your claim more flexibility, use qualifying words to help you.

Now let’s take a look at examples of rebuttal and refutation to further your understanding:

Download the PDF of these examples.

Felix has done his research, and he knows that a couple of the main counterarguments are that the school needs funds to renovate the student union and to construct a new building for the Engineering Department. Thus, he can anticipate counterarguments and include them in his paper. While Felix cannot prove beyond doubt that the school should use more funding for the library instead of addressing other needs, he can try to make the case.

Read over Felix’s passage below to see how he strengthens his case, and note the annotations to help you see parts of the formula in action:

Notice how each student has a different goal and approach, yet they both still use parts of the formula to help them accomplish their rhetorical aims.

Share This Book

Consider the following thesis for a short paper that analyzes different approaches to stopping climate change:

Climate activism that focuses on personal actions such as recycling obscures the need for systemic change that will be required to slow carbon emissions.

The author of this thesis is promising to make the case that personal actions not only will not solve the climate problem but may actually make the problem more difficult to solve. In order to make a convincing argument, the author will need to consider how thoughtful people might disagree with this claim. In this case, the author might anticipate the following counterarguments:

By encouraging personal actions, climate activists may raise awareness of the problem and encourage people to support larger systemic change.
Personal actions on a global level would actually make a difference.
Personal actions may not make a difference, but they will not obscure the need for systemic solutions.
Personal actions cannot be put into one category and must be differentiated.

In order to make a convincing argument, the author of this essay may need to address these potential counterarguments. But you don’t need to address every possible counterargument. Rather, you should engage counterarguments when doing so allows you to strengthen your own argument by explaining how it holds up in relation to other arguments.

How to address counterarguments

Once you have considered the potential counterarguments, you will need to figure out how to address them in your essay. In general, to address a counterargument, you’ll need to take the following steps.

State the counterargument and explain why a reasonable reader could raise that counterargument.
Counter the counterargument. How you grapple with a counterargument will depend on what you think it means for your argument. You may explain why your argument is still convincing, even in light of this other position. You may point to a flaw in the counterargument. You may concede that the counterargument gets something right but then explain why it does not undermine your argument. You may explain why the counterargument is not relevant. You may refine your own argument in response to the counterargument.
Consider the language you are using to address the counterargument. Words like but or however signal to the reader that you are refuting the counterargument. Words like nevertheless or still signal to the reader that your argument is not diminished by the counterargument.

Here’s an example of a paragraph in which a counterargument is raised and addressed.

Image version

The two steps are marked with counterargument and “counter” to the counterargument: COUNTERARGUMENT/ But some experts argue that it’s important for individuals to take action to mitigate climate change. In “All That Performative Environmentalism Adds Up,” Annie Lowery argues that personal actions to fight climate change, such as reducing household trash or installing solar panels, matter because change in social behavior can lead to changes in laws. [1]

COUNTER TO THE COUNTERARGUMENT/ While Lowery may be correct that individual actions can lead to collective action, this focus on individual action can allow corporations to receive positive publicity while continuing to burn fossil fuels at dangerous rates.

Where to address counterarguments

There is no one right place for a counterargument—where you raise a particular counterargument will depend on how it fits in with the rest of your argument. The most common spots are the following:

Before your conclusion This is a common and effective spot for a counterargument because it’s a chance to address anything that you think a reader might still be concerned about after you’ve made your main argument. Don’t put a counterargument in your conclusion, however. At that point, you won’t have the space to address it, and readers may come away confused—or less convinced by your argument.
Before your thesis Often, your thesis will actually be a counterargument to someone else’s argument. In other words, you will be making your argument because someone else has made an argument that you disagree with. In those cases, you may want to offer that counterargument before you state your thesis to show your readers what’s at stake—someone else has made an unconvincing argument, and you are now going to make a better one.
After your introduction In some cases, you may want to respond to a counterargument early in your essay, before you get too far into your argument. This is a good option when you think readers may need to understand why the counterargument is not as strong as your argument before you can even launch your own ideas. You might do this in the paragraph right after your thesis.
Anywhere that makes sense As you draft an essay, you should always keep your readers in mind and think about where a thoughtful reader might disagree with you or raise an objection to an assertion or interpretation of evidence that you are offering. In those spots, you can introduce that potential objection and explain why it does not change your argument. If you think it does affect your argument, you can acknowledge that and explain why your argument is still strong.

[1] Annie Lowery, “All that Performative Environmentalism Adds Up.” The Atlantic . August 31, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/your-tote-bag-can-mak…

picture_as_pdf Counterargument

Module: Academic Argument

Formula for refutation and rebuttal, learning objective.

Recognize strategies for rebuttal and refutation of counterargument

Though writers may handle rebuttal and refutation in different ways, there is a formula for success in academic argument. Here are the key parts of that formula:

Accurately represent opposing viewpoints

Use a respectful, non-incendiary tone

Use reliable information in your rebuttal/refutation

Use qualifying words when applicable to help you be more accurate and to avoid locking you into an absolute claim

Qualifying words are terms such as “many,” “most,” “some,” “might,” “rarely,” “doubtful,” “often,” etc. You get the point. These are words that don’t lock you into a claim that could be easily refuted and that can help you more easily rebut counterarguments. For example, if someone says “Nobody dies of tuberculosis anymore” we might get the point that it isn’t as common as it used to be. Still, it isn’t an accurate statement, and a more precise way to phrase such a claim would be to qualify it: “Not many people die each year in America from tuberculosis.” You might not always need to use qualifying terms. If you are making a point that is absolute, feel free to make it strongly; however, if there is a need to give your claim more flexibility, use qualifying words to help you.

Rebuttal and Refutation. Provided by : University of Mississippi. Project : PLATO Project. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs). These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets. Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Organizing Your Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

How can I effectively present my argument?

In order for your argument to be persuasive, it must use an organizational structure that the audience perceives as both logical and easy to parse. Three argumentative methods —the Toulmin Method , Classical Method , and Rogerian Method — give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument.

Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment’s directions if you’re unsure which to use (if any).

Toulmin Method

The Toulmin Method is a formula that allows writers to build a sturdy logical foundation for their arguments. First proposed by author Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument (1958), the Toulmin Method emphasizes building a thorough support structure for each of an argument's key claims.

