Refutation

    If you check the outline for a proposal in St. Martin's on page 374, you'll see that the causal analysis, which you've just completed, fits right there in the "Presentation of the Problem" -- which is just a Definition of the Problem with the Causal Analysis added on.  Now, if you look further down that outline on page 374 to the "Discussion of reasons to support the solution," you'll see the Refutation, which is basically a discussion of objections to your proposal.  So, once you write this section, you'll be pretty much done with your final proposal.

    So, how to build your Refutation...

    Any time you step away from the crowd -- those who mostly mumble and complain and occasionally flash an obscene gesture -- and propose a solution to one of the very things the others are complaining about, you'll find that someone will challenge you. "No," they'll say, "We can't provide shelters for the homeless! It'll cost too much money!" Or, they'll say, "No! We can't control guns, for the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution!"

    The problem is that more often than not (especially in a democracy), you'll find that those who disagree with you are smart and have some pretty sound reasons to reject your proposal. In order for you to convince your audience that your proposal is the superior action, you need to include those counter arguments in your own proposal -- for two reasons (at least): the first is to show your audience that you have considered all aspects of the issue and thus speak to them from a fully informed position; the second is to show your audience, if you can, that those arguments against you are not as convincing as your own. Ideally, then, by including the arguments against you and showing your scholarship at a minimum or your rectitude (how you're right, and they're wrong), you strengthen your own proposal.

    Okay, so how do you do one?

    As always, you begin with your definition of the problem. By now, this segment of your work should be gem-like. (It needs to be; it's the first thing your audience will read.)

    Then, you state your position AND your solution briefly. For some of you, your position might not be so controversial. If, for example, you're proposing a solution to homelessness, you won't find many people who would argue on behalf of the problem. No one's going to say, "Hey! Homelessness is good." If, though, you are proposing to solve the problem by bumping up the sales tax from 8.25% to 10% and to use the additional revenue to develop some nice, livable low-cost housing for the homeless, then you're going to run into some heated opposition.  "Listen," they'll say, "I think homelessness is a lousy thing, sure, but I don't want to spend an extra penny of every dollar on the bums..." So, now you've got a counter argument to contend with.

    If, one the other hand, you're discussing euthanasia and proposing that physician-assisted suicide be legalized, then you'll have those smart, reasonable people arguing against both your position and your solution.

    So, be sure to assert both.

    The next thing to do may be one of the hardest pieces of writing you'll ever have to do: summarize reasonably and fairly the arguments against your proposal.

    The temptation is great to say, "Well, there are a bunch of fools who say that physician-assisted suicide should NOT be legalized because they're sadistic and derive pleasure by prolonging the suffering of the terminally ill."

    But you can't. You need to present the counter arguments reasonably and fairly.

    Let me put it to you this way. Do you know Lennox Lewis? He's the heavyweight boxing champion of the world. If Lewis were to fight me, do you think that would advance or retard his career?  Can you see the papers?   "Lewis KO's Cerritos Prof in the 5th." (The 5th? Right...)  No, it wouldn't do his career or reputation much good. However, if he were to beat, say, Mike Tyson again, it would solidify both.

    Likewise, you don't want to create an argument that is easily defeated.  You want the counter argument to be fair and reasonable. Then, when you refute it, your argument will be enhanced.

   Now, let me try to explain these notions:

• acknowledge a counter argument (page 688);
• accommodate a counter argument (page 689); and
• refute a counter argument (page 690).

    A counter argument against providing low cost house for the homeless might be that it would cost those who pay taxes too much money, and taxpayers don't want to pay any more.

    "Yes," you might say, "it will cost money to provide the housing."  Thus, you acknowledge the argument. But then you shift the argument to say something like, "However, we are our brothers' keepers, and we have a responsibility to all Americans to provide at least a basic standard of living."

    Or, you could accommodate that argument by saying, "Yes, it will cost  money to provide housing -- in the short run! In the long run, once the homeless are off the streets, not spreading diseases (which cost us money), not committing petty crimes (which cost us money), and become productive, taxpaying members of society, it will cost less to house the unfortunate now and re-enfranchise them now than it will cost later."

    Thus, you agree with the argument against you but bring it into your own argument in a way that supports your proposal. This is what is meant by "accommodating" a counter argument.

    To refute a counter argument, you try to show that the argument is simply wrong. "No," you say, "it won't cost the taxpayers a dime to provide low cost housing, for my proposal stipulates that those who move into the new housing must work in some capacity to pay for the roof over their heads."

    So, there you have it. The refutation. The last preliminary assignment to your final project. The next time I write one of these, I'll show you how to integrate all your work and build your final project.

    Good luck.