- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sep 13, 2018
- Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:34 pm
#59668
TDH,
I think of a qualified conclusion as an author hedging his bets.
For instance, let's think about the difference between these two claims:
"The sun will come up tomorrow."
"The sun will come up tomorrow if the solar system isn't destroyed."
We consider the second claim to be "qualified" by the criteria "if the solar system isn't destroyed."
The reason that we want you to realize that the conclusion has been qualified is that a wrong answer choice might say:
"The sun didn't come up because the solar system was destroyed."
That doesn't weaken the conclusion, since it doesn't meet the author's criteria.
When you see a conclusion that is qualified by a condition, remember to attack the conclusion, not the condition.
Let's make it more complicated (the following is made up on the spot to illustrate the point).
Author: "Hurricane season is upon us, and it is also the wet season in many of the southern States. The Florida Panhandle is in ruins, and Texas is flooded. From this, anyone can see that a person in the South who doesn't have an umbrella will be soaked if it rains tomorrow."
Question Stem: Weaken
Choices (just 2):
(A) It will not rain tomorrow.
(B) Many people in the South are still able to come and go between home and work without leaving sheltered areas.
(A) is wrong because a failure to meet a qualifying condition ("if it rains tomorrow"), by itself, doesn't defeat the author's point. The author doesn't say what he thinks will happen if it doesn't rain tomorrow, so you'd be weakening a claim he didn't make.
(B) is right because even if all of the conditions occur, those people should be able to stay dry. The right answer should be able to weaken the stimulus while allowing the qualifying conditions to remain true.
I think of a qualified conclusion as an author hedging his bets.
For instance, let's think about the difference between these two claims:
"The sun will come up tomorrow."
"The sun will come up tomorrow if the solar system isn't destroyed."
We consider the second claim to be "qualified" by the criteria "if the solar system isn't destroyed."
The reason that we want you to realize that the conclusion has been qualified is that a wrong answer choice might say:
"The sun didn't come up because the solar system was destroyed."
That doesn't weaken the conclusion, since it doesn't meet the author's criteria.
When you see a conclusion that is qualified by a condition, remember to attack the conclusion, not the condition.
Let's make it more complicated (the following is made up on the spot to illustrate the point).
Author: "Hurricane season is upon us, and it is also the wet season in many of the southern States. The Florida Panhandle is in ruins, and Texas is flooded. From this, anyone can see that a person in the South who doesn't have an umbrella will be soaked if it rains tomorrow."
Question Stem: Weaken
Choices (just 2):
(A) It will not rain tomorrow.
(B) Many people in the South are still able to come and go between home and work without leaving sheltered areas.
(A) is wrong because a failure to meet a qualifying condition ("if it rains tomorrow"), by itself, doesn't defeat the author's point. The author doesn't say what he thinks will happen if it doesn't rain tomorrow, so you'd be weakening a claim he didn't make.
(B) is right because even if all of the conditions occur, those people should be able to stay dry. The right answer should be able to weaken the stimulus while allowing the qualifying conditions to remain true.