A series of three studies looked at argument across significant contexts to understand what students must learn to "argue" in these contexts and carry out their practices. Study 1 involved 19 pre-college minority writers who were asked to take a "rival hypothesis" stance to their source texts that discuss issues in minority education. In study 2, 9 returning women students applied some equally controversial readings to their own lives. Study 3 examined the practice of argument in a community center concerned with issues such as landlord and tenant relations, a situation which often starts with people who already have clear positions but who need to understand other people's arguments. Results indicated that (1) argument is not a unified practice; (2) if argument is understood as a social cognitive process, then argument cannot be reduced to familiar textual forms such as pro and con arguments or thesis and support; and (3) practices such as collaborative planning and reflection can help students move across contexts and practices in a more self-conscious and strategic way, to engage in inquiry, entertain rival perspectives and attempt to negotiate them in text. (Contains 13 references.) (RS)