Counter Arguments | The Complete SAT Course - Class 10 PDF Download

One important component of the "old idea/new" structure is the counterargument. Simply put, a counterargument is an argument that weakens an idea - most often the "new idea" -and that supports an opposing idea. It could represent a viewpoint held by real people, but it could also describe objections that are hypothetical - ones that represent what someone arguing tire opposite point of view might say.
The following types of phrases are tip offs that an author is in seducing a counter argument:

• Some people/researchers have argued that...
• It might/could be argued that...
• A possible objection/concern is that...
• On the other hand, one could argue that...
• Of course, it is true that...

Although it may seem contradictory to you, authors use counter argument in order to strengthen their own claims. By addressing - and refuting or rebutting - possible objections, they can explain why those objections do not outweigh their own argument and thus demonstrate that their own argument is stronger than the other side's.
Some counter arguments will appear in the beginning of a passage - remember that authors often begin with "old ideas" - but they can also show up closer to the end. Having finished explaining their argument, authors will sometimes then turn to potential objections.
It is important to understand that counterarguments will sometimes be presented in indirect ways. Instead of asserting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, authors may make concessions, acknowledging that some of the objections to their argument are valid. They may also agree with part of the objection while disagreeing with other parts. In such cases, you must read very carefully to determine which idea the author agrees / disagrees with. 

In the following passage, the counterargument is in bold, and the rebuttal is italicized.
The sharing economy is a little like online shopping, which started in America 15 years ago. At first, people were worried about security. But having made a successful purchase from, say, Amazon, they 5 felt safe buying elsewhere. Similarly, using Airbnb or a car-hire service for the first time encourages people to try other offerings. Next, consider eBay. Having started out as a peer-to-peer marketplace, it is now dominated by professional “power sellers” (many of whom started 10 out as ordinary eBay users). The same may happen with the sharing economy, which also provides new opportunities for enterprise. Some people have bought cars solely to rent them out, for example. Incumbents are getting involved too. Avis, a car-hire firm, has a share 15 in a sharing rival. So do GM and Daimler, two carmakers In the future, companies may develop hybrid models, listing excess capacity (whether vehicles, equipment or office space) on peer-to-peer rental sites. In the past, new ways of doing things online have not displaced the 20 old ways entirely. But they have often changed them. Just as internet shopping forced Walmart and Tesco to adapt, so online sharing will shake up transport, tourism, equipment-hire and more.
The main worry is regulatory uncertainty. Will 25 room-4-renters be subject to hotel taxes, for example? In Amsterdam officials are using Airbnb listings to track down unlicensed hotels. In some American cities, peer-to-peer taxi services have been banned after lobbying by traditional taxi firms. The danger is that 30 although some rules need to be updated to protect consumers from harm, incumbent will try to destroy competition. People who rent out rooms should pay tax, of course, but they should not be regulated like a Ritz-Carlton hotel. The lighter rules that typically govern 35 bed-and-breakfasts are more than adequate. The sharing economy is the latest example of the internet’s value to consumers. This emerging model is now big and disruptive enough for regulators and companies to have woken up to it. That is a sign of its immense potential. It 40 is time to start caring about sharing.

This passage contains an excellent example of a counterargument that is presented somewhat subtly. The author introduces a potential drawback (the main worry, regulatory uncertainty), poses a rhetorical question (Will room-4-renters be subject to hotel taxes, for example?), and then provides examples of how different places (Amsterdam, some American cities) have responded in different ways. Finally/ he states his opinion: although some regulation is necessary to protect consumers, it must not stifle competition. The sharing economy is too big to go back now. Notice that the parts of the counterargument are separated from one another. First, the author presents the counterargument, and only after he is done expanding on it does he respond with his own assertion. He does not flip between viewpoints; once he has discussed an idea, he leaves it and moves on. Sometimes, however, authors may weave elements of the counterargument into their own arguments, flipping back and forth within the same section or even within the same sentence. The presence of contradictors such as although, while, and whereas often signals this structure. When this is the case, tire information that follows the contradictor will correspond to the "new idea."
In the passage below, for instance, the author repeatedly alternates between opposing viewpoints within sentences or pairs of sentences. Again, the counterarguments are in bold, whereas the author's arguments are italicized.

The world is complex and interconnected, and the evolution of our communications system from a broadcast model to a networked one has added a new dimension to the mix. The Internet has made us all less 5 dependent on professional journalists and editors for information about the wider world, allowing us to seek out information directly via online search or to receive it from friends through social media. But this enhanced convenience comes with a considerable risk: that we 10 will be exposed to what we want to know at the expense of what we need to know. While we can find virtual communities that correspond to our every curiosity, there’s little pushing us beyond our comfort zones to or into the unknown, even if the unknown may have 15 serious implications for our lives. There are things we should probably know more about—like political and religious conflicts in Russia or basic geography. But even if we knew more than we do, there’s no guarantee that the knowledge gained would prompt us to act in a 20 particularly admirable fashion.
Here, the author develops his counterargument primarily by considering one of the main downsides of the Internet: namely, that people do not pay attention to important information about the world because they are intensely focused on their own interests and have little incentive to move beyond their comfort zones.