When Sullivan includes the opposition's arguments, he generally keeps the reference to the opposition's goal and generalized; he never attacks their arguments, but gives answers to the problems they highlight. Without using this technique, Sullivan's argument would be much more lacking in conviction. By pointing out how his argument overrides the counterargument, Sullivan is able to more effectively convince the reader that his argument is logical and valid. Sullivan's use of counterargument was the key point in some of his examples and so analyzing the impact of this technique on the work as a whole tells the reader how strong the argument would be on its own. Bennett takes the other side's arguments and mostly dismisses them without analyzing them. If Bennett had not addressed the opposition in the way he did, and especially not tried to show how his argument nullifies the other side, then Bennett's overall argument would have been strengthened. It is important to look at how Bennett frames his counterargument because most arguments are negligible if they can be easily refuted. The way Bennett addressed the opposition he didn't refute them with evidence, just claims, so there must be some validity to those counterarguments, which hurts the validity of Bennett's argument. Both authors approach oppositions, in different ways, and both topics are influenced by their choice