Rebuttals, Main/Faulty/Return Paths & Milestones
(The following is based in part on Chapters 3 & 4 of Kaufer, Geisler and Neuwirth's Arguing
from Sources)
Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will often include discussions of possible
objections and counterarguments to the position being advanced. Academic arguments typically
take place in disciplinary communities in which a variety of competing or divergent positions
exist. When preparing to 'speak' to the community, writers are aware of the arguments against
which they must build their claims, and of the counterarguments which are likely to emerge.
Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part of the process of building
arguments, refining them, interpreting and analyzing them. There are several main reasons for
introducing counterarguments and objections.
1. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them
under the table'. It thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to
readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
2. It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers, anticipating the
objections that many readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the positions
opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal with possible objections can thus work
to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments.
3. By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is against,
one clarifies the position that is being argued for.
When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take one of 3 approaches.
1. Strategic concession: acknowledgment of some of the merits of a different view. In some
cases, this may mean accepting or incorporating some components of an authors' argument,
while rejecting other parts of it.
2. Refutation: this involves being able to show important weaknesses and shortcomings in an
opponent's position that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to be rejected.
3. Demonstration of irrelevance: showing that the issue in question is to be understood such
that opposing views, while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in fact meet the criteria of
relevance that you believe define the issue.
How well authors produce rebuttals and deal with counter-arguments is an important part of how
we evaluate the success of an argument.
1
MAIN/FAULTY/RETURN PATHS
Main/faulty/return paths help you focus on the points the author wants readers to believe,
points the author wants you to not believe, and the reasons the author offers for rejecting
alternative/opposing arguments. Some students have difficulty distinguishing points the
author agrees with from points the author mentions but disagrees with; they also have
difficulty distinguishing points from reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with those
points. The main/faulty/return heuristic is intended to help you learn to make these
distinctions (if you don't do so already).
Identifying the Main path
Points that the author wants you to accept and act on. They are often characterized by:
a) direct presentation/assertion ('pornography causes men to see women as objects, and
fosters violence against woman').
b) self identification ('My own view is that the future of democracy depends on radically
reforming the way that the media currently function').
c) point presented with approval ('Olson makes some important and long overdue
amendments to the basic position outlined by Ong and his teacher McLuhan regarding
the impact of writing on cognition')
d) point attributed and approved
e) points presented in a problem/solution framework
Identifying Faulty Paths
Faulty paths are arguments that would lead you away from, or severely problematize the
author's main path if you accepted them. These are the points the author want you to
reject. They are often characterized by:
a) point presented with faultfinding ('these views, [those of Ong and Olson] too, lack
clear-cut empirical tests'. Scribner & Cole, page 59.)
b) point attributed and disapproved
c) point presented with unrequired quotation ('In recent decades, scholars in such
disciplines as philology, comparative literature and anthropology have advanced the
thesis that over the course of history, literacy has produced a "great divide" '. Scribner &
Cole, page 58)
2
d) point presented with parody.
e) point presented with phrases such as 'But some might argue that....'; 'One objection
commonly raised to this position is...', etc. Here is an example from Ong, page 55: 'One
could argue that responses [to Luria's experiments with Russian peasants] were not
optimal because the respondents were not used to being asked these kinds of questions..'
Identifying Return paths.
These consist of reasons for rejecting points made on the faulty path. They are often
characterized by:
a) explanation of the negative effects of a position.
b) failure of the position to meet important criteria with respect to accuracy,
comprehensiveness, consistency, use of evidence, reasoning, support, etc).
c) phrases such as 'However, the problem with this is...'; 'But this only holds if one
accepts...'. Here is an example from Ong, page 55: 'One could argue that responses [to
Luria's experiments with Russian peasants] were not optimal because the respondents
were not used to being asked these kinds of questions...But lack of familiarity is precisely
the point: an oral culture simply does not deal in such items as geometrical figures,
abstract categorization, formally logical reasoning processes, definitions....all of which
derive not from thought itself but from text-formed thought.'
It is important to note that main, faulty and return paths can be found at many different
levels of generality in an argument.
MILESTONES
The milestones are a heuristic (a rule of thumb for making discoveries) to help students
generate an interpretation (not by any means the only interpretation, of course) of a text.
A study by Haas & Flower (Rhetorical Reading, CCC) suggests that beginning students
do not build the sort of knowledge about purpose/audience that more experienced readers
build. This heuristic is designed to help them do so.
One way to understand the milestones is to think of them as answers to three questions:
(1) What are the problematic cases (that the author mentions or that can be
hypothesized) (Seeing the issue). Cases are concrete "objects" that the author "points to"
as an instance of the problem. Think of teaching a small child about the concept of a dog.
You point at an object and say, "This is a dog." And another object, and another, and so
forth. You do not tell the child what the defining characteristics of a dog are.
3
Characterizing a dog abstractly and using language to specify boundaries (e.g., exclude
dogs from cats) falls under defining the problem.
(2) What is the best/most useful characterization of the problem and its causes?
(Defining the problem)
What is the heart of the issue? What theory or principle underlies the problem cases
described?
(3) What will solve the problem (Choosing a solution).
The points, arguments and other materials used to persuade the reader to adopt a specific
action or belief.
Note that the argument, if it is a good one, ought to display a high degree of internal
consistency between the three milestones– that is, the solution ought to deal with the
problem cases specified, and the definition of the problem ought to be tightly connected
to both the solution and the way the author asks one to 'see the issue'.
4