The basic format for the Toulmin Method is as follows:

Claim: In this section, you explain your overall thesis on the subject. In other words, you make your main argument.

Data (Grounds): You should use evidence to support the claim. In other words, provide the reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.

Warrant (Bridge): In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. As a result, the underlying assumption that you build your argument on is grounded in reason.

Backing (Foundation): Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.

Counterclaim: You should anticipate a counterclaim that negates the main points in your argument. Don't avoid arguments that oppose your own. Instead, become familiar with the opposing perspective. If you respond to counterclaims, you appear unbiased (and, therefore, you earn the respect of your readers). You may even want to include several counterclaims to show that you have thoroughly researched the topic.

Rebuttal: In this section, you incorporate your own evidence that disagrees with the counterclaim. It is essential to include a thorough warrant or bridge to strengthen your essay’s argument. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis, your readers may not make a connection between the two, or they may draw different conclusions.

Example of the Toulmin Method:

Claim: Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.

Data1: Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air-polluting activity.

Warrant 1: Due to the fact that cars are the largest source of private (as opposed to industrial) air pollution, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.

Data 2: Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.

Warrant 2: Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that the decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.

Data 3: Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.

Warrant 3: The combination of these technologies produces less pollution.

Counterclaim: Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages an inefficient culture of driving even as it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging the use of mass transit systems.

Rebuttal: While mass transit is an idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work. Thus, hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.

Rogerian Method

The Rogerian Method (named for, but not developed by, influential American psychotherapist Carl R. Rogers) is a popular method for controversial issues. This strategy seeks to find a common ground between parties by making the audience understand perspectives that stretch beyond (or even run counter to) the writer’s position. Moreso than other methods, it places an emphasis on reiterating an opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction. The persuasive power of the Rogerian Method lies in its ability to define the terms of the argument in such a way that:

your position seems like a reasonable compromise.
you seem compassionate and empathetic.

The basic format of the Rogerian Method is as follows:

Introduction: Introduce the issue to the audience, striving to remain as objective as possible.

Opposing View : Explain the other side’s position in an unbiased way. When you discuss the counterargument without judgement, the opposing side can see how you do not directly dismiss perspectives which conflict with your stance.

Statement of Validity (Understanding): This section discusses how you acknowledge how the other side’s points can be valid under certain circumstances. You identify how and why their perspective makes sense in a specific context, but still present your own argument.

Statement of Your Position: By this point, you have demonstrated that you understand the other side’s viewpoint. In this section, you explain your own stance.

Statement of Contexts : Explore scenarios in which your position has merit. When you explain how your argument is most appropriate for certain contexts, the reader can recognize that you acknowledge the multiple ways to view the complex issue.

Statement of Benefits: You should conclude by explaining to the opposing side why they would benefit from accepting your position. By explaining the advantages of your argument, you close on a positive note without completely dismissing the other side’s perspective.

Example of the Rogerian Method:

Introduction: The issue of whether children should wear school uniforms is subject to some debate.

Opposing View: Some parents think that requiring children to wear uniforms is best.

Statement of Validity (Understanding): Those parents who support uniforms argue that, when all students wear the same uniform, the students can develop a unified sense of school pride and inclusiveness.

Statement of Your Position : Students should not be required to wear school uniforms. Mandatory uniforms would forbid choices that allow students to be creative and express themselves through clothing.

Statement of Contexts: However, even if uniforms might hypothetically promote inclusivity, in most real-life contexts, administrators can use uniform policies to enforce conformity. Students should have the option to explore their identity through clothing without the fear of being ostracized.

Statement of Benefits: Though both sides seek to promote students' best interests, students should not be required to wear school uniforms. By giving students freedom over their choice, students can explore their self-identity by choosing how to present themselves to their peers.

Classical Method

The Classical Method of structuring an argument is another common way to organize your points. Originally devised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and then later developed by Roman thinkers like Cicero and Quintilian), classical arguments tend to focus on issues of definition and the careful application of evidence. Thus, the underlying assumption of classical argumentation is that, when all parties understand the issue perfectly, the correct course of action will be clear.

The basic format of the Classical Method is as follows:

Introduction (Exordium): Introduce the issue and explain its significance. You should also establish your credibility and the topic’s legitimacy.

Statement of Background (Narratio): Present vital contextual or historical information to the audience to further their understanding of the issue. By doing so, you provide the reader with a working knowledge about the topic independent of your own stance.

Proposition (Propositio): After you provide the reader with contextual knowledge, you are ready to state your claims which relate to the information you have provided previously. This section outlines your major points for the reader.

Proof (Confirmatio): You should explain your reasons and evidence to the reader. Be sure to thoroughly justify your reasons. In this section, if necessary, you can provide supplementary evidence and subpoints.

Refutation (Refuatio): In this section, you address anticipated counterarguments that disagree with your thesis. Though you acknowledge the other side’s perspective, it is important to prove why your stance is more logical.

Conclusion (Peroratio): You should summarize your main points. The conclusion also caters to the reader’s emotions and values. The use of pathos here makes the reader more inclined to consider your argument.

Example of the Classical Method:

Introduction (Exordium): Millions of workers are paid a set hourly wage nationwide. The federal minimum wage is standardized to protect workers from being paid too little. Research points to many viewpoints on how much to pay these workers. Some families cannot afford to support their households on the current wages provided for performing a minimum wage job .

Statement of Background (Narratio): Currently, millions of American workers struggle to make ends meet on a minimum wage. This puts a strain on workers’ personal and professional lives. Some work multiple jobs to provide for their families.

Proposition (Propositio): The current federal minimum wage should be increased to better accommodate millions of overworked Americans. By raising the minimum wage, workers can spend more time cultivating their livelihoods.

Proof (Confirmatio): According to the United States Department of Labor, 80.4 million Americans work for an hourly wage, but nearly 1.3 million receive wages less than the federal minimum. The pay raise will alleviate the stress of these workers. Their lives would benefit from this raise because it affects multiple areas of their lives.

