In this chapter we reach the most cognitively complex argumentive skill assessed in our interview. If a subject has generated either a genuine counterargument or an alternative theory, the subject is asked to rebut this opposing line of reasoning. The core question, which opens this segment of the interview is, “What could you say to show that this other person was wrong?” (The other person referred to is the one who disagrees with the subject's view and whose position is generated in the preceding segment of the interview.) Subjects frequently, however, anticipate this question, spontaneously offering a rebuttal immediately following a counterargument or alternative theory.

If a subject has been unsuccessful in generating either an alternative theory or a counterargument, the possibility of generating a rebuttal is foreclosed. For this reason, just before initiating this segment of the interview, the interviewer proposes an alternative theory to any subject who has not successfully generated one, thus providing the subject an opportunity to rebut it.

The skill examined in this chapter is the most complex one we assess because to execute it optimally the subject must integrate previous lines of argument. This can be done in either of two major ways. First, a rebuttal can integrate an argument (i.e., theory and supporting evidence) and counterargument by criticizing the counterargument, arguing why it does not have force and hence restoring force to the original argument. Second, a rebuttal can integrate an original and an alternative theory, arguing that the original theory is more correct.