A concession is the writer’s acknowledgment that an opposing point has merit. It is the complement of counterargument: where a counterargument is the opposing position itself, a concession is the writer’s admission that the opposing position has force.
Concession strengthens an argument rather than weakening it. A writer who concedes a point demonstrates intellectual honesty — they’ve considered the opposition seriously and found their own position strong enough to survive the challenge. Wayne Booth argued that persuasion works through identification: readers trust writers who engage honestly with difficulty [@booth1961]. An argument that admits no difficulty is less credible than one that admits difficulty and works through it.
The typical concession move has three parts:
- Acknowledge — “It is true that…” or “Critics rightly point out that…”
- Qualify — “However, this objection applies only to…” or “While this is a genuine concern, it does not address…”
- Reassert — return to the main argument, now strengthened by having dealt with the objection.
The danger of concession is conceding too much. If the writer acknowledges an opposing point and then fails to reassert their own position convincingly, the concession becomes a surrender. The move must complete all three parts: acknowledge, qualify, reassert.
Concession is also a structural tool. Placing a concession early in the essay shows the reader that the writer is aware of complexity. Placing it late — after the main argument has been built — shows that the argument can withstand challenge. The placement is a rhetorical decision.
Related terms
- counterargument — the opposing position that the concession acknowledges
- argument — the structure that concession strengthens
- claim — what the concession temporarily weakens, then the reassertion restores