Refutation (Refuatio): There is some evidence that raising the federal wage might increase the cost of living. However, other evidence contradicts this or suggests that the increase would not be great. Additionally, worries about a cost of living increase must be balanced with the benefits of providing necessary funds to millions of hardworking Americans.

Conclusion (Peroratio): If the federal minimum wage was raised, many workers could alleviate some of their financial burdens. As a result, their emotional wellbeing would improve overall. Though some argue that the cost of living could increase, the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Find Study Materials for

Business Studies
Combined Science
Computer Science
Engineering
English Literature
Environmental Science
Human Geography
Macroeconomics
Microeconomics
Social Studies
Browse all subjects
Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

Debate is naturally adversarial. While the main objective is to thoroughly convince the audience of your perspective, the other major objective is to try to disprove your opponent’s stance. There are multiple ways you can do this, but the goal in a debate is to refute the opposing argument .

Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.

Explanations
StudySmarter AI
Textbook Solutions
5 Paragraph Essay
Argumentative Essay
Cues and Conventions
English Grammar
English Language Study
Essay Prompts
Essay Writing Skills
Global English
History of English Language
International English
Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics
Language Acquisition
Language Analysis
Language and Social Groups
Lexis and Semantics
Linguistic Terms
Listening and Speaking
Multiple Choice Questions
Research and Composition
Action Verbs
Adjectival Clause
Adverbial Clause
Anthropomorphism
Appositive Phrase
Argument from Authority
Argumentation
Auditory Description
Basic Rhetorical Modes
Begging the Question
Building Credibility
Causal Flaw
Causal Relationships
Cause and Effect Rhetorical Mode
Central Idea
Chronological Description
Circular Reasoning
Circumlocution
Classical Appeals
Classification
Close Reading
Coherence Between Sentences
Coherence within Paragraphs
Coherences within Sentences
Complex Rhetorical Modes
Compound Complex Sentences
Concessions
Concrete Adjectives
Concrete Nouns
Consistent Voice
Counter Argument
Definition by Negation
Description
Description Rhetorical Mode
Direct Discourse
Equivocation
Extended Metaphor
False Connections
False Dichotomy
False Equivalence
Faulty Analogy
Faulty Causality
Fear Arousing
Gustatory Description
Hasty Generalization
Illustration
Induction Rhetoric
Levels of Coherence
Line of Reasoning
Missing the Point
Modifiers that Qualify
Modifiers that Specify
Narration Rhetorical Mode
Non-Sequitur
Non-Testable Hypothesis
Objective Description
Olfactory Description
Paragraphing
Parenthetical Element
Participial Phrase
Personal Narrative
Placement of Modifiers
Post-Hoc Argument
Process Analysis Rhetorical Mode
Red Herring
Reverse Causation
Rhetorical Fallacy
Rhetorical Modes
Rhetorical Question
Rhetorical Situation
Scare Tactics
Sentimental Appeals
Situational Irony
Slippery Slope
Spatial Description
Straw Man Argument
Subject Consistency
Subjective Description
Tactile Description
Tense Consistency
Tone and Word Choice
Transitions
Twisting the Language Around
Unstated Assumption
Verbal Irony
Visual Description
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
Single Paragraph Essay
Sociolinguistics
Summary Text
Synthesis Essay
Textual Analysis

Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken

Nie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.

Refutations, Opposing faces with brains outlined, StudySmarter

Refutation Definition

To refute something is to give evidence that proves it is untrue or impossible. A refutation is the act of definitively proving something wrong.

Refutation vs. Rebuttal

Although they’re often used interchangeably, refutation and rebuttal do not mean the same thing.

A rebuttal is a response to an argument that tries to prove it untrue by offering a different, logical perspective.

A refutation is a response to an argument that decisively demonstrates that the opposing argument cannot be true.

Neither of these terms should be confused with the made-up word “refudiate,” which has come to loosely mean to deny or refuse something. Although this word entered the public lexicon in 2010 after a US politician used it to argue their point, it’s not preferable for academic writing.

The difference between a refutation and rebuttal hinges on whether the opposite argument can be conclusively disproved. To do so, you must provide factual evidence of its inaccuracy; otherwise, it isn’t a refutation, it’s a rebuttal.

Refutation Examples

There are three specific ways to successfully refute an argument: through evidence, logic, or minimization.

Refutation Through Evidence

A good argument stands on evidence, whether that’s statistical data, quotes from an expert, firsthand experiences, or any objective findings of a topic. Just as an argument can be built up by evidence that supports it, an argument can be destroyed by evidence that disproves it.

Evidence can refute an argument by:

Definitively supporting the accuracy or truth of the opposing argument when it is an either-or discussion (i.e., argument A and argument B cannot both be true).

Some people argue that remote education is just as good as in-person instruction, but numerous studies have linked a rise in behavioral issues to young students in remote learning situations. Unless we argue that a child’s well-being is irrelevant, remote education is not “just as good as” in-person schooling.

Definitively disproving the truth of the argument with more recent or more accurate evidence.

In one of the courtroom scenes in To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) by Harper Lee, Atticus Finch uses evidence to refute the possibility of Tom Robinson’s being able to beat Mayella Ewell:

…[T]here is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led most exclusively with his left. We do know in part what Mr. Ewell did: he did what any God-fearing, preserving, respectable white man would do under circumstances—he swore a warrant, no doubt signing with his left hand, and Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses—his right hand. (Chapter 20)

This evidence essentially makes it impossible for Tom Robinson to have been the attacker because he cannot use the hand that is known to have beaten Mayella. In a fair trial, this evidence would have been monumental, but Atticus knows there is emotional and illogical prejudice facing Tom because of his race.

Refutation Through Logic

In a refutation through logic, an argument can be discredited because of a flaw in logic, which is called a logical fallacy .

A logical fallacy is the use of flawed or incorrect reasoning to construct an argument. Because many arguments find their basis in a logical structure, a logical fallacy essentially refutes the argument unless it can be proven by another means.

Suppose someone makes the following argument:

“Books always have more information about what the characters are thinking than movies. The best stories are those that offer lots of insight into what the characters are experiencing. Therefore, books will always be better at storytelling than movies.”

