Which of the following should you do to make your argument effective? compare the opposite side's views to something unpleasant. include only general details the audience will understand. use specific details to refute the opposite side's views. appeal strongly to the emotions of your audience.

Let's look at the answer choices. First, we have "Compare the opposite side's views to something unpleasant" which won't work simply because it comes off as uneducated and childish, like there isn't a valid reason so you are just name-calling. Second, "Include only general details the audience will understand" isn't a good option because you can—and should—explain specific details so that they can be clearly supported. The third option, "Use specific details to refute the opposite side's views" goes along with what I previously said about detailed reason being more effective; saying something is "bad" is much less appealing than saying a specific factor of it is flawed for blankety-blank reason. Being able to rebuttal against the opposing point of view with specific evidence is just as essential to your argument as the reasons you have to support your own views. The fourth option, "Appeal strongly to the emotions of your audience" is a good technique, but alone it can lead the audience to assume that you don't have any real evidence to support your argument, rendering the attention gathered fro emotional appeal rather useless. Considering this, the third option is definitely the best answer.

 Use specific details to refute the opposite side's views.

If you want to make your argument effective do a combination of all four; however, if you must pick one use specific details to refute the opposite side’s views.