Discussion Question Number Two: Part Five

(Counterarguments)

Raising Objections
By raising objections, you are essentially showing that an argument is bad, which according to the text is the standard way of revealing an argument's weakness or badness in its structure and whatnot. There generally is another argument made that questions its original when raising objections in order to better see, and generally compare and expose, in what ways the argument falters in. According to Epstein, raising objections is something of a common nature. It's something many people do in order to make the best possible decision, especially if one is doubtful, which is by going through other possibilities and conflicts that can happen if the original argument follows through. You have to question and question, argument and counterargument, to really see through the claims faults and weaknesses. Being able to recognize the faults in the argument is a very good way to show that the person writing or saying the argument is aware of the other possibilities and questionable concepts. There is also knocking off an objection, which is a smaller argument within the argument.

Refuting an Argument
There are two ways to refute an argument. The first is refuting in argument directly. Ways to refute an argument directly are shown in three ways: (1) showing that one argument (at the very least) can be doubted, (2) showing that the argument isn't strong or valid, (3) or showing the the conclusion from the argument is false altogether. The second way to refute an argument is refuting it indirectly. The texts explains that at times it becomes difficult to show how an argument can seem false or doubtful because it isn't always stated directly--but yet, there is a feeling of a dubious argument present. Reducing to the absurd is a way of refuting an argument's alleged false claims, in that a person goes to disprove them by means of coming towards a conclusion that leads to absurdity and dubious claims itself---an "unwanted conclusion". (150) The likeliness of a false premises heightens between a valid and strong argument (the latter being the more likely of false premises). If the conclusion turns out to be absurd, then it becomes that you don't have the premises you want.  The text explains that you have to be very certain that an argument is solid and strong (as well as does not have any other dubious claims) "to get the false or absurd conclusion". (150) This is when it becomes in good thought and reason to see that there is something wrong with the claims primarily stated. Refuting an analogy is introduced, which is keeping crucial ideas, but using simply some of the premises to get to the ideal absurd end of the claim.