Firstly, I really enjoyed the passage in which the authors discuss the boon of including a rebuttal argument in your paper. I strongly feel that the inclusion of this piece can bear a very positive effect to the author’s perspective—if done correctly. If done so, your piece will have a strong tone of confidence, underlining the importance of whatever point you’re attempting. On the other hand, however, if you are very defensive and/or too critical in your objections, you will most certainly lose the reader’s attention, and potentially their respect as well. Some may argue that this is the crucial point of a rebuttal statement, and that a strong voice like this is required to get your thoughts and feelings across. Much like a conversation, however, it is very important that a mutual respect between author and reader is maintained. In addition to this previous thought, I really liked the reference the authors make to labeling the opposing argument, as it pertains to the subject or topic at hand– not necessarily in a generalized aspect, but towards a niche group of individuals of which the topic may particularly pertain to. I also agreed that the inclusion of “letting the opposing party speak” makes for a very powerful statement.

If I were to raise one question/concerns to the authors of this section of the book, it would be about the usage of the word “Naysayer.” Not to discredit the definition of the word by any means, but I feel as if this word is dated as it pertains to the generation of students it teaches. It threw me off—as in I wasn’t expecting to see the word in the passage, and thereafter questioned the definition in its usage. Perhaps the word could have been replaced by an alternative to make more sense to the article—or to the reader. For example, the word dissenter sounds more concise with the argument at hand and is less puerile.