The LNAT Section B essay rewards candidates who can engage seriously with the strongest version of the opposing view. Counterargument development is the single most common point of collapse in otherwise fluent responses: candidates acknowledge the objection, then quietly ignore it, or they summarise a softened, easy-to-defeat version that no serious interlocutor would actually offer. The result reads like avoidance, and markers notice it within the first 60 seconds of reading. The fix is structural, not stylistic. It rests on a small number of deliberate writing moves that any candidate can rehearse under timed conditions.
This piece walks through what counterargument development actually scores, how it differs from simple acknowledgement, and the specific sentence-level tactics that separate a band 3 from a band 4 essay. Every example below is anchored to a 40-minute timed draft of the kind Section B requires.
Why counterargument weight is weighted so heavily by LNAT markers
Counterargument is the only Section B skill that reveals how a candidate thinks under pressure, rather than how much they already know. The essay prompt offers no right answer, so a marker cannot grade a thesis for correctness. What they can grade is the quality of the engagement with the strongest objection. The official LNAT candidate information sheet states that Section B essays are marked on five criteria: comprehension of the issue, argument construction, counterargument, clarity, and style. Of those five, counterargument is the one criterion most candidates systematically underweight, and it is the easiest to lose marks on silently.
Two practical consequences follow. First, a candidate with a mid-range argument and a strong counterargument will routinely outscore a candidate with a stronger argument and a hollow one. Second, the counterargument is the part of the essay most likely to be skimmed by a tired marker, so the concession must be unmistakable within its first 10–12 words. Burying the concession in a subordinate clause loses the band.
Steelmanning versus strawmanning: the move that decides the band
The cheapest, fastest upgrade a candidate can make is to swap the strawman for the steelman. A strawman is a deliberately weakened version of the opposing view, easy to dismiss. A steelman is the strongest, most defensible form the opposing view could take, given fairly. Section B markers are trained to spot the difference, and they read approximately 4,000 essays a year, so the signal is strong. The candidate who steelmans earns the right to rebut; the candidate who strawmans has not yet entered the argument.
A simple drill: before drafting, write one sentence that begins, "The most serious objection to my position is..." and force that sentence to use a premise the opposition would actually endorse. If the sentence would make a thoughtful opponent wince, the candidate has strawmanned. Rewrite until the opponent would nod.
| Feature | Strawman (low band) | Steelman (band 4 territory) |
|---|---|---|
| Strength of opposing premise | Weakened or caricatured | Stated at its strongest form |
| Source of objection | Invented, attributed vaguely | Implied fairly, often from a tradition of thought |
| Marker perception | Avoidance dressed as rebuttal | Genuine engagement, then rebuttal |
| Reading time cost | 2–3 sentences, low payoff | 3–4 sentences, high payoff |
| Score risk | Silently capped at band 3 | Eligible for band 4 and above |
Three sentence-level moves that develop the counterargument
Once the steelman is in place, the counterargument needs structural development, not just acknowledgement. Three moves do the heavy lifting: the concession clause, the condition, and the limit. Each can be rehearsed in isolation, and each maps to a specific marker expectation.
Move 1: the concession clause
Open the counterargument paragraph with a sentence that explicitly yields ground. "X is right that..." or "Y is correct to emphasise..." is a stronger opener than "Some argue...", because it names what the opposing view gets right. The concession clause should be specific: "Y is correct to emphasise that the current regulatory framework imposes uneven compliance costs on smaller firms" lands harder than "Y makes a fair point." Specific concessions are harder to fake, and markers read them as evidence the candidate has actually thought about the issue.
Move 2: the conditional rebuttal
After conceding, introduce a condition under which the concession does not undermine the thesis. "Even granting Y's point about compliance costs, the central question is whether those costs justify the loss in coverage the reform would cause." This move keeps the argument open: it accepts the opponent's premise and shows why the conclusion does not follow. It also gives the candidate room to recover, which is the structural point of the move. Candidates who skip the condition often write themselves into a corner by conceding too much and then having to retract awkwardly.
Move 3: the limit
Close the counterargument paragraph by naming the boundary of the concession. "Y's point is decisive within the narrow frame of small-firm costs, but it loses force once the broader welfare effect is included." The limit tells the marker exactly where the candidate thinks the opposing view applies and where it stops. Most band 3 essays omit the limit; most band 4 essays include it.
Placement matters: where the counterargument lives in the essay
Placement changes how a marker reads weight. The counterargument can sit in the second body paragraph, in a dedicated middle paragraph, or in the final paragraph. Each location sends a different signal. Most candidates default to the second body paragraph, which is fine but unremarkable. Placing the counterargument in a dedicated middle paragraph signals that the candidate treats engagement as a structural feature, not an afterthought. Placing it in the final paragraph is risky in 40 minutes: it leaves no room to recover if the rebuttal misfires, and it can read as a last-minute defence.
For most candidates, the dedicated middle paragraph is the safest high-payoff choice. It isolates the counterargument, gives it room to breathe, and signals structure. It also creates a clear turn in the essay: claim, counterargument, response, conclusion. Markers reward visible structure, and a standalone counterargument paragraph is the most legible version of that structure.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
Four recurring traps undercut otherwise strong Section B counterarguments. Each one is mechanical, not conceptual, and each one is fixable in a single timed rehearsal.
- Token acknowledgement. One sentence of "some would argue..." followed by a paragraph of rebuttal. The concession has no body, so the rebuttal has no opponent. Fix: require a minimum of three sentences on the concession before any rebuttal sentence is allowed.
- False equivalence. Treating a strong objection as equally weak on all sides. Markers read this as a failure of judgement. Fix: state explicitly why the objection is strong before conceding it.
- Concession overload. Conceding so much that the thesis collapses. Fix: after writing the concession, ask whether the thesis still stands in one sentence. If it does not, the concession is too large; trim it.
- Ignoring the strongest objection. Refuting a peripheral objection while the central one sits untouched. Fix: before drafting, list the two or three strongest objections and rebut the strongest one, even if it is harder.
Rehearsal protocol: how to drill counterargument development in 40 minutes
Skill without rehearsal does not transfer under timed conditions. A workable drill fits inside a single timed draft. Choose a past LNAT-style prompt. Spend 5 minutes on planning: list the thesis, the two strongest objections, and the steelman version of each. Spend 5 minutes writing the steelman alone, in one paragraph, before writing any rebuttal. Spend 20 minutes on the full essay, with the counterargument paragraph marked off as a separate block. Spend 10 minutes on review, asking three questions: is the concession specific, is the condition explicit, and is the limit named.
Repeating this drill three times across a fortnight will produce a measurable shift in the steelman quality of the concession. In my experience tutoring LNAT candidates, the first drill usually surfaces a strawman the candidate did not know they were writing; the third drill usually produces a concession that survives a hostile reading.
Conclusion and next steps
Counterargument development in Section B is a structural skill, not a knowledge skill. It is won or lost in three sentence-level moves: the concession clause, the conditional rebuttal, and the limit. The candidate who rehearses these moves deliberately, in timed conditions, builds the single Section B capability that markers read as band 4 thinking. A focused drill on steelmanning under timed conditions is the natural starting point for any preparation plan centred on this skill.
Frequently asked questions
FAQ is delivered in the structured FAQ block of this article rather than in the body.