LNAT Addressing Counterarguments 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues that prison sentences should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. A counterargument warns: 'Lenient sentences fail to deter future crime.' What is the key flaw in this counterargument as stated?
- It uses emotional language to manipulate the reader
- It conflates rehabilitation-focused sentences with lenient sentences, which are not the same thing (Correct answer)
- It introduces irrelevant statistics about crime rates
- It is too long to be a valid counterargument
Correct answer: It conflates rehabilitation-focused sentences with lenient sentences, which are not the same thing
A rehabilitation focus does not necessarily mean shorter or lighter sentences — conflating the two misrepresents the original claim.
Question 2: Which of the following is the most intellectually honest way to handle a counterargument that you cannot fully rebut?
- Ignore it and hope the reader does not notice
- Acknowledge its strength, explain why the overall argument still holds on balance, and note the limits of your claim (Correct answer)
- Attack the source of the counterargument rather than its content
- Restate your original argument in different words
Correct answer: Acknowledge its strength, explain why the overall argument still holds on balance, and note the limits of your claim
Acknowledging unresolved tension and arguing the claim holds on balance is more credible than pretending the counterargument does not exist.
Question 3: An author argues that social housing reduces homelessness. A counterargument states: 'Finland tried this and it didn't eliminate homelessness entirely.' A strong rebuttal would:
- Deny that Finland ever implemented social housing
- Point out that significant reduction in homelessness is still a meaningful success even if elimination was not achieved (Correct answer)
- Argue that homelessness in Finland is irrelevant to any other country
- Concede that social housing is completely ineffective
Correct answer: Point out that significant reduction in homelessness is still a meaningful success even if elimination was not achieved
The counterargument sets an impossibly high bar (total elimination); a strong rebuttal shows significant improvement still counts as evidence for the policy.
Question 4: The phrase 'even if we grant that...' in a legal or LNAT argument typically signals:
- The author is fully conceding their argument to the opponent
- A hypothetical concession designed to show the main claim holds even under the most favorable reading of the counterargument (Correct answer)
- The author is unsure of the facts and hedging their position
- A new piece of evidence the author is introducing
Correct answer: A hypothetical concession designed to show the main claim holds even under the most favorable reading of the counterargument
This phrase introduces a hypothetical concession — even if the counterargument were true, the author argues their position still stands.
Question 5: A passage proposes taxing sugary drinks to reduce obesity. A counterargument argues: 'This is a regressive tax that disproportionately burdens low-income households.' Which response demonstrates the WEAKEST engagement with this counterargument?
- Propose using revenue from the tax to fund health programs in low-income areas
- Acknowledge the regressive concern while arguing net health benefits outweigh the distributional cost
- Note that other accepted taxes (fuel, tobacco) are also regressive yet deemed acceptable
- Claim that poor people drink more sugary drinks and therefore deserve to pay more (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Claim that poor people drink more sugary drinks and therefore deserve to pay more
This response demeans a group rather than engaging the distributional fairness concern, making it the weakest and most logically irrelevant reply.
Question 6: In addressing counterarguments, 'burden of proof' matters because:
- Whoever speaks first in a debate automatically bears all the burden
- The party making a positive claim generally must provide evidence, and counterarguments inherit that standard (Correct answer)
- Counterarguments never need evidence to be valid in legal reasoning
- Burden of proof only applies in criminal courts, not argumentative writing
Correct answer: The party making a positive claim generally must provide evidence, and counterarguments inherit that standard
Understanding who bears the burden of proof helps evaluate whether a counterargument's demands for evidence are fair and whether the original claim has met its evidential obligations.
Question 7: An author's argument contains the phrase: 'While critics contend X, this objection misunderstands the scope of the proposal.' This framing:
- Fully concedes the counterargument before abandoning the thesis
- Raises and immediately reframes the counterargument as based on a misreading, pre-empting it without fully engaging its merits (Correct answer)
- Provides empirical evidence to disprove the counterargument
- Strengthens the counterargument by repeating it
Correct answer: Raises and immediately reframes the counterargument as based on a misreading, pre-empting it without fully engaging its merits
This framing pre-empts the counterargument by attributing it to a misunderstanding rather than engaging its strongest form — a technique that can be rhetorically effective but risks being dismissive.
