Position, Perspective, and Bias

Include personal anecdotes and a story-telling style to soften tone and build rapport

Maintain the same formal tone while adding more assertive statements for clarity

Incorporate humor into the text as a way to appear more casual and receptive

Refuse to adapt tone despite feedback in sticking with the rationale of expertise

Introducing counterarguments without acknowledging changes required by new evidence.

Strengthening the tone of certainty in the original claims regardless of contradictory evidence.

Qualifying language to moderate the strength of original claims while integrating new data.

Adding anecdotes to support the unchanged original claims despite new evidence.

By dismissing the counterargument entirely as irrelevant to strengthen their original claim.

By summarizing the counterargument briefly at the beginning without revisiting it later.

By introducing the counterargument in the conclusion to leave it fresh in readers' minds.

By conceding some aspects of the counterargument before reinforcing their own position with additional evidence.

Suggest that prolonged sitting is not an issue as long as students participate in regular physical activity outside of class time without integrating any specifics from the study.

Reject any new evidence as faulty or inconclusive, continuing to advocate for traditional desk arrangements regardless of scientific developments.

Cite the study's findings to argue that standing desks not only boost physical health but also enhance concentration leading to improved academic performance.

Ignore the research altogether, insisting upon the original claims made about standing desks without addressing the newly presented information.

Accuses specific individuals or groups for failing public libraries.

Counteracts potential arguments regarding digital book accessibility.

Creates a sense of urgency about the issue being addressed.

Offers clear examples supporting why libraries are underfunded.

Reevaluate and potentially revise one’s standpoint considering this fresh evidence while maintaining clarity in reasoning behind any changes made.

Emphasize only those portions of your argument left untouched by this research, ignoring its potential implications entirely.

Challenge the credibility of this new research based solely on its contradiction with your previously held beliefs about surveillance and privacy.

Adopt completely the perspective offered by this new research abandoning previous claims regardless of how they may intersect or diverge from these findings.

By acknowledging the new evidence and presenting counterarguments to maintain their stance.

By reiterating their original claim more forcefully to overshadow the new evidence.

By omitting the contradictory evidence entirely to strengthen their initial argument.

By changing the subject to avoid addressing the inconsistency in their argument.

Strengthening the original claims without considering new evidence

Ignoring the potential impact of new evidence on the argument

Disregarding potential biases helps maintain the original claims

Recognizing potential biases helps evaluate the reliability and validity of the new evidence

Claiming a chain reaction will lead to an undesirable end result.

Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities when others exist.

Arguing that something is true because it has not been proven false.

Focus on questioning the methodology behind contradicting empirical studies instead of correcting examples provided originally.

Highlight unrelated strengths in different parts of their work without addressing flaws in examples.

Replace or revise the flawed example while maintaining coherence within their overall line of reasoning.

Emphasize anecdotal instances that support their claim, overlooking broader empirical discrepancies.