This study examines the impact of argumentation practices on pre-service teachers' understanding of chemical equilibrium. The sample consisted of 100 pre-service teachers in two classes of a public university. One of these classes was assigned as experimental and the other as control group, randomly. In the experimental group, the subject of chemical equilibrium was taught by using argumentative practices and the participants were encouraged to participate in the lessons actively. However, the instructor taught the same subject by using the lecturing method without engaging argumentative activities in the control group. The Chemical Equilibrium Concept Test and Written Argumentation Survey were administered to all participants to assess their conceptual understanding and the quality of their arguments, respectively. The analysis of covariance results indicate that argumentation practices significantly improved conceptual understanding of the experimental group when compared to the control group. Furthermore, the results show that the pre-service teachers exposed to argumentative practices constructed more quality arguments than those in the control group after the instruction. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the instruction based on argumentative practices is effective in concept teaching in science education. Therefore, argumentation should be explicitly taught in teacher education besides elementary and secondary education. (Contains 3 tables and 3 figures.)