Argumentative Writing: Claims, Evidence, and Refutation
B2 · Writing Lab · about 40 minutes
1 · Learn
Every argument is a machine with three parts: a CLAIM (what you say is true), EVIDENCE (what can be checked), and a WARRANT (why the evidence proves the claim — usually invisible, and exactly where weak arguments break). “Sales rose after the redesign (evidence), so the redesign works (claim)” hides the warrant: nothing else changed at the same time.
Refutation is the quality control: you name the strongest opposing claim, concede what is true in it, and show where its evidence or warrant fails. An argument that survives its best enemy is worth ten that never met one.
2 · See an Example
An Argument With Its Bones Showing
Claim: Homework in primary school should be abolished. The evidence most often quoted for homework — that practice strengthens memory — is real but misapplied: the research behind it was done on older students, for whom practice does consolidate learning. For children under eleven, major reviews find the effect shrinking toward zero, while the costs (sleep, play, family peace) remain full price.
The warrant matters here. Defenders argue: practice helps students; homework is practice; therefore homework helps children. The middle term breaks: worksheets at a kitchen table, done in tears at 8 p.m., are not the same species of “practice” as a focused ten-minute review in class. Same word, different thing.
The strongest opposing claim — that homework builds discipline — deserves respect and then scrutiny. Discipline built on resented tasks teaches a child to associate learning with punishment. The discipline worth building looks like reading together, finishing projects, keeping promises: practice in being responsible, not practice in enduring.
3 · Analyze the Example
- Claim labeled and limited. Not “homework is bad” — “homework in PRIMARY school should be abolished.” Limits make claims defensible.
- Evidence examined, not worshipped. The other side's research is granted — then its SCOPE is challenged (older students). Most real refutations are scope arguments.
- The warrant exposed. The syllogism is written out so its broken middle term (“practice”) becomes visible. Naming warrants is the B2 superpower.
- Refutation by redefinition. “Discipline” is not denied; it is redefined with better instances. The opponent's value is kept, their example replaced.
Useful Vocabulary
His claim needs evidence.
Attack the warrant, not the person.
Sleep consolidates memory.
The claim deserves scrutiny.
Her refutation was calm and total.
Useful Expressions
- The evidence … is real but misapplied.
- The middle term breaks: …
- … deserves respect and then scrutiny.
- Same word, different thing.
- Where the argument fails is …
Common Mistakes
✗ “Everyone knows homework is useless, and only lazy teachers defend it.”
✓ “Major reviews find homework's effect near zero for under-elevens — the defense survives on habit, not data.”
“Everyone knows” is not evidence, and attacking teachers' character (ad hominem) forfeits the argument you could have won on facts.
✗ “A famous professor at a top university supports my view, so it is correct.”
✓ Quote the professor's EVIDENCE, and check its scope — authority is a pointer to proof, not a substitute for it.
Appeal to authority skips the warrant entirely. Strong writers borrow evidence, not prestige.
✗ Cherry-picking: “One school banned homework and grades rose” (the school also hired ten teachers that year).
✓ Report the confound yourself: “…grades rose — though the school also hired ten teachers, so homework's share of the credit is uncertain.”
Hiding a confound that your opponent finds destroys you. Confessing it first makes you the most credible person in the room.
4 · Guided Practice
Expose the warrant: “This phone has a great camera, so it is the best phone for a journalist.”
See a model answer
Hidden warrant: a journalist's phone quality = camera quality. Attack or qualify it (battery, durability, and typing may matter more).
Limit this claim until it is defensible: “Exercise is good.”
See a model answer
Example: “Thirty minutes of moderate daily exercise improves sleep quality for most adults.” (Dose, effect, population — now it can be tested.)
Refute by scope: Opponent: “Studies show competition improves performance, so classrooms should rank children publicly.”
See a model answer
“The studies were run on adults in short tasks. For children, public ranking measures family background as much as effort — the scope does not transfer.”
5 · Write — Your Task
✍️ Take a claim you care about and build the full machine in 3–4 paragraphs: the limited claim, the best evidence FOR it with its scope stated honestly, the hidden warrant written out and defended, and a refutation of the strongest opposing claim (concede its truth, then show where it breaks).
Goal: 3–4 paragraphs · Length: 280–340 words
- Write the warrant as a sentence starting “This evidence proves the claim IF…” — then defend the IF.
- Confess your evidence's limits before anyone else finds them.
- Refute the STRONGEST opposing claim, never the silliest person holding it.
6 · Check — Self-Check
Work through your checklist honestly, then run the Self-Check. It counts words and sentences and spots mechanical points — it does not grade your English. You are the editor.
Read a model answer for the task
Claim: Cities should make public transport free. The standard objection is cost — a mid-size city might spend hundreds of millions a year replacing fares. The number is real, and honest advocates should say so. But the warrant behind the objection — that the fare money is 'saved' by charging — ignores what fares currently buy: ticket machines, inspectors, apps, fines, and the buses idling at stops while passengers pay. Cities that abolished fares report that a third of the 'lost' revenue was being spent collecting it.
The stronger opposing claim is quality: free things are treated as worthless, and buses would become shelters, not transport. Vienna answers it by counterexample in reverse — it made transport nearly free (a euro a day) and ridership and satisfaction rose together. The lesson is precise: price signals respect when they are simple and low; they punish when they are complex and high. Free is a legitimate place on that scale, and the cities that tried it have not gone back.
7 · Improve & Rewrite
Weak version — rewrite it in your notebook first, then compare:
It is obvious that school uniforms are a terrible idea. Only people who hate children support them. A man on TV said they are bad for creativity. Also, my friend hates her uniform, so clearly all students do. There is no argument against my opinion.
See an improved version
The case for school uniforms usually rests on equality: if everyone wears the same clothes, wealth becomes invisible. The evidence behind that claim deserves a look. Studies in several districts find that uniforms do reduce morning stress and some clothing-based bullying — but they also find the effect fades within a year, as status migrates to phones, shoes, and bags. The warrant — that visible difference is what children compete on — survives only one school term. Uniforms may still be worth adopting for cost and simplicity, but equality, their flagship argument, is weaker than its sellers claim.
Quick Quiz
Keep going
📘 Grammar deep-dive: Reported Speech: He Said (That)…🌱 Vocabulary Builder: the B1 Learning Goals set🎓 TOEFL Writing: the exam version of this skill🎤 Speaking Studio: say this lesson out loud← Previous lesson · B2 — all lessons · Next: Problem and Solution: Essays That Fix Things →
Ad space