Can a Correct A to Justify Con Q, Can become "Defender"

[lathlee]

Hi. As you guys stated in this Forum and text Powerscore Bibles, the correct strengthen and Assumption Answer are the two types: to Support by filling the weak link or To defend by eliminating possible attack.

Can a justify the conclusion correct answer also be a defender type too? I know to justify the conclusion Qs ask to fill out the weak/missing link between the premise (s) and the conclusion which is traditionally what a supporter type Answer does in 2nd Family of LR.

let's say if the answer choice ends up justifying Conclusion, and the produced effect happens to be a defensive type, playing a role of blocking from possible attacks, in that instances, therefore the answer choice also does play some important role in defending the validity of an argument? This thought occurred to me randomly and if this is true, then it can be given a test taker one good possible weapon in order to select a correct answer when solving justify the Conclusion Question Types.

[Jon Denning]

Absolutely! It doesn't happen nearly as often in Justify as the classic linkage idea (connect the pieces so that you move definitively from the premises to the conclusion), but defender type answers in Justify do occur.

Specifically what needs to happen is that, unlike a Defender Assumption where the right answer will simply rule out a single harmful thing, a defender answer in Justify will rule out EVERY harmful thing. If you can get rid of every possible criticism, after all, then the conclusion must be valid!

For instance, if I'm trying to prove some idea like "this apple I just picked won't be rotten by tomorrow," then I can do it directly by saying something like "it was treated when picked with a preservative that keeps it fresh for two weeks," or defensively with something like "no fruit rots within a week of being picked."

That latter idea throws up a giant barrier—larger than just apples even, by describing all fruit—against the possibility that the argument is wrong, and thus the belief must be correct by default. It didn't have to be that broad of course (it could've talked about apples only), but that's very often what you see when presenting a justifying defense.

[lathlee]

Sorry for the original Post's typos which I just noticed and fixed; I was asking this Q from a touchphone which is always difficult to type correct grammar all the way.