There is a logical fallacy in this argument, and can be refuted like this:

The premise—that the best stories are those that include the character’s thoughts—is not logically solid because there are many acclaimed stories that do not include the characters’ thoughts at all. Take, for example, the film The Sound of Music (1965) ; there is no internal narrative coming from the characters, and yet this is a beloved story and classic movie.

As a result of the logical fallacy, the conclusion—that books are better at telling stories than movies—can be refuted unless the arguer presents a more logically sound argument. When the premise does not support the conclusion, this is called a non-sequitur, which is a type of logical fallacy.

Refutation Through Minimization

Refutation by minimization occurs when the writer or speaker points out that the opposing argument is not as central to the issue as their opponent thought. This might be because it is a more peripheral, or less-important concern.

Refutations, Hot air balloon looks small from far away, StudySmarter

This type of refutation is effective because it essentially proves that the opposing argument is not relevant to the discussion and can be dismissed.

Consider the following argument:

“Only women can write characters in the opposite gender with any depth, because for centuries they have been reading books written by men, and therefore have more insight into the opposite sex.”

This argument can easily be refuted by minimizing the pivotal premise (i.e., writers have a difficult time writing characters of the opposite gender).

The assumption that a writer must share the same gender as their characters to have the insight to fully develop their personality is a mistake. There are countless examples of beloved characters written by members of the opposite gender to suggest otherwise; Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy ( Anna Karenina (1878)) , Victor Frankenstein by Mary Shelley ( Frankenstein (1818)), and Beatrice by William Shakespeare ( Much Ado About Nothing (1623)), to name just a few.

Concession and Refutation

It might seem counterintuitive to mention the opposing viewpoints in your argument, but a concession can really help convince an audience to agree with you. By including a concession with your argument, you illustrate that you have a solid understanding of the entire scope of your topic. You show yourself to be a well-rounded thinker, which helps eliminate concerns of a bias.

Concession is a rhetorical device where the speaker or writer addresses a claim made by their opponent, either to acknowledge its validity or to offer a counterargument to that claim.

If someone presents not only a solid argument in their favor, but also a concession of the opposing side(s), then their argument is that much stronger. If that same person can also refute the opposing argument, then that’s essentially a checkmate to the opponent.

Four basic steps to refutation can be remembered with the four S's:

Signal : Identify the claim you are answering ( “They say…” )

State : Make your counterargument ( “But…” )

Support : Offer support for your claim (evidence, statistics, details, etc.) ( “Because…” )

Summarize : Explain the importance of your argument ( “Therefore…” )

Refutation in Writing Argumentative Essays

To write an effective argumentative essay , you must include a thorough discussion of the issue—especially if you want your reader to believe that you understand the discussion at hand. This means you must always address the opposing viewpoint(s) by writing a concession. A concession to the opposition builds your credibility, but you shouldn’t stop there.

Argumentative essays contain the following key elements:

A debatable thesis statement , which outlines the main argument and some evidence to support it.

An argument, which breaks down the thesis into individual parts to support it with evidence, reasoning, data, or statistics.

A counterargument, which explains the opposing viewpoint.

A concession, which explains the way(s) in which the opposing view could contain some truth.

A rebuttal or refutation, which gives reasons why the opposing viewpoint is not as strong as the original argument.

If you intend to provide a refutation of the counterargument, then a thorough concession is not especially necessary or effective.

When you refute an argument, the audience will essentially have to agree that that argument is no longer valid. That doesn’t necessarily mean that your argument is the only option left, though, so you must continue to provide support for your argument.

Refutation Paragraph

You can place the refutation anywhere in the body of your essay. A few common places are:

In the introduction, before your thesis statement .

In the section right after your introduction in which you explain a common position on the subject that needs to be re-examined.

Within another body paragraph as a way to address smaller counterarguments that arise.

In the section right before your conclusion in which you address any potential responses to your argument.

When you’re presenting a refutation, use words like, “however” and “although” to transition from acknowledging the opposition (the concession) to introducing your refutation.

Many people believe X. However, it is important to remember…

Although the common perception is X, there is evidence to suggest…

Part of writing an impactful refutation is keeping a respectful tone when discussing any counterarguments. This means avoiding harsh or excessively negative language when discussing the opposition, and keeping your language neutral as you transition from the concession to your refutation.

Refutations - Key Takeaways

Refutation is the act of definitively proving something wrong.
The difference between a refutation and rebuttal hinges on whether the opposite argument can be conclusively disproved.
There are three specific ways to successfully refute an argument, and they are through evidence, logic, and minimization.
A good argument will include a concession, which is where the speaker or writer acknowledges the opposing argument.
In an argument, the concession is followed by a refutation (if possible).

Frequently Asked Questions about Refutation

--> what are types of refutations.

There are three types of refutations: refutation by evidence, refutation by logic, and refutation by minimization.

--> What is a refutation in writing?

Refutation in writing is the action of definitively proving something wrong.

--> How do I write a refutation paragraph?

Write a refutation paragraph with the four S’s: Signal, state, support, summarize. Begin by signaling the opposing argument, then state your counterargument. Next, offer support for your stance, and finally, summarize by explaining the importance of your argument.

--> Are concession and refutation counterclaims?

A refutation is a counterclaim because it makes a claim about the initial counterargument presented by your opponent. A concession is not a counterclaim, it is merely a recognition of the counterarguments to your argument.

--> What is refutation through logic and evidence?

Refutation through logic is the refutation or discredit of an argument by way of identifying a logical fallacy in an argument. Refutation through evidence is discrediting an argument by offering evidence that proves the claim is impossible.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

True or false: Refutation and rebuttal are the same thing.

_______ is a response to an argument that tries to prove it untrue by offering a different, logical perspective.

A __________ is a response to an argument that decisively demonstrates that the opposing argument cannot be true.

Your score:

Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Learn with 15 refutation flashcards in the free studysmarter app.

Already have an account? Log in

What does “refutation” mean?

Refutation is the action of definitively proving something wrong.

_______ is a response to an argument that tries to prove it untrue by offering a different, logical perspective.

What is the key difference between a rebuttal and a refutation?

The difference between a refutation and a rebuttal hinges on whether the opposite argument can be conclusively disproved.

