English
AP English Language & Composition Start studying →
Unit 2 · Perspectives & Counterargument Flashcards Cheat Sheet Essentials Visual Review MC Practice FRQ Practice

Unit 2 Visual Review

10 slides walking through counterargument, concession-refutation, steelmanning, bias, qualification, and fallacies. Use arrow keys or click to navigate.

← Back to Unit 2 hub
Slide 1 of 10
Unit 2 Overview
Unit 2 asks: what do skilled writers do with arguments they disagree with? The answer reveals a core truth about effective rhetoric — acknowledging other perspectives makes your own argument stronger, not weaker.
  • Identify and represent counterarguments accurately
  • Use concession + refutation to engage opposing views
  • Steel-man before you respond
  • Qualify claims to make them more defensible
  • Recognize how bias and perspective shape argument
  • Identify logical fallacies that misrepresent opposing views
Slide 2 of 10
Three Key Moves: Counterargument, Concession, Refutation
Counterargument
The opposing claim — what a reasonable person who disagrees would argue. Must be identified accurately before responding.
Concession
Acknowledging what is genuinely valid in the opposing view. Signal words: admittedly, granted, it is true that…
Refutation
Explaining why your position still stands despite the conceded point. Pivot words: however, nevertheless, yet, even so…
Together: Concession + Refutation = Sophistication (Row C)
Slide 3 of 10
The Concession–Refutation 4-Step
1
Name the counterargument
State the opposing position accurately and specifically.
2
Concede the valid point
"Admittedly…" / "It is true that…" / "Granted…"
3
Pivot
"However…" / "Nevertheless…" / "Even so…"
4
Refute with evidence + commentary
Explain why your position holds despite the concession.
Never stop at step 2. A concession without a refutation is an admission that the other side is right.
Slide 4 of 10
Steelmanning vs. Strawmanning
Steelmanning

Present the strongest, most charitable version of the opposing argument before responding.

"The strongest case for mandatory testing is not efficiency but equity — a single uniform measure prevents wealthy schools from inflating grades."
Strawmanning

Misrepresent the opposing argument in a distorted, weakened form that is easy to knock down.

"Those who support standardized testing want to reduce every child to a number and ignore creativity."
Readers who know the real opposing argument will lose trust immediately if they detect strawmanning.
Slide 5 of 10
Qualification — Making Claims More Defensible
Qualification means limiting the scope or certainty of a claim so it matches what evidence actually supports.
  • Over-broad: "Social media causes depression."
  • Qualified: "Heavy social media use is associated with increased depressive symptoms among adolescent girls, though causation is still debated."
  • Qualification signals that you take evidence seriously and don't overstate your case
  • Hedging words: may, might, tends to, often, in many cases, appears to, under certain conditions
  • Qualification is not weakness — it is precision. Unqualified claims are easier to disprove.
Slide 6 of 10
Perspective and Bias
Every argument is made from a particular perspective — a standpoint shaped by experience, identity, values, and interests. This is not a flaw; it's a feature of human reasoning.
  • Bias is the systematic tendency to favor one perspective — often unconsciously — in ways that distort the selection or interpretation of evidence
  • No writer is fully objective. What matters is whether bias distorts the argument
  • Skilled readers ask: whose perspective is centered? Whose is excluded? What does the writer assume the audience already believes?
  • Motivated reasoning: working backward from a desired conclusion rather than following evidence honestly
  • Calling an opposing view "biased" is not a refutation — you must engage the argument itself
Slide 7 of 10
Common Ground and Hostile Audiences
Common ground — shared values or concerns — is a powerful opening move when writing for a hostile audience.
  • Hostile audience: skeptical of or actively disagreeing with your position
  • Identifying what both sides value (e.g., safety, freedom, fairness) reframes the argument as a debate about how to achieve shared goals, not whether they matter
  • Which counterarguments you address — and which you ignore — signals assumptions about your audience
  • A writer speaking to a sympathetic audience can afford to address counterarguments briefly; a writer speaking to a hostile audience must engage them thoroughly and fairly
  • Steelmanning is especially important when writing for a hostile audience
Slide 8 of 10
Six Fallacies That Mishandle Opposing Views
Ad Hominem
Attack the person, not the argument. "She's not credible because she's wealthy."
False Dilemma
Only two options when more exist. "Either you're with us or against us."
Slippery Slope
A → catastrophe, without showing the causal chain. "This will lead to total collapse."
Straw Man
Attack a weakened version of the opposing view instead of the real one.
Tu Quoque
Dismiss argument because the speaker is hypocritical. "You can't talk about recycling."
Middle Ground
Truth must lie between extremes. Not always true — one side may just be right.
Slide 9 of 10
Where to Place Counterargument in Your Essay
In the Introduction
Frames the debate. Works well when the counterargument is the dominant view that your thesis challenges head-on.
Within Body Paragraphs
Tests each sub-claim. Most common and flexible placement — address the strongest objection to each point as you make it.
Near the Conclusion
Adds complexity at the end. Works well as a sophistication move — acknowledging what your argument cannot fully resolve.
Placement is a rhetorical choice. There is no single correct answer — match placement to the essay's needs.
Slide 10 of 10
Unit 2 on the AP Lang Exam
Unit 2 skills appear across all three FRQs and the multiple choice section:
  • Argument FRQ: Earn Row C (sophistication) by addressing a counterargument through genuine concession + refutation — not just mentioning that others disagree
  • Rhetorical Analysis FRQ: Identify how the author handles opposing views — concession, anticipating objections, framing their position against an alternative
  • Synthesis FRQ: Use sources that contradict each other — synthesize conflicting perspectives rather than simply picking sides
  • Multiple Choice: Questions often ask you to identify the author's purpose in acknowledging an opposing view, or to evaluate whether a concession is accurate and fair
1 / 10