A good counterargument, whether the author concedes or rebuts, definitely affects my attitude towards the overall argument of the paper, and influences my impression of the author's credibility. In DBQ4, I griped quite a bit about the biases that were present in Pampillonia's essay and the lack of outside viewpoints that were utilized. I did not have these same issues with Peele's essay on "Alzheimer's: The Forgotten Issue". Not only did Peele fully recognize an opposing viewpoint, but also rebutted it in a way that was not biased, nor distracting from her main argument.
Both authors rebut the opposing viewpoints in their essays, however, Pampamillonia does not create a fully fleshed out counterargument (or main argument for that matter)…show more content… Instead of attacking the outside viewpoint as wrong, such as in Pampillonia's essay, she simply shows through evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks when it comes to organizations raising awareness. With that kind of objective counterargument, I can trust that the author is simply educating the audience on the problem with critical thinking instead of pushing an attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong, or my truth is the best". Likewise, the fact that Pampollina could not rebut the AAUW standpoint that single-sex schools are not a good idea in her own words shows me that she probably did not fully research and investigate this issue like she states she did in the side bar.
Overall, Peele does an exceptional job with her counterargument, and her set up for the counterargument is something I would have liked to see in Pampollina's paragraph 10. The short statement that the AAUW is wrong because Leonard Sax states it is wrong does not teach me anything new or show me that the author did a thorough job with her research. In comparison, if she shows the risks vs benefits of single-sex education the way Peele did with raising awareness through organizations, I may have taken her work more
