Question

Why do you think it is important to include the opposition (also known as the counterargument, the naysayer, etc.) in your argument? What does that do for your argument that is helpful? Does it undermine your argument at all? Why/why not? 200 to 300 words

Answer 1

Ans.

- Counter argument is an effective way to test your own thoughts and ideas.

- This is a decent method to test your thoughts when analyzing an idea, while you despite everything have the opportunity to reexamine them. What's more it very well may be an enticing and incapacitating strategy. It permits you to foresee questions and pre-empt protests that an incredulous peruser may have; it presents you as the sort of individual who gauges options before contending for one, who goes up against troubles as opposed to hiding them away from plain view, who is more keen on finding reality than winning a point.

- Only one out of every odd complaint merits engaging, obviously, and you should exclude one just to incorporate one.

- However, some envisioning of different perspectives, or of protection from one's own, happens in most great expositions.

- Counterargument while analyzing an idea has two phases:

o you betray your argument to challenge it and afterward you turn around to re-confirm it.

o You initially envision a wary peruser, or refer to a real source, who may oppose your argument by calling attention to an issue with your showing, e.g., that an alternate end could be drawn from similar realities, a key supposition that is outlandish, a key term is utilized unjustifiably, certain proof is disregarded or made light of; at least one weaknesses or useful downsides to what you propose; an elective clarification or suggestion that bodes well.

- So we belive it is effective strategy to include counter argument.