Playing Devil's Advocate Too Well? My LSAT Argumentative Writing Lacks Conviction

[JamesTon]

This is such a weird problem to have, but maybe someone else gets it. I'm naturally a "both sides" person—I can see the merit in almost any argument, which my debate coach in high school always said was my superpower. But now, in my LSAT argumentative writing practice, it's becoming a real weakness.

When I sit down to write, I spend so much time fairly presenting the counterargument that my own position ends up looking weak or wishy-washy. My tutor marked my last practice essay and wrote "Where do YOU stand?" in the margins. Ouch. But also... fair.

How do you acknowledge complexity and alternative viewpoints without undermining your own argument? I know the LSAT wants to see that I can consider the full picture, but it also wants a clear, defensible position. It feels like walking a tightrope!

Any fellow "devil's advocates" out there who've figured out how to commit to a side without losing your balanced perspective? I'd love to hear your strategies!

 

[BartBonz]

Here's what my tutor drilled into me:

The "Concede and Refute" Formula:

1. Concede the strongest point of the opposing view. ("Critics rightly note that...")
2. Refute it by showing why it's incomplete or less important. ("However, this overlooks the fact that...")
3. Reinforce your own position with the strongest evidence.

The key is that your concession should never be longer or more passionate than your refutation. Spend 1-2 sentences on the counterargument, then 3-4 sentences explaining why your side still wins.