I have needed to remind myself of this several times, but here I am again… Anytime a clicker question tis likely to spur a compensation argument, do not let students volunteer answers to any answer. Because…. If the first student to talk gives the compensation argument, it is overwhelming to understand. Instead, it’s better to ask for one side of the argument, then other side argument, then open it to people who think it will compensate. It’s just too much cognitive load for many students to hear all three arguments straight out the gate.
Teach. Brian. Teach. 
Okay, I don’t even know what “compensation argument” means (and googling it just got me a bunch of pages talking about why a certain “compensation argument” didn’t work, which leads me to infer that a “compensation argument” is something inherently flawed)…
… but yes, i think that one of the HUGE differences between how experts think about stuff and how novices think about stuff is in being able to deal with different sides all at once.
a compensation argument is like when two the factors influence something in opposite ways to cancel out to not net effect. I got a pay raise (which should mean I make more money), but it put me in a high enough tax bracket that I’m actually bringing in the same amount of money.
Okay, so the political ones would be “well, this won’t really cost the money you spend because you’ll get it back…” — that education is cheaper than prison, that sort of thing. Thanks! Makes sense that it would completely confound comprehension, too.