Refutation

Refutation Definition

To refute something is to give evidence that proves it is untrue or impossible. A refutation is the act of definitively proving something wrong.

Refutation vs. Rebuttal

Although they’re often used interchangeably, refutation and rebuttal do not mean the same thing.

The difference between a refutation and rebuttal hinges on whether the opposite argument can be conclusively disproved. To do so, you must provide factual evidence of its inaccuracy; otherwise, it isn’t a refutation, it’s a rebuttal.

Refutation Examples

There are three specific ways to successfully refute an argument: through evidence, logic, or minimization.

Refutation Through Evidence

A good argument stands on evidence, whether that’s statistical data, quotes from an expert, firsthand experiences, or any objective findings of a topic. Just as an argument can be built up by evidence that supports it, an argument can be destroyed by evidence that disproves it.

Evidence can refute an argument by:

1. Definitively supporting the accuracy or truth of the opposing argument when it is an either-or discussion (i.e., argument A and argument B cannot both be true).

2. Definitively disproving the truth of the argument with more recent or more accurate evidence.

This evidence essentially makes it impossible for Tom Robinson to have been the attacker because he cannot use the hand that is known to have beaten Mayella. In a fair trial, this evidence would have been monumental, but Atticus knows there is emotional and illogical prejudice facing Tom because of his race.

Refutation Through Logic

In a refutation through logic, an argument can be discredited because of a flaw in logic, which is called a logical fallacy.

Suppose someone makes the following argument:

“Books always have more information about what the characters are thinking than movies. The best stories are those that offer lots of insight into what the characters are experiencing. Therefore, books will always be better at storytelling than movies.”

There is a logical fallacy in this argument, and can be refuted like this:

As a result of the logical fallacy, the conclusion—that books are better at telling stories than movies—can be refuted unless the arguer presents a more logically sound argument. When the premise does not support the conclusion, this is called a non-sequitur, which is a type of logical fallacy.

Refutation Through Minimization

Refutation by minimization occurs when the writer or speaker points out that the opposing argument is not as central to the issue as their opponent thought. This might be because it is a more peripheral, or less-important concern.

Fig. 2 - Minimizing an opposing argument makes it seem small by comparison to the context

This type of refutation is effective because it essentially proves that the opposing argument is not relevant to the discussion and can be dismissed.

Consider the following argument:

This argument can easily be refuted by minimizing the pivotal premise (i.e., writers have a difficult time writing characters of the opposite gender).

Concession and Refutation

It might seem counterintuitive to mention the opposing viewpoints in your argument, but a concession can really help convince an audience to agree with you. By including a concession with your argument, you illustrate that you have a solid understanding of the entire scope of your topic. You show yourself to be a well-rounded thinker, which helps eliminate concerns of a bias.

If someone presents not only a solid argument in their favor, but also a concession of the opposing side(s), then their argument is that much stronger. If that same person can also refute the opposing argument, then that’s essentially a checkmate to the opponent.

Four basic steps to refutation can be remembered with the four S's:

1. Signal: Identify the claim you are answering (“They say…”)

2. State: Make your counterargument (“But…”)

3. Support: Offer support for your claim (evidence, statistics, details, etc.) (“Because…”)

4. Summarize: Explain the importance of your argument (“Therefore…”)

Refutation in Writing Argumentative Essays

To write an effective argumentative essay, you must include a thorough discussion of the issue—especially if you want your reader to believe that you understand the discussion at hand. This means you must always address the opposing viewpoint(s) by writing a concession. A concession to the opposition builds your credibility, but you shouldn’t stop there.

Argumentative essays contain the following key elements:

1. A debatable thesis statement, which outlines the main argument and some evidence to support it.

2. An argument, which breaks down the thesis into individual parts to support it with evidence, reasoning, data, or statistics.

3. A counterargument, which explains the opposing viewpoint.

4. A concession, which explains the way(s) in which the opposing view could contain some truth.

5. A rebuttal or refutation, which gives reasons why the opposing viewpoint is not as strong as the original argument.

When you refute an argument, the audience will essentially have to agree that that argument is no longer valid. That doesn’t necessarily mean that your argument is the only option left, though, so you must continue to provide support for your argument.

Refutation Paragraph

You can place the refutation anywhere in the body of your essay. A few common places are:

• In the introduction, before your thesis statement.

• In the section right after your introduction in which you explain a common position on the subject that needs to be re-examined.

• Within another body paragraph as a way to address smaller counterarguments that arise.

• In the section right before your conclusion in which you address any potential responses to your argument.

When you’re presenting a refutation, use words like, “however” and “although” to transition from acknowledging the opposition (the concession) to introducing your refutation.

Part of writing an impactful refutation is keeping a respectful tone when discussing any counterarguments. This means avoiding harsh or excessively negative language when discussing the opposition, and keeping your language neutral as you transition from the concession to your refutation.