Which of the following best describes the nature of a well-constructed argument?

A well-constructed argument is characterized as being reasoned and evidence-based. This means that it is built on logical reasoning and supported by credible evidence, such as data, facts, or expert opinions. Such an argument seeks to persuade an audience not only through emotional appeal but also through a structured presentation of logical connections and substantiated claims. This foundation is crucial because it enhances the argument's credibility and effectiveness, allowing the audience to follow the logic and evaluate the evidence critically.

An argument that relies solely on personal beliefs lacks a foundation in objective reasoning and may not resonate with those who do not share those beliefs. Similarly, weak assertions do not provide the necessary support to convince an audience; claiming something without evidence or reasoning diminishes the argument's strength. Furthermore, avoiding counterarguments undermines the robustness of an argument. Engaging with alternative viewpoints demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the subject and strengthens the argument by preemptively addressing potential objections. In contrast, a well-constructed argument acknowledges and counters opposing viewpoints, allowing for a more nuanced and persuasive discourse.