Argumentation is the ability to construct, articulate, and defend logical, evidence-based positions persuasively in professional settings. According to critical thinking experts, effective argumentation involves the systematic evaluation of evidence, logical reasoning, and the clear communication of well-structured viewpoints, while maintaining openness to counterarguments and alternative perspectives.

Assessing argumentation skills during interviews is crucial because this competency underpins effective decision-making, problem-solving, and productive collaboration across virtually all professional contexts. Strong argumentation abilities enable professionals to advocate for ideas, convince stakeholders, navigate disagreements constructively, and drive organizational progress through reasoned discourse. The competency encompasses several dimensions: logical reasoning, evidence evaluation, persuasive communication, intellectual honesty, adaptability to new information, and maintaining productive discourse even during disagreements.

How you evaluate argumentation can vary significantly based on experience level. For entry-level candidates, focus on academic examples and basic reasoning skills; for mid-level professionals, look for workplace instances of building consensus and managing disagreements; and for senior roles, probe for strategic persuasion at the executive level and navigating complex stakeholder environments. By asking behavioral questions about past experiences rather than hypotheticals, and using thoughtful follow-up questions to understand candidates' reasoning processes, you can effectively assess this critical competency during your interview process.

Interview Questions

Tell me about a time when you had to persuade a colleague or team member who strongly disagreed with your approach to a project or solution.

Areas to Cover:

• The specific situation and the nature of the disagreement
• How the candidate gathered and presented evidence to support their position
• The structure and logic of their argumentation
• How they addressed counterarguments or concerns
• Their approach to maintaining a productive professional relationship during disagreement
• The outcome of the situation and any compromises reached
• What they learned from this experience about effective argumentation

Follow-Up Questions:

• What evidence or data did you use to support your position?
• How did you adapt your approach when you realized they weren't being persuaded by your initial arguments?
• What specific objections did they raise, and how did you address them?
• Looking back, what would you change about your approach to make your argument more effective?

Describe a situation where you changed your mind on an important matter after hearing someone else's argument.

Areas to Cover:

• The original position the candidate held and why
• The specific aspects of the other person's argument that were compelling
• How the candidate evaluated the new evidence or perspective
• The process of reconsidering their position
• How they communicated their change of mind to others
• What this experience taught them about effective argumentation
• How this experience affected their approach to future disagreements

Follow-Up Questions:

• What made the other person's argument particularly effective or persuasive?
• What was the most challenging part about changing your position?
• How did this experience affect how you construct your own arguments now?
• How did you acknowledge the validity of the other person's argument?

Share an example of when you had to build a business case or proposal that required strong logical reasoning to gain approval.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and importance of the proposal
• How the candidate structured their argument
• What evidence they gathered and how they presented it
• How they anticipated and addressed potential objections
• The stakeholders involved and their different concerns
• The outcome of the situation
• Lessons learned about constructing effective arguments

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you tailor your argumentation for different stakeholders?
• What was the most challenging objection you had to address?
• How did you prioritize different pieces of evidence in your presentation?
• What feedback did you receive about your reasoning or presentation style?

Tell me about a time when you identified a logical flaw in an argument or proposal at work, and how you addressed it.

Areas to Cover:

• The context of the situation and the nature of the flawed argument
• How the candidate identified the logical problem
• The approach they took to addressing the issue
• How they communicated their concerns constructively
• The response from others involved
• The resolution of the situation
• What this experience taught them about critical evaluation of arguments

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you ensure your criticism was received constructively?
• What specific reasoning errors or assumptions did you identify?
• How did you balance being critical of the idea while respecting the person who proposed it?
• What would you do differently if faced with a similar situation in the future?

Describe a situation where you had to defend an unpopular decision or policy to a group of skeptical stakeholders.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and nature of the unpopular decision
• The candidate's process for preparing their defense
• How they structured their argumentation
• Their approach to addressing emotional reactions and maintaining objectivity
• How they handled resistance and skepticism
• The eventual outcome and reception
• Insights gained about persuasive communication in challenging circumstances

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you prepare for the different types of objections you expected?
• What was the most effective point or evidence you presented, and why?
• How did you acknowledge valid concerns while still defending the decision?
• What techniques did you use to keep the discussion productive when emotions ran high?

