A counterargument example for Week 9 of BUSI 2001 states the opposing position at full strength on its own authority, then answers it without retreating from the original conclusion. Searches like "busi 2001 week 9 assignment example", "busi2001 week 9 sample" and "busi 2001 week 9 example" land here.
What a finished BUSI 2001 Week 9 counterargument looks like
The finished piece runs three to five paragraphs and is written against a position established earlier in the term, here a buyer's claim that a supplier breached by failing to deliver. The opposing reading is developed first and at length: the supplier's defense of commercial impracticability, resting on a port closure that made the contracted route unavailable, with the doctrine's elements laid out and the facts placed under each. It reads as advocacy rather than summary. The response follows, meeting the defense on its weakest element, foreseeability, and pointing at the contract's own force majeure clause, which allocated exactly this risk. A short closing concedes what the defense genuinely establishes and states what survives it.
How a BUSI 2001 Week 9 example is structured
Strength ordering governs the whole document. The opposing argument comes first and is given the space it needs, generally more than half the piece, because a counterargument compressed into two sentences cannot be answered persuasively. It is stated in the opponent's voice, with its own authority cited, so the elements of impracticability appear as the supplier would present them. The response then attacks a specific element rather than the position as a whole, naming which one fails and why the facts do not reach it. Contract language is brought in at this point, since an allocation of risk in the agreement is the strongest available answer to an impracticability claim. The final paragraph performs the concession, saying plainly what the other side has proved, then restates the original conclusion in whatever narrowed form now holds.
The opponent's best version
The opposing case is built from the facts most favorable to it and cited to real authority. A supplier facing a closed port has a genuine impracticability argument, and writing it weakly is the error the exercise is designed to expose.
Elements laid out on both sides
Impracticability requires an unforeseen contingency, an assumption that it would not occur, and performance made impracticable rather than merely costlier. Each element is stated, then given the facts supporting it, before any response begins.
One element chosen for the answer
Responses land harder when aimed. Foreseeability carries the weight here, because port disruptions in that corridor were reported in trade press months earlier, and a single failed element defeats the defense without arguing the rest.
The agreement as the strongest reply
Where a contract contains a force majeure clause, its list of covered events shows what the parties treated as beyond control. An event the clause omits was arguably allocated to the promisor, and that reading answers the defense from the document itself.
Concession that costs something
The closing admits what the opposing reading establishes, that partial delivery became genuinely more expensive, and narrows the original conclusion to the portion that survives. A concession granting nothing reads as decoration and is scored as such.
Where marks go in BUSI 2001 Week 9
Fairness of the opposing statement is the first thing scored, and it is tested by a simple question a grader can apply quickly: would someone holding that position recognize it here. Straw versions are marked down heavily even when the response that follows is technically sound. The second scored dimension is authority on both sides, since an opposing argument with no citation reads as invented rather than researched. Response quality is judged on precision, meaning whether a named element was attacked with facts, rather than on force. The final block belongs to the concession, which has to give up something real; a closing that repeats the original position unchanged suggests the opposing argument was never taken seriously enough to require adjustment.
Get a BUSI 2001 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the position under challenge, the prompt, and the rubric, and a worked BUSI 2001 counterargument arrives inside 24-48 hours, free for a first sample. The supplier scenario above is written for illustration. What arrives is worked from the argument in your own materials, and it stands as a model to test your draft against.
BUSI 2001 Week 9 questions, answered
Is the writer supposed to abandon the original position?
No, and doing so usually misreads the exercise. The genre asks for a position that survives contact with its best opposition, which often means a narrower version of the original claim rather than a reversal. Where the counterargument genuinely wins, saying so with reasons is defensible, but the rubric expects the concession to be argued rather than announced.
How much of the piece should the opposing argument occupy?
More than newcomers expect. Roughly half, and often a little over, because an argument stated in two sentences cannot be answered in any convincing way. Where a rubric assigns separate point values to presentation of the counterargument and to the response, the split it names is the most reliable guide to proportion.
Does the opposing side need its own citations?
It does. An opposing reading supported by real authority is what makes the exercise legal rather than rhetorical, and instructors check whether the doctrine cited for the other side actually exists and applies. Pulling that authority from the same reading list keeps both halves of the piece on ground the grader already knows.