Counter-premise vs. Rebuttal

[menkenj]

Hi there,

In our LSAT study group we are trying to figure out what is the difference between a counter-premise and a rebuttal?

My understand is that a rebuttal is a counter-argument which includes it's own premises in support of an argument which opposes the author's argument.

A counter-premise is a premise raised in opposition to author's argument but this counter-premise is just that-- a premise-- and so therefore cannot be considered a rebuttal because it lacks its own conclusion.

Is my understanding correct?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi menkenj,

Thanks for the question! First, the distinction here is not one that ever has or ever will be tested by LSAC, so you don't have to worry about this being a difference maker down the line. Second, in logic there are times words with hyper-fine distinctions and then others that are very hard to define ("many" being a good example of the latter). So, I'll give you my thoughts on how each word would typically be used on the LSAT or in descriptions of LSAT questions:

• Counter-premise: This is typically a premise raised within the author's own argument that counters some point of the argument. That is often done on purpose—to inoculate the argument from later attack, for example. In a two-speaker stimulus you could see the second speaker raising counter-points to the premises of the first speaker, and these too would/could be counter-premises. It's ultimately a very broad term that could include any point that counters another.
  
  Rebuttal: This would tend to describe the response of another speaker to a first speaker, and that response would contradict or disagree with the first speaker. That disagreement could center on the conclusion or on the means of arriving at the conclusion; in other words, it could disagree with any part.

I hope that helps. Thanks!

[menkenj]

Thanks, Dave!

Context is king!

While it's good to know that this fine distinction won't be directly tested, I personally found the process of trying to understand the distinction helpful. My ability to identify and understand reasoning structure is improving. The more I study the more I see that the LSAT asks us to flex very specific muscles.

If we expand this analogy even further, it's like a dance. We learn the basic dance structure of the LSAT dance and at first it's awkward because we don't know how to use our muscles in that very specific way and we haven't learned the sequences or the steps. It looks awful and ungraceful. With practice, we don't have to mentally tell our limbs what to do, it becomes natural, the muscle memory takes over. The actual dance we are asked to perform on test day has all the basic structure and principles of the dance we practiced so when challenges arise, we know we can still perform because the fundamentals have been fully internalized.

[menkenj]

Hi menkenj,

Thanks for the question! First, the distinction here is not one that ever has or ever will be tested by LSAC, so you don't have to worry about this being a difference maker down the line. Second, in logic there are times words with hyper-fine distinctions and then others that are very hard to define ("many" being a good example of the latter). So, I'll give you my thoughts on how each word would typically be used on the LSAT or in descriptions of LSAT questions:

• Counter-premise: This is typically a premise raised within the author's own argument that counters some point of the argument. That is often done on purpose—to inoculate the argument from later attack, for example. In a two-speaker stimulus you could see the second speaker raising counter-points to the premises of the first speaker, and these too would/could be counter-premises. It's ultimately a very broad term that could include any point that counters another.
  
  Rebuttal: This would tend to describe the response of another speaker to a first speaker, and that response would contradict or disagree with the first speaker. That disagreement could center on the conclusion or on the means of arriving at the conclusion; in other words, it could disagree with any part.

I hope that helps. Thanks!

For counter-premise, can you also see these in LR as correct answers to weaken questions?

[Dave Killoran]

For counter-premise, can you also see these in LR as correct answers to weaken questions?

Yes, you could! Although at that point it wouldn't be something stated in the author's argument (as that would inoculate the argument against that avenue of attack, which is why authors bring up counterpoints in the first place). Thus, it wouldn't be a true counter-premise in the sense described above, and would simply be a piece of information that weakens the argument.