Share an example of a time when you had to present a complex technical or specialized topic to an audience without expertise in that area.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and the complexity that needed to be communicated
• How the candidate analyzed their audience's level of understanding
• The approach they took to structure their explanation
• Specific techniques used to make complex ideas accessible
• How they checked for understanding and addressed confusion
• The outcome and feedback received
• What they learned about effective communication of complex topics

Follow-Up Questions:

• What analogies or frameworks did you use to make the complex topic more understandable?
• How did you determine which technical details to include and which to omit?
• What signals told you whether your audience was understanding your explanation?
• How did you address questions that revealed misunderstandings?

Tell me about a situation where you had to argue for additional resources, budget, or time for a project.

Areas to Cover:

• The specific circumstances and the need for additional resources
• How the candidate built their case with evidence and reasoning
• Their approach to quantifying benefits or risks
• How they presented their argument to decision-makers
• Any resistance encountered and how they addressed it
• The outcome of their request
• What this experience taught them about persuasive argumentation

Follow-Up Questions:

• What data or evidence proved most persuasive in your request?
• How did you prioritize different arguments or points in making your case?
• What objections did you face, and how did you counter them?
• If you didn't receive everything you requested, how did you adjust your approach or expectations?

Describe a time when you had to mediate a disagreement between team members who had different perspectives on an important issue.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature of the disagreement and the different perspectives involved
• How the candidate approached understanding each side's arguments
• Their process for evaluating the merits of conflicting viewpoints
• Techniques used to facilitate productive discussion
• How they helped the parties find common ground or resolution
• The outcome of the mediation
• Insights gained about managing conflicts of ideas and facilitating productive arguments

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you ensure each person felt their perspective was being fairly considered?
• What techniques did you use to move the conversation from positions to interests?
• How did you address any logical fallacies or misunderstandings that arose?
• What did you learn about effective argumentation from observing this disagreement?

Tell me about a time when you realized your initial position on an issue was wrong based on new evidence or analysis.

Areas to Cover:

• The initial position and the basis for it
• The new evidence or analysis that emerged
• How the candidate evaluated this new information
• Their process for reconsidering their position
• How they communicated their revised thinking to others
• The impact of changing their position
• What this experience taught them about intellectual honesty and flexibility

Follow-Up Questions:

• What was the most compelling piece of evidence that changed your mind?
• How did you overcome any reluctance to admit your initial position was incorrect?
• How did others respond to your willingness to change your position?
• How has this experience affected how you approach forming and expressing opinions now?

Share an example of when you successfully convinced someone to support an initiative despite their initial skepticism.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature of the initiative and the person's initial objections
• The candidate's approach to understanding the source of skepticism
• How they tailored their arguments to address specific concerns
• Evidence or examples they used to strengthen their case
• Their communication style and relationship management during the process
• The outcome and the factors that ultimately led to success
• What they learned about effective persuasion from this experience

Follow-Up Questions:

• What do you think was the turning point in changing their mind?
• How did you establish credibility for your position?
• What aspects of your argument seemed most effective, and why?
• How did you follow up after gaining their support?

Describe a situation where you had to present a counterargument to senior leadership.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and the position they were challenging
• How they prepared their counterargument
• The evidence and reasoning they used
• Their approach to presenting dissenting views respectfully
• How they navigated the power dynamic
• The reception and outcome of their counterargument
• What this experience taught them about upward influence and respectful disagreement

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you establish credibility when challenging more senior perspectives?
• What techniques did you use to make your counterargument constructive rather than confrontational?
• How did you handle any resistance or dismissal of your points?
• What would you do differently if you were in this situation again?

Tell me about a time when you had to argue for a position or decision that you personally disagreed with.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and why they needed to argue for something they disagreed with
• How they separated personal views from professional responsibilities
• Their approach to building a credible argument despite personal disagreement
• How they managed their own cognitive dissonance
• The outcome of the situation
• How they reconciled this experience with their personal integrity
• What this taught them about professional argumentation

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you ensure your personal disagreement didn't undermine your presentation?
• What techniques did you use to present the strongest possible case?
• How did you handle questions that aligned with your personal views but contradicted the position you were advocating for?
• What did this experience teach you about objectivity in argumentation?

