How strong should arguments be in argumentative writing?

[HarmonRabb]

I'm currently prepping for the argumentative writing portion and I'm not sure how bullet-proof the arguments supporting my thesis need to be? I understand it's not scored, but obviously it's evaluated by someone at some point. Specifically, if you can poke a hole in one of my arguments, how bad is that? I'm not looking to make weak arguments, but after reviewing some of my practice questions following timed writing, I realized "oh, that point can be rebutted by xyz".

example: In the practice question about parents having a role in deciding school curriculum, I took the position that parents should have no role in deciding what should be taught in schools. One of my arguments was "If there had to be a consensus among parents to set a curriculum, consensus would almost guaranteed to be impossible due to conflicting and diverse viewpoints and values"

After I was done writing, I thought it's a poor argument because it assumes too much. It assumes that having a role is synonymous with having complete control over it.

Is

[HarmonRabb]

(Hit submit by mistake)

Is this likely a problem? Perhaps more succinctly, do you have any insight into how stringently these are evaluated?