Strength of Repudiation

[Dianapoo]

Hello Powerscore,

A question and a quick suggestion! In the Powerscore books, it would be cool if there were a chapter on the following!

The problem I have with a lot of questions is interpreting the strength of the repudiation and where it is directed. I have found there are 3 possibilities in how the author would respond: "your conclusion is wrong" or "I have doubts about your conclusion in and of itself" or "I am not doubting your conclusion itself, but the reasoning you used doesn't necessarily get you to that conclusion" This distinction has cause me to steer away from the ethos of stimuli when I appraise it the wrong way.

So overall, three options 1) calling conclusion downright false, 2) questioning the conclusion not based on the reasoning to support it, but based on other reasoning, 3) questioning the conclusion based on the reasoning provided which doesn't necessarily get you to that conclusion.

Am I correct in the following assessment?

"you're wrong" (hypothesis essentially = conclusion)
I reject your hypothesis (not sure), his hypothesis is unlikely to be true or likely false, his hypothesis is not plausible, his hypothesis is absurd, I disagree with your hypothesis, your criticism is misplaced

"I cast doubt on the conclusion" (hypothesis essentially = conclusion):
I cast doubt on his hypothesis, his conclusion is unwarranted, too hasty an inference, I reject your claim, I don't agree with your hypothesis.

"casting doubt not on the conclusion, but that the reasoning doesn't get you to the presented conclusion":
Too hasty an inference,
conclusion is unwarranted/weakly supported/unjustified
your reasoning is flawed.

Sometimes the nuance is just too much for me! For example, "I disagree with your conclusion" is different than "I don't agree with your conclusion"! The first is a proclamation of "you're wrong" for which the onus is on this person to provide counterevidence, and the second I believe to be just expressing that the argument presented is faulty.

Thank you!

[Brook Miscoski]

Diana,

I believe you are referencing the fact that question stems can be nuanced.

Our method does already incorporate those nuances.

For example, a "justify" question requires you to prove the argument, a "strengthen" question requires you to improve the argument, and an "assumption" question is in many ways the weakest of the three.

For example, a "weaken" question requires you to undermine the argument, while a "flaw" answer probably expresses one of the abstract common flaws we discuss in our section on common flaws.

For example, a "must be true" question stem might ask for which answer choice is "most supported," which can indicate you will need to be more forgiving of/open minded about the credited response.

Students should always be attentive to how the question stem is delivered. Lesson 1 covers that, and it is built on throughout the course. Your intuition about how the question is asked is correct, but it's such an important and thoroughgoing concept that it can't be confined into just one section.

[Dianapoo]

Diana,

I believe you are referencing the fact that question stems can be nuanced.

Our method does already incorporate those nuances.

For example, a "justify" question requires you to prove the argument, a "strengthen" question requires you to improve the argument, and an "assumption" question is in many ways the weakest of the three.

For example, a "weaken" question requires you to undermine the argument, while a "flaw" answer probably expresses one of the abstract common flaws we discuss in our section on common flaws.

For example, a "must be true" question stem might ask for which answer choice is "most supported," which can indicate you will need to be more forgiving of/open minded about the credited response.

Students should always be attentive to how the question stem is delivered. Lesson 1 covers that, and it is built on throughout the course. Your intuition about how the question is asked is correct, but it's such an important and thoroughgoing concept that it can't be confined into just one section.

Hello. Did you read my post? I feel like you responded to the first couple lines which was only a preamble. I really, really hope someone can help here! I'm depending on the powerscore books and powerscore's help.

[Adam Tyson]

I think your analysis is largely correct, Diana, although I'm not so sure the difference between "I disagree" and "I don't agree" is as clear as you might think. Context might matter there. What else does the author say? Overall, though, you are on the right track, and paying attention to those nuances is crucial, especially in certain Method of Reasoning questions where the wrong answers might be about rejecting a conclusion or rejecting a premise, and the right answer is about disagreeing with a presumption (that those premises, if true, support that conclusion). You have to really focus on what the author is disagreeing with! It sounds like you have a good handle on that. Nice work!

Btw, I think "I reject your hypothesis" is almost always going to be about rejecting the reasoning, rather than rejecting the premises or the conclusion directly. The hypothesis is the argument, the proposed explanation of something. Again, though, context will matter, and the author might elaborate on his rejection of the hypothesis by saying that the conclusion is in fact false, or that the hypothesis rests on false premises. Unfortunately we just don't have any absolute rules about that kind of language!

[Dianapoo]

I think your analysis is largely correct, Diana, although I'm not so sure the difference between "I disagree" and "I don't agree" is as clear as you might think. Context might matter there. What else does the author say? Overall, though, you are on the right track, and paying attention to those nuances is crucial, especially in certain Method of Reasoning questions where the wrong answers might be about rejecting a conclusion or rejecting a premise, and the right answer is about disagreeing with a presumption (that those premises, if true, support that conclusion). You have to really focus on what the author is disagreeing with! It sounds like you have a good handle on that. Nice work!

Btw, I think "I reject your hypothesis" is almost always going to be about rejecting the reasoning, rather than rejecting the premises or the conclusion directly. The hypothesis is the argument, the proposed explanation of something. Again, though, context will matter, and the author might elaborate on his rejection of the hypothesis by saying that the conclusion is in fact false, or that the hypothesis rests on false premises. Unfortunately we just don't have any absolute rules about that kind of language!

Thank you this is perfect!