For want of brevity, I rewrite the noun phrase 'Breaking the law' as 'lawbreaking'.
[Premise 1:] Lawbreaking is almost always wrong.
[Premise 2:] Double parking is lawbreaking.
[Conclusion:] Double parking is almost always wrong.
Can we refute this argument by means of counterexample? Well, there's no counterexample to premise 2. Premise 2 is simply true, double parking is lawbreaking. [...]
But [...] Is there a counterexample to [...] [premise 1] ? No. [...] Now, how do you produce a counterexample to a claim of the form almost always? Well, the answer is you don't.
Because even if you [...] [exemplify] a case where lawbreaking is NOT wrong, that still doesn't show that [...] [Premise 1 is] false, [...]. Maybe lawbreaking is almost always wrong,
but just not in the case that you produced. So, you canNOT
[Caution: The transcript errs here; it states 'can', contrary to the audio]
produce a counterexample to generalization of the form 'lawbreaking is almost always wrong'. That generalization might be false, but you can show that it's false by showing a counterexample.
Okay. So, we cannot refute this argument by means of counterexample. That's not to say that this is a good argument. In fact, this third argument is not a good argument, but we can't show that it's not a good argument by using a counterexample. So, sometimes counterexample can succeed in refuting an argument and sometimes it can't. It depends on whether the argument contains a generalization to the effect that something always happens or something is true in all cases.
What's wrong with the argument above? Premise 2 equates 'double parking' to 'lawbreaking'. This equalization justifies the substitution of one for the other in Premise 1. Now containing 'double parking', this rewritten Premise 1 produces the conclusion.