The three types of refutation are:

Refutation through evidence

Refutation through minimization

Refutation through _______

of the users don't pass the Refutation quiz! Will you pass the quiz?

How would you like to learn this content?

Free english cheat sheet!

Everything you need to know on . A perfect summary so you can easily remember everything.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

Flashcards & Quizzes
AI Study Assistant
Study Planner
Smart Note-Taking

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

This is still free to read, it's not a paywall.

You need to register to keep reading, create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Entdecke Lernmaterial in der StudySmarter-App

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Review Article
Published: 13 May 2024

Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation

Anastasia Kozyreva ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8037-9919 1 ,
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6319-4154 1 na1 ,
Stefan M. Herzog ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2329-6433 1 na1 ,
Ullrich K. H. Ecker ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4743-313X 2 na1 ,
Stephan Lewandowsky ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1655-2013 3 , 4 na1 ,
Ralph Hertwig ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9908-9556 1 na1 ,
Ayesha Ali 5 ,
Joe Bak-Coleman ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7590-3824 6 ,
Sarit Barzilai ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4224-0080 7 ,
Melisa Basol 8 ,
Adam J. Berinsky ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7827-9396 9 ,
Cornelia Betsch ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-7303 10 , 11 ,
John Cook 12 ,
Lisa K. Fazio ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0415-4862 13 ,
Michael Geers ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0602-5893 1 , 14 ,
Andrew M. Guess ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2974-7848 15 ,
Haifeng Huang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-0303 16 ,
Horacio Larreguy ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8491-6400 17 ,
Rakoen Maertens ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8507-5359 18 ,
Folco Panizza ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5178-5926 19 ,
Gordon Pennycook 20 , 21 ,
David G. Rand ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8975-2783 22 ,
Steve Rathje ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6727-571X 23 ,
Jason Reifler ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1116-7346 24 ,
Philipp Schmid ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2966-0806 10 , 11 , 25 ,
Mark Smith ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1048-7786 26 ,
Briony Swire-Thompson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7464-8940 27 ,
Paula Szewach ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4250-1447 24 , 28 ,
Sander van der Linden ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744 8 &
Sam Wineburg 26

Nature Human Behaviour ( 2024 ) Cite this article

541 Accesses

134 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human behaviour

The spread of misinformation through media and social networks threatens many aspects of society, including public health and the state of democracies. One approach to mitigating the effect of misinformation focuses on individual-level interventions, equipping policymakers and the public with essential tools to curb the spread and influence of falsehoods. Here we introduce a toolbox of individual-level interventions for reducing harm from online misinformation. Comprising an up-to-date account of interventions featured in 81 scientific papers from across the globe, the toolbox provides both a conceptual overview of nine main types of interventions, including their target, scope and examples, and a summary of the empirical evidence supporting the interventions, including the methods and experimental paradigms used to test them. The nine types of interventions covered are accuracy prompts, debunking and rebuttals, friction, inoculation, lateral reading and verification strategies, media-literacy tips, social norms, source-credibility labels, and warning and fact-checking labels.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Adults who microdose psychedelics report health related motivations and lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-microdosers

Interviews in the social sciences

Data availability.

All data are available at OSF ( https://osf.io/ejyh6 ) and in the online supplement ( https://interventionstoolbox.mpib-berlin.mpg.de ).

Code availability

All code is available at OSF ( https://osf.io/ejyh6 ).

Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359 , 1094–1096 (2018).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S. et al. Technology and Democracy: Understanding the Influence of Online Technologies on Political Behaviour and Decision Making JRC Science for Policy Report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (COM/2020/825 Final) , https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0269_EN.html#title2 (European Parliament, 2020).

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nat. Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 (2022).

Kozyreva, A., Smillie, L. & Lewandowsky, S. Incorporating psychological science into policy making. Eur. Psychol. 28 , 206–224 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S. et al. Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 54 , 101711 (2023).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Rosen, G. Remove, Reduce, Inform: New Steps to Manage Problematic Content, https://about.fb.com/news/2019/04/remove-reduce-inform-new-steps (Meta, 2019).

Douek, E. Governing online speech: from ‘posts-as-trumps’ to proportionality and probability. Columbia Law Rev. 121 , 759–834 (2021).

Google Scholar

Kozyreva, A. et al. Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120 , 2210666120 (2023).

Lewandowsky, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Databrary https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182 (2020).

Guess, A. M. et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 15536–15545 (2020).

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & Linden, S. Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91 (2020).

Roozenbeek, J., Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S. & Lewandowsky, S. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Sci. Adv. 8 , 6254 (2022).

Fazio, L. Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009 (2020).

Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592 , 590–595 (2021).

Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Polit. Behav. 42 , 1073–1095 (2020).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25 , 388–402 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 7313–7318 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: a model of news belief and sharing. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15 , 84–113 (2021).

Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D. & Ortega, T. Lateral reading on the open internet: a district-wide field study in high school government classes. J. Educ. Psychol. 114 , 893–909 (2022).

Osborne, J. et al. Science Education in an Age of Misinformation (Stanford Univ., 2022).

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R. & Hertwig, R. How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 1102–1109 (2020).

Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the internet: confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 21 , 103–156 (2020).

Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1 , 13–29 (2022).

Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E. & Suiter, J. Countering misinformation: evidence, knowledge gaps, and implications of current interventions. Eur. Psychol. 28 , 189–205 (2023).

Pennycook, G., Binnendyk, J., Newton, C. & Rand, D. G. A practical guide to doing behavioural research on fake news and misinformation. Collabra Psychol. 7 , 25293 (2020).

Wright, C. et al. Effects of brief exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms on Twitter: a randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Open 11 , 045445 (2021).

Badrinathan, S. Educative interventions to combat misinformation: evidence from a field experiment in India. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115 , 1325–1341 (2021).

Ziemer, C.-T. & Rothmund, T. Psychological underpinnings of misinformation countermeasures. J. Media Psychol . https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000407 (2024).

Geers, M. et al. The online misinformation engagement framework. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55 , 101739 (2023).

Hornsey, M. J. & Lewandowsky, S. A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 1454–1464 (2022).

Fasce, A. et al. A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 , 1462–1480 (2023).

Blair, R. A. et al. Interventions to counter misinformation: lessons from the Global North and applications to the Global South. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55 , 101732 (2024).

