Question

Difficulty: Very hardStructural Integration of Counterarguments & Rebuttals

A candidate drafting an essay for a GRE Issue prompt on technology ethics produces the following body paragraph:

"Advocates for strict data privacy regulations contend that tech conglomerates should be legally barred from monetizing user behavioral data without explicit, opt-in consent. Proponents of this view argue that unauthorized data exploitation violates fundamental individual autonomy and creates severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Admittedly, stringent regulation might impose compliance burdens on smaller startups that lack extensive legal infrastructure. Nevertheless, data privacy is a basic human right, so corporate concerns about operational costs are entirely trivial and unworthy of further debate. Additionally, critics of privacy laws argue that data monetization enables free digital services, but that argument is simply foolish."

Which of the following structural flaws are present in the candidate's integration of counterarguments and rebuttals within this body paragraph? Select all that apply.

  1. The paragraph superficially dismisses a legitimate counterargument regarding startup compliance costs without providing a substantive rebuttal or logical qualification.Answer
  2. The paragraph incorporates an opposing perspective as a tacked-on, unintegrated final statement that lacks cohesive development or meaningful counter-rebuttal.Answer
  3. C
    The paragraph exhibits a completely one-sided analysis by failing to mention any alternative perspectives or opposing arguments.
  4. D
    The paragraph uncritically accepts the opponents' underlying assumption that user data monetization is essential for economic growth.
  5. E
    The paragraph contains a buried thesis statement that is structurally disconnected from the main supporting claims.

Answer

The structural flaws present in the paragraph are the superficial, dismissive treatment of startup compliance costs without substantive rebuttal, and the addition of a secondary counterargument as an isolated, tacked-on final sentence without logical progression.
The paragraph exhibits two major structural integration errors. First, it acknowledges the financial impact on startups but dismisses it as 'trivial' without substantive counter-reasoning or qualification, failing to build a persuasive rebuttal. Second, it appends a counterargument about free digital services at the very end of the paragraph in an unintegrated, tacked-on fashion, labeling it 'simply foolish' without extending the logical progression of the argument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the treatment of the first counterargument regarding startup compliance burdens.
The author concedes that startups face compliance burdens, but follows with 'corporate concerns about operational costs are entirely trivial and unworthy of further debate.'
Dismissing an opponent's point as 'trivial' without demonstrating why the main thesis outweighs it constitutes a dismissive counterargument flaw.
2
Evaluate the placement and development of the second counterargument in the concluding sentence.
The final sentence introduces the counterargument that data monetization enables free digital services, labeled abruptly as 'simply foolish'.
Placing an unexamined counterargument at the very end of a paragraph without transitional cohesion or substantive counter-evidence represents a tacked-on counterargument flaw.
3
Compare identified structural defects against the choices to select all correct evaluations.
The options identifying dismissive handling of startup compliance and the tacked-on, unintegrated final statement accurately diagnose the paragraph's structural weaknesses.
A high-scoring GRE Analytical Writing essay requires cogent, well-integrated rebuttal structures rather than abrupt additions or superficial dismissals.

Key Concept

Structural Integration of Counterarguments and Rebuttals in GRE Essay Writing
Rate this question