Share an example of when you had to construct a compelling written argument or proposal for a significant business decision.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and significance of the written argument
• How they structured the document to build their case
• The evidence and data they incorporated
• How they anticipated and addressed potential counterarguments
• The reception of the document by its audience
• Any revisions or clarifications needed
• What this experience taught them about written argumentation

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did writing a formal argument differ from verbal persuasion in this situation?
• What feedback did you receive about the clarity and persuasiveness of your document?
• How did you determine which evidence to include and which to leave out?
• What would you change about your approach if you were writing this document again?

Describe a situation where you had to identify and address assumptions underlying a team or organizational decision.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and the problematic assumptions
• How the candidate identified these underlying assumptions
• Their approach to investigating the validity of these assumptions
• How they communicated their findings constructively
• The reception to their analysis
• The impact on the ultimate decision
• What this experience taught them about critical thinking in organizational contexts

Follow-Up Questions:

• What made you suspect that certain assumptions needed to be challenged?
• How did you gather evidence to test these assumptions?
• How did you present your findings in a way that didn't make others defensive?
• What was the most difficult part of addressing these assumptions?

Tell me about a time when you had to convince stakeholders to accept short-term difficulties for long-term benefits.

Areas to Cover:

• The specific situation and the trade-offs involved
• How the candidate built their case for long-term thinking
• The evidence and reasoning they used
• How they addressed the natural resistance to short-term pain
• The stakeholders involved and their different concerns
• The outcome of their argumentation
• What this experience taught them about persuasion and strategic thinking

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you quantify or illustrate the long-term benefits?
• What objections did you encounter to accepting short-term difficulties?
• How did you maintain support during the difficult short-term period?
• What would you do differently if faced with a similar situation in the future?

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between argumentation and being argumentative?

Argumentation is a constructive skill that involves building logical, evidence-based cases to support positions and facilitate decision-making. Being argumentative, on the other hand, typically refers to someone who is confrontational, may argue for the sake of arguing, or approaches disagreements emotionally rather than logically. In interviews, you're looking for candidates who can engage in healthy argumentation—presenting reasoned positions and considering alternatives—not those who are simply combative.

How can I tell if a candidate's argumentation skills will translate to our specific workplace context?

Listen for transferable elements in their examples: the logic structures they use, how they tailor arguments to different audiences, their ability to incorporate new information, and how they maintain relationships while disagreeing. Also, consider asking follow-up questions that relate specifically to your context, such as "How would you approach building a case for X in our industry?" or "What additional considerations would you have in our organization's environment?"

Should I be concerned if a candidate doesn't have examples of changing their mind based on others' arguments?

Not necessarily, but it's worth exploring further. Some candidates may not immediately recall such examples, but with prompting can share situations where they modified their thinking. However, if a candidate consistently presents themselves as always right or never needing to adjust their position, this could indicate poor intellectual flexibility or listening skills. Try asking alternative questions like "Tell me about a time when feedback or new information significantly influenced your approach to a problem."

How many argumentation questions should I include in an interview?

For most roles, 2-3 well-chosen questions with thorough follow-up are more valuable than many surface-level questions. Focus on different aspects of argumentation relevant to the role—perhaps one question on persuading others, one on evaluating arguments critically, and one on handling disagreement constructively. This approach allows you to thoroughly explore the competency while leaving time for other important areas in your interview guide.

How should I evaluate responses from candidates with limited professional experience?

Adjust your expectations to their experience level while maintaining focus on the core skills. For early-career candidates, academic projects, volunteer work, student organizations, or even personal situations can demonstrate argumentation ability. Look for the fundamentals: logical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, consideration of alternative viewpoints, and learning from experience. These foundational skills will transfer to professional settings as the candidate gains experience.

Interested in a full interview guide with Argumentation as a key trait? Sign up for Yardstick and build it for free.