Refutation Pattern of Arrangement

Similar to debate, the refutation pattern of arrangement addresses each main point and then refutes (disproves) an opposing claim to your position. This pattern can effectively address counterarguments.

Refutation may influence audience members who either disagree with you or are conflicted about where they stand. Consider this pattern when you are confident that the opposing argument is weak and vulnerable to attack.

Main points arranged in a refutation pattern follow a format similar to this:

MAIN POINT I: State the opposing position.
MAIN POINT II: Describe the implications or ramifications of the opposing claim.
MAIN POINT III: Offer arguments and evidence for your position.
MAIN POINT IV: Contrast your position with the opposing claim to drive home the superiority of your position.

Consider the speaker who argues for increased energy conservation versus a policy of drilling for oil in protected land in Alaska.

THESIS:

Rather than drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should focus on energy conservation measures as a way of lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

  1. Proponents claim that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is necessary to decrease dependence on foreign oil sources and hold down fuel costs while adding jobs, and that modern drilling techniques along with certain environmental restrictions will result in little negative impact on the environment. (Describes opposing claims)
  2. By calling for drilling, these proponents sidestep our need for stricter energy conservation policies, overlook the need to protect one of the last great pristine lands, and ignore the fact that the oil would make a negligible dent in oil imports—from 68 percent to 65 percent by 2025. (Describes implications and ramifications of opposing claims)
  3. The massive construction needed to access the tundra will disturb the habitat of caribou, polar bear, and thousands of species of birds, and shift the focus from energy conservation to increased energy consumption, when the focus should be the reverse. (Offers arguments and evidence for the speaker’s position, as developed in subpoints)
  4. The proponents’ plan would encourage consumption and endanger the environment; my plan would encourage energy conservation and protect one of the world’s few remaining wildernesses. (Contrasts the speaker’s position with opposition’s, to drive home the former’s superiority)