Counterargument In persuasive-argumentative writing, used to show your readers that you are knowledgeable about a full range of positions other than your own. As a rhetorical strategy, it demonstrates that you are interested in finding common ground and consensus with your opponents. As a statement of your character, it shows that you are honest and forthcoming about other viewpoints that might jeopardize your position.

3 parts Acknowledgement Accommodation Refutation

3 Stages of Counterargument STAGE 1: ACKNOWLEGMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT: a paraphrase, with useful examples, of an argument posed by your potential opponents proof to your readers that you can, not only understand the complex ideas of your opponents, but digest them clearly for the edification of your readers. remains neutral in tone.

Acknowledgement Example Science writer Scott LaFee, senior public information officer for health sciences research at the University of California San Diego, argues that government should change American consumption patterns through taxation because it is not in the interest of food manufacturers to do so. “That leaves government policymakers and regulators to act as mom. Everyone knows that’s a hard and thankless job,” says LaFee. LaFee believes taking the criticism for taxation of sugary drinks is just one of those consequences of taking responsibility for the health of your nation.

STAGE 2: ACCOMMODATION ACCOMMODATION: a statement conceding to the merit of some part of the opposing argument--either in the argument, itself, or in the character and values of the arguer establishes common ground. shows you are representing the opposition as fairly as possible. points out logic, values, interpretations, motivations that you respect in the opposing argument shows you are capable of empathy and understanding. be careful to agree ONLY IN PART with the opponent.

Example of Accommodation... Arguments like LaFee’s, about our government’s responsibility to protect people against their own bad habits, like overconsumption of sugary drinks, are easy to sympathize with, especially in light of the self-interested way in which soda manufacturers promote a view of popular culture in which soda “pop” is often the centerpiece for every youth ritual and important social event. Surveys demonstrate that male teens consume an average of 868 cans of soda per year, while more than fifty percent of all eight-year-olds consume a minimum of one can of soda per day. Statistics like these demonstrate the extent to which consumers can be innocent and unwitting victims of bad habits encouraged by the beverage manufacturers....

STAGE 3: REFUTATION REFUTATION: 1) Argue against the opponent on the terms introduced by you in acknowledgment, OR 2) Introduce what you believe to be a more valid set of criteria to discuss the argument. remains even-tempered and uses a rational tone responds by addressing those parts of the opposing argument with which you CANNOT agree: interpretations of the facts; inappropriate examples subverts logic or questions the values in the opposing argument, in defense of your own position. does not veer off topic: stays focused on the criteria introduced in acknowledgment

Example of Refutation... However, no amount of government intervention, least of all the negative reinforcement of taxation, will modify the behaviors of young people whose cultural identity is connected to the consumption of sugary drinks and sodas. Every young adult generation, in practically every culture, comes of age through the rebellious behavior of consuming what their society does not want them to consume. Bans and prohibitions on alcohol and cigarettes, for example, have proved time and again that a government will always fail to dissuade young people from becoming adult consumers of unhealthy products. In fact, the negative reinforcement in their youth only makes them more willing to accommodate these unhealthy behaviors and products into their daily adult lives, leading to a cultural dependency on them, if not a psychological one. Government intervention such as taxation inures people to the health risks and indirectly persuades them to look at sugary drinks and similar products in the same way that cable television and internet service are regarded as modern utilities. Needs and wants eventually become blurred by these methods.

The End Result \ Science writer Scott LaFee, senior public information officer for health sciences research at the University of California San Diego, argues that it behooves government to change American consumption patterns through taxation because it is not in the interest of food manufacturers to do so. “That leaves government policymakers and regulators to act as mom. Everyone knows that’s a hard and thankless job,” says La Fee. LaFee other advocates of government health intervention would argue, taking the criticism for taxation of sugary drinks is just one of those consequences of taking responsibility for the health of your nation. Arguments like LaFee’s, about our government’s responsibility to protect people against their own bad habits, like overconsumption of sugary drinks, are easy to sympathize with, especially in light of the self-interested way in which soda manufacturers promote a view of popular culture in which soda “pop” is often the centerpiece for every youth ritual and important social event. Surveys demonstrate that male teens consume an average of 868 cans of soda per year, while more than fifty percent of all eight-year-olds consume a minimum of one can of soda per day. Statistics like these demonstrate the extent to which consumers can be innocent and unwitting victims of bad habits encouraged by the beverage manufacturers.... However, no amount of government intervention, least of all the negative reinforcement of taxation, will modify the behaviors of young people whose cultural identity is connected to the consumption of sugary drinks and sodas. Every young adult generation, in practically every culture, comes of age through the rebellious behavior of consuming what their society does not want them to consume. Bans and prohibitions on alcohol and cigarettes, for example, have proved time and again that a government will always fail to dissuade young people from becoming adult consumers of unhealthy products. In fact, the negative reinforcement in their youth only makes them more willing to accommodate these unhealthy behaviors and products into their daily adult lives, leading to a cultural dependency on them, if not a psychological one. Government intervention such as taxation inures people to the health risks and indirectly persuades them to look at sugary drinks and similar products in the same way that cable television and internet service are regarded as modern utilities. Needs and wants eventually become blurred by these methods.

Night 1.Acknowledgement 2.Accommodation 3.Refutation How will you use these concepts in your paragraph?