IJzerman, H. et al. Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 1092–1094 (2020).

Twitter Comms. More reading—people open articles 40% more often after seeing the prompt. X , https://web.archive.org/web/20220804154748/ ; https://twitter.com/twittercomms/status/1309178716988354561 (2020).

About Community Notes on X , https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/community-notes (accessed 16 February 2024).

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: The Final Edition (Yale Univ. Press, 2021).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nat. Commun. 13 , 2333 (2022).

X Support. Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it. X , https://twitter.com/twittersupport/status/1270783537667551233 (2020).

Andı, S. & Akesson, J. Nudging away false news: evidence from a social norms experiment. Digit. J. 9 , 106–125 (2020).

Hertwig, R. & Grüne-Yanoff, T. Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 973–986 (2017).

Brodsky, J. E. et al. Improving college students’ fact-checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6 , 23 (2021).

Panizza, F. et al. Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science. Sci. Rep. 12 , 5678 (2022).

Barzilai, S. et al. Misinformation is contagious: middle school students learn how to evaluate and share information responsibly through a digital game. Comput. Educ. 202 , 104832 (2023).

Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T. & Ecker, U. K. H. A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. Br. J. Psychol. 113 , 591–607 (2022).

Lewandowsky, S. & Linden, S. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 32 , 348–384 (2021).

Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Winneg, K. M. & Jamieson, K. H. Did fact checking matter in the 2012 presidential campaign? Am. Behav. Sci. 57 , 1558–1567 (2013).

Huang, H. A war of (mis)information: the political effects of rumors and rumor rebuttals in an authoritarian country. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 47 , 283–311 (2017).

Porter, E. & Wood, T. J. The global effectiveness of fact-checking: evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , 2104235118 (2021).

Porter, E., Velez, Y. & Wood, T. J. Correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in 10 countries. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10 , 221097 (2023).

Badrinathan, S. & Chauchard, S. ‘I don’t think that’s true, bro!’ Social corrections of misinformation in India. Int. J. Press Polit . https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612231158770 (2023).

Arechar, A. A. et al. Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 , 1502–1513 (2023).

Offer-Westort, M., Rosenzweig, L. R. & Athey, S. Battling the coronavirus 'infodemic' among social media users in Kenya and Nigeria. Nat. Hum. Behav., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01810-7 (2024).

Ali, A. & Qazi, I. A. Countering misinformation on social media through educational interventions: evidence from a randomized experiment in Pakistan. J. Dev. Econ. 163 , 103108 (2023).

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27 , 1–16 (2021).

Grady, R. H., Ditto, P. H. & Loftus, E. F. Nevertheless, partisanship persisted: fake news warnings help briefly, but bias returns with time. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 6 , 52 (2021).

Paynter, J. et al. Evaluation of a template for countering misinformation—real-world autism treatment myth debunking. PLoS ONE 14 , 0210746 (2019).

Ecker, U. K. H., Butler, L. H. & Hamby, A. You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 5 , 64 (2020).

Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3 , 931–939 (2019).

Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20 , 1420–1436 (1994).

Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K. & Morales, M. Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: the Iraq War 2003. Psychol. Sci. 16 , 190–195 (2005).

Guay, B., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. How to think about whether misinformation interventions work. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 , 1231–1233 (2023).

Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Field experiments on social media. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31 , 69–75 (2021).

Aslett, K., Guess, A. M., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. News credibility labels have limited average effects on news diet quality and fail to reduce misperceptions. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabl3844 (2022).

Carleton Athey, S., Cersosimo, M., Koutout, K. & Li, Z. Emotion- versus Reasoning-Based Drivers of Misinformation Sharing: A Field Experiment Using Text Message Courses in Kenya Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 4489759 (SSRN, 2023).

Almaatouq, A. et al. Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002874 (2022).

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019).

Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t -tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 4 , 62627 (2013).

Pek, J. & Flora, D. B. Reporting effect sizes in original psychological research: a discussion and tutorial. Psychol. Methods 23 , 208–225 (2018).

Sharp, C., Kaplan, R. M. & Strauman, T. J. The use of ontologies to accelerate the behavioral sciences: promises and challenges. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 32 , 418–426 (2023).

Spadaro, G. et al. The Cooperation Databank: machine-readable science accelerates research synthesis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 1472–1489 (2022).

Cooper, H. & Patall, E. A. The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychol. Methods 14 , 165–176 (2009).

Forscher, P. S. et al. The benefits, barriers, and risks of big-team science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18 , 607–623 (2022).

Duckworth, A. L. & Milkman, K. L. A guide to megastudies. PNAS Nexus 5 , pgac214 (2022).

Hameiri, B. & Moore-Berg, S. L. Intervention tournaments: an overview of concept, design, and implementation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 1525–1540 (2022).

Susmann, M., Fazio, L., Rand, D. G. & Lewandowsky, S. Mercury Project Misinformation Intervention Comparison Study. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FE8C4 (2023).

Roozenbeek, J. et al. Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17 , 547–573 (2022).

Reijula, S. & Hertwig, R. Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behav. Public Policy 6 , 119–149 (2022).

Bak-Coleman, J. B. et al. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 1372–1380 (2022).

Bode, L. & Vraga, E. The Swiss cheese model for mitigating online misinformation. Bull. At. Sci. 77 , 129–133 (2021).

Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S. & Dragan, A. Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. Knight First Amend. Inst. https://perma.cc/YUB7-4HMY (2024).

Willaert, T. A computational analysis of Telegram’s narrative affordances. PLoS ONE 18 , e0293508 (2023).

Pasquetto, I. V. et al. Tackling misinformation: what researchers could do with social media data. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-49 (2020).

