--Your Main Claim with tension which will automatically be there if you are arguing against someone else's faulty claim.

--a set up of your possible warrants or assumptions (your basic lenses or ideologies; the ground upon which your argument stands firm, hopefully), or the problematic warrants/assumptions in the claim you are critiquing

--a closed-form, predictive thesis with 3-6 specific sub-claims.

• What are the 3-6 main weaknesses in the faulty claim?
  • -or-
• What are the 3-6 categories of the subject that you will show better arguments for?

• The first problem with the other's argument, and your first sub-claim that rebuts it (topic sentence with tension).
  • your data--sources, examples, analysis (evaluation, PAGS, fallacies)
  • your warrants

• Rebuttals to your first sub-claim--how might others argue against this part of your argument?
  • their data--sources, examples
  • their warrants
• Your counter-rebuttal to the rebuttal
  • what's wrong with their counterarguments--analysis
  • what's wrong with their warrants--analysis
  • why is your sub-claim still better -or- why do they have a good point?