The discussion outlines a number of complex problems in both measuring counterarguing and establishing its causal role in the persuasion process. The authors emphasize that given these limitations, data from measures cannot at this point clearly establish the validity of theoretical positions that emphasize counterarguing as an intervening concept. When responses on the measure correspond to various other elements in the nomological net in a prediction fashion, however, there will be more confidence in the theory and in the measure than if the predicted relationship fails to occur. The authors further found that the utility of counterargument measures inheres not so much in settings where the predicted outcome is obtained but rather in the opposite. The authors conclude that although measuring counterarguing presents complex problems that resist solution, research should continue. Attitude change theorists should note the fallibility of such measures and remain cautious when using data from them to substantiate a theoretical position. (RK)