Guess, A. M. et al. How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science 381 , 398–404 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Vrtovec, F. Stock and A. Horsley for research assistance and D. Ain for editing the manuscript and the online appendix. We also thank J. van Bavel, W. Brady, Z. Epstein, M. Leiser, L. Oswald, J. Rozenbeek and A. Simchon for their contributions during the workshop ‘Behavioral interventions for promoting truth and democratic discourse in online environments’. The study was funded by a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation to R.H., S.L. and S.M.H. (project ‘Reclaiming individual autonomy and democratic discourse online: how to rebalance human and algorithmic decision making’). A.K., P.L.-S., R.H., S.L. and S.M.H. also acknowledge funding from the EU Horizon project no. 101094752 ‘Social media for democracy (SoMe4Dem)’. S.L. was supported by a Research Award from the Humboldt Foundation in Germany and by an ERC Advanced Grant (no. 101020961 PRODEMINFO) while this research was conducted. U.K.H.E. was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (no. FT190100708). H.L. acknowledges funding from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the Investissement d'Avenir program ANR-17-EURE-0010.

Author information

These authors jointly supervised this work: Anastasia Kozyreva, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Stefan M. Herzog, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ralph Hertwig.

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

Anastasia Kozyreva, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Stefan M. Herzog, Ralph Hertwig & Michael Geers

School of Psychological Science & Public Policy Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Ullrich K. H. Ecker

School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Stephan Lewandowsky

Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Department of Economics, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

Craig Newmark Center, School of Journalism, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Joe Bak-Coleman

Department of Learning and Instructional Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Sarit Barzilai

Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Melisa Basol & Sander van der Linden

Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Adam J. Berinsky

Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

Cornelia Betsch & Philipp Schmid

Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany

Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Lisa K. Fazio

Department of Psychology, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Michael Geers

Department of Politics and School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Andrew M. Guess

Department of Political Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Haifeng Huang

Departments of Economics and Political Science, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Mexico City, Mexico

Horacio Larreguy

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Rakoen Maertens

IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy

Folco Panizza

Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Gordon Pennycook

Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

David G. Rand

Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Steve Rathje

Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Jason Reifler & Paula Szewach

Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Philipp Schmid

Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Mark Smith & Sam Wineburg

Department of Political Science, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Briony Swire-Thompson

Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain

Paula Szewach

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: A.K., P.L.-S., S.M.H., S.L., U.K.H.E. and R.H. Visualization: A.K. and S.M.H. Supervision: P.L.-S., S.M.H., S.L., U.K.H.E. and R.H. Writing—original draft: A.K., P.L.-S., U.K.H.E., M.G. and J.B.-C. Writing—review and editing: A.K., P.L.-S., S.M.H., S.L., U.K.H.E. and R.H. Coordinating authors: A.K., P.L.-S., S.M.H., S.L., U.K.H.E. and R.H. Contributing authors: A.A., J.B.-C., S.B., M.B., A.J.B., C.B., J.C., L.K.F., M.G., A.M.G., H.H., H.L., R.M., F.P., G.P., D.G.R., S.R., J.R., P. Schmid, M.S., B.S.-T., P. Szewach, S.v.d.L. and S.W.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasia Kozyreva .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

For studies included in the evidence overview, G.P., D.G.R. and A.J.B. received research funding and research support through gifts from Google and Meta. A.M.G. and A.A. received an unrestricted research grant from Meta. L.K.F. received research funding from Meta. S.v.d.L., S.R. and S.L. received research funding from Google Jigsaw. S.W. and M.S. received research funding from Google.org. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Madalina Vlasceanu and Kevin Aslett for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

The supplement includes additional information about co-authors and a note on interventions selection process.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S.M. et al. Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nat Hum Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2023

Accepted : 05 April 2024

Published : 13 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

😱 How to write a refutation paragraph. Writing a Refutation webapi.bu
PPT
30 Refutation Examples (2024)
PPT
PPT
How to Write a Refutation Paragraph in Four Easy Steps! by Alexandra

VIDEO

Essay with Refutation Paragraph
Argument refutation in debate
Thesis Statement +Refutation Paragraph(Argumentative Essay)
''Resolution Refutation in Prepositional Logic'' Artificial Intelligence Lecture 03 By Ms Bhumica V
Essay 6 Refutation
Refuting the Refutation

