The overview of the perceived task is demonstrated in the following segment on the elaboration.
Explanation:
We have to provide proof to support the argument that is already in favor. Because they're the statements as well as explanations that support the claim best. For those who do not accept the assertion, let the argument time-varying. And multiple arguments will have a specific list of supporting facts and explanations, and therefore a checklist that would not back up the claim.
Thus, first address the consequences, which seems to be the assertion, and afterward figure out which one strengthens the theory or it doesn't accept it. But you can also, therefore, put out someone's terms.
Note, then perhaps you should counter the argument or you should be against something. And you'll have to adhere perhaps to the absolute end, endorsing it with someone's opinions and facts you could accumulate when you're planning for the discussion.
