When a Source Contradicts the Student's Thesis
Mina is writing an extended response arguing that social media has mainly harmed young people's friendships. While researching, she finds a credible Persian-language article presenting evidence that online contact helps isolated teenagers maintain friendships. Mina's thesis now looks one-sided. She considers three options: ignore the article, mention it briefly but dismiss it, or revise her argument to acknowledge the counter-evidence and respond to it. She worries that conceding anything will weaken her position, and she is running short on time. Her teacher has stressed that strong responses engage with complexity rather than avoid it.
1. Which option should Mina choose, and why?
Read the worked answer
Mina should revise her argument to acknowledge the counter-evidence and respond to it. Ignoring a credible source she has found weakens the response, because a knowledgeable reader will notice the gap and the argument looks selective. Briefly mentioning and dismissing it without engagement is barely better: it shows awareness but not judgement.
Engaging with the counter-evidence demonstrates the higher-order skill of weighing complexity. She can concede that online contact helps some isolated teenagers, then argue that this benefit is narrower than the overall harm, or that it depends on conditions. This makes her thesis more defensible, not weaker. Conceding a point and then responding to it is a sign of control, not surrender.
2. How should Mina integrate the counter-evidence without losing her argument?
Read the worked answer
She should use a concede-and-respond structure: state the counter-point fairly, then show why her overall position still holds. For example, she can acknowledge that online contact supports some isolated teenagers, then argue that this applies to a specific group and does not offset broader effects on friendship quality, or that the benefit depends on how the contact is used.
She should place the concession where it strengthens her case, often before her strongest supporting argument, and use signposting language to make the structure clear. She should avoid straw-manning the source. The goal is a nuanced thesis, not a demolished one: her claim becomes "social media's harms generally outweigh its benefits, though there are important exceptions," which is more credible and more sophisticated than the original one-sided version.