COMMENTS

30 Refutation Examples (2024)
30 Refutation Examples. By Chris Drew (PhD) / September 21, 2023. Refutation refers to the act of proving a statement or theory wrong through the use of logical reasoning and evidence. Some strategies for refutation, which we may use in an argumentative essay, speech, or debate, include: Reductio ad Absurdum: Taking an argument to its logical ...
Refutation Definition and Examples
Examples and Observations. "Refutation is the part of an essay that disproves the opposing arguments. It is always necessary in a persuasive paper to refute or answer those arguments. A good method for formulating your refutation is to put yourself in the place of your readers, imagining what their objections might be.
Argumentative Essays: The Counter-Argument & Refutation
An argumentative essay presents an argument for or against a topic. For example, if your topic is working from home, then your essay would either argue in favor of working from home (this is the for side) or against working from home.. Like most essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction that ends with the writer's position (or stance) in the thesis statement.
Rebuttal Sections
The outline below, adapted from Seyler's Understanding Argument, is an example of a rebuttal section from a thesis essay. When you rebut or refute an opposing position, use the following three-part organization: The opponent's argument: Usually, you should not assume that your reader has read or remembered the argument you are refuting.
PDF Writing a Refutation Paragraph
refutation paragraph, much less written one. Even though the vocabulary may seem intimidating, a refutation paragraph boils down to a simple idea: responding to arguments that disagree with your thesis statement. If you are writing a paper in favor of universal health care, then your refutation paragraphs would need to
Refutation
The literary term refutation refers to that part of an argument where a speaker or a writer encounters contradicting points of view. Alternatively, refutation can be described as the negation of an argument, opinion, testimony, doctrine, or theory, through contradicting evidence. It normally constitutes a part of an essay that disproves the ...
A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays
Read on for a few simple steps to formulating an effective rebuttal. Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument. A strong rebuttal is only possible when there's a strong counterargument. You may be convinced of your idea but try to place yourself on the other side. Rather than addressing weak opposing views that are easy to fend off, try to come ...
Argument, Counterargument, & Refutation
Argument - paragraphs which show support for the author's thesis (for example: reasons, evidence, data, statistics) Counterargument - at least one paragraph which explains the opposite point of view. Concession - a sentence or two acknowledging that there could be some truth to the Counterargument. Refutation (also called Rebuttal ...
10.12: Introduction to Rebuttal and Refutation of Counterargument
Rebuttal and refutation are common in all types of argument, including academic argument. As you complete more advanced work in college, you will be expected to address counterargument often. And while you might not always need to or be able to prove that other points of view are wrong, you may at least need to try to argue against them. ...
9.18: Further Your Understanding- Refutation and Rebuttal
Now let's take a look at examples of rebuttal and refutation and consider how students follow these guidelines to approach counterarguments to their viewpoints: They accurately represent opposing viewpoints. They use a respectful, non-incendiary tone. They use reliable information. They use qualifying words. Felix is writing his argument ...
Counterargument and Refutation Development
41 Counterargument and Refutation Development . In an argumentative essay, you need to convince your audience that your opinion is the most valid opinion. To do so, your essay needs to be balanced—it needs an opposing (opposite) viewpoint, known as a counter-argument.Even though you are arguing one side of an issue, you must include what someone from the other side would say.
Refutation Examples and Definition
A refutation is a statement that proves, or attempts to prove, that another statement is false. Refutations occur in arguments, whether informal or formal. Formal refutations require evidence or logic that contradicts the original statement the speaker wants to disprove. These types of refutations require logos (an appeal to logic or reason).
Refutation of an Argument
A refutation of an argument is a point that challenges or undermines an argument in a way that makes it clear that the argument is incorrect. The word refutation comes from the verb refute; if one ...
Rebuttals and Refutations
Rebuttal and refutation are common in all types of arguments, including academic arguments. As you complete more advanced work in college, you will be expected to address counterargument often. And while you might not always need to or be able to prove that other points of view are wrong, you may at least need to try to argue against them.
Counterargument
Some counterarguments will directly address your thesis, while other counterarguments will challenge an individual point or set of points elsewhere in your argument. For example, a counterargument might identify. a problem with a conclusion you've drawn from evidence. a problem with an assumption you've made. a problem with how you are ...
Further Your Understanding: Refutation and Rebuttal
Evaluate strategies for rebuttal and refutation of counterargument. Now let's take a look at examples of rebuttal and refutation to further your understanding: Felix is writing his argument paper on why his university should not have cut funding to the school's library. His arguable thesis reads as follows: Because Northern State University ...
Counterargument and Refutation
Are you confused about writing a Counterargument or Refutation for an Argumentative Essay? This video CLEARLY explains how to write each one in complete deta...
Four Step Refutation
Refutation is designed to introduce arguments, undermine opponents' arguments, rebuild arguments, and clarify own arguments. One way to do this is through a process called "four step refutation." This process is used regularly by individuals in day-to-day interactions. ... Example (Signalling) My opponent argued that the death penalty ...
Formula for Refutation and Rebuttal
For example, it is widely assumed that bulls are attracted to the color red; however, in reality, bulls are colorblind, so what many people assume as fact is incorrect. Be thorough so you have confidence in your claims when you are rebutting/refuting and likewise when you are attempting to prevent yourself from being open to rebuttal/refutation.
Opposing Viewpoint
The refutation or rebuttal is necessary for a strong, compelling argument. First, the writer should compile a list of arguments for and against the topic. ... For example, consider the essay ...
3 Strong Argumentative Essay Examples, Analyzed
Argumentative Essay Example 2. Malaria is an infectious disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through female Anopheles mosquitoes. Each year, over half a billion people will become infected with malaria, with roughly 80% of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Organizing Your Argument
Three argumentative methods —the Toulmin Method, Classical Method, and Rogerian Method— give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument. Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment's directions if ...
Refutation: Definition & Examples
Refutation is the act of definitively proving something wrong. The difference between a refutation and rebuttal hinges on whether the opposite argument can be conclusively disproved. There are three specific ways to successfully refute an argument, and they are through evidence, logic, and minimization.
Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online ...
Kozyreva et al. review evidence from individual-level interventions for fighting online misinformation featured in 81 scientific papers. They classify the interventions in nine different types and ...

30 Refutation Examples

Refutation Examples

2. Test of Consistency

3. Rebuttal by Cause and Effect

4. Prioritization of Evidence

5. Challenge the Relevance

6. Statistical Refutation

7. Appeal to Common Sense

8. Pointing Out Oversimplification

9. Dismantling a False Dilemma

10. Rebuttal through Definition

11. Rebuttal by Precedence

12. Challenge the Representativeness

13. Rebuttal through Syllogism

14. Pointing Out Non-Sequitur

15. Rebuttal by Exception

16. Evidence-Based Counterargument

17. Logical Analysis

18. Reductio ad Absurdum

19. Counterexamples

20. Question the Source

21. Alternative Explanation

22. Challenge Assumptions

23. Ethical or Moral Challenge

24. Using Comparison to Demonstrate Flawed Arguments

25. Highlight Omissions

26. Reframe the Debate

27. Historical or Precedent-Based Refutation

28. Practical Implications

29. Question Motives or Bias

30. Seek Expert Testimony

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Examples and Observations

Indirect and Direct Refutation

Cicero on Confirmation and Refutation

Richard Whately on Refutation

FCC Chairman William Kennard's Refutation

ESL Lesson Plans, Tests, & Ideas

Argumentative Essays: The Counter-Argument & Refutation

You Need to Also Respond to the Counter-Arguments!

The Refutation/Response Paragraph

Where Do We Put the Counter-Argument and Refutation?

Extra Advice on Argumentative Essays

Use Language in Counter-Argument That Shows Its Not Your Position

Choose the Side with the Strongest Support

Do Not Include Too Many Counter-arguments

23 comments on “ Argumentative Essays: The Counter-Argument & Refutation ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Definition of Refutation

Types of Refutation

Refutation through Evidence

Refutation through Logic

Refutation through Exposing Discrepancies

Examples of Refutation in Literature

Example #2: Remarks made to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Seattle, Washington (By William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC)

Function of Refutation

Post navigation

A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays

What Is a Rebuttal?

How Do Rebuttals Work?

Rebuttals in Action

Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument

Step 2. Point Out Its Flaws

Find this useful?

Step 3. Present New Points

Summary: Rebuttals

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you form an effective rebuttal?

Share this article:

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

21 Argument, Counterargument, & Refutation

Share This Book

Margin Size