In my recent political science papers I compared my arguments of how to best tackle the issues surrounding climate change. Due to word count restraints, I had to limit my objections to the top three. Of course while drafting the paper, I had to consider all likely objections and through a process of elimination had to find the best ones that framed my argument. I do not think I answered them well enough as I could have went into more detail and perhaps made it more clear why my thesis is the answer to the discrepencies I initlaly tried to point out. I think I could use the language presented in this chapter however I feel that naysayer is not as effective as the chapters says it can be. Firstly, it is very wordy. Secondly, I think it redundant to still use a point that can be so easily struck down in a short a paper. Perhaps in a longer piece of writing it would be appropriet to explore a topic to deeply that it covers even the most mundane of arguments. On the contrary, I will regress and state that a point explained is not a complete loss so long as there is not another point waiting to take it’s place. Therefore I concede that naysayer may help to formulate arguments in some limited sense.