Name three disputing methods used in REBT/CBT and give an example for each.

• A. Logical disputing (evidence-based questioning), empirical disputing (checking with facts), pragmatic disputing (practical consequences); example: 'Is this belief logically consistent?', 'What would you observe if that were true?', 'How does this belief help or hinder you in real life?'
• B. Logical disputing (evidence-based questioning) with the example 'Is this belief logical?'
• C. Empirical disputing (checking with facts) with the example 'What evidence supports this belief?'
• D. Pragmatic disputing (practical consequences) with the example 'What is the impact in daily life?'

Answer: (A)

Disputing irrational beliefs in REBT/CBT uses three complementary angles: logical disputing, empirical disputing, and pragmatic disputing. Logical disputing challenges whether the belief is internally coherent and follows from reasonable premises; a helpful prompt is “Is this belief logically consistent?” which guides checking for contradictions or rigid rules. Empirical disputing tests the belief against observable facts; asking “What would you observe if that were true?” pushes you to seek real evidence rather than assume it. Pragmatic disputing focuses on usefulness and real-life impact; asking “How does this belief help or hinder you in real life?” invites evaluating how the belief affects functioning and goals. Together, these three approaches give a complete way to challenge a belief from different angles and promote healthier thinking. The other options cover only one disputing type and don’t provide the full trio with separate, concrete examples for each, so they don’t fit as well.