Question

Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support. Moreover, if the words are clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument's soundness. Thus, how an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it is a good argument. Emile: Badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a poor one. After all, many words have social and political connotations that influence people's response to claims expressed in those words, regardless of how carefully and explicitly those words are defined. Since whether people will acknowledge a fact is affected by how the fact is expressed, the conclusions they actually draw are also affected. The point at issue between Emile and Sabina is whether (A) defining words in one way rather than another can alter either the facts or the conclusions the facts will justify (B) a word can be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations (C) a sound argument in support of a given conclusion is a better argument than any unsound argument for that same conclusion (D) it would be a good policy to avoid using words that are likely to lead people either to misunderstand the claims being made or to reason badly about those claims (E) a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one

Short answer

(E) a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding Sabina and Emile's Arguments

First, let's understand what Sabina is arguing. Sabina claims that the choice of words doesn’t affect the soundness of an argument as long as the words are clearly defined and consistently used. On the other hand, Emile argues that poorly chosen words can affect an argument’s effectiveness because words have social and political connotations that can influence how people perceive and respond to the claims.

Analyzing the Point of Issue

The point of issue is the main aspect where Sabina and Emile disagree. Sabina believes that the choice of words, as long as they are defined and used consistently, doesn’t affect the argument's validity. Emile counters this by saying that the choice of words can affect how people perceive the argument, due to connotations, thus potentially making the argument less effective.

Identifying the Answer Choice

The disagreement centers around whether the expression of an argument, specifically the words chosen, affects its soundness. Option (E) addresses whether a factor that does not affect the truth of the premises or the logical structure can still make the argument effectively a bad one, which is exactly the disagreement. Sabina likely believes such factors don't matter (since they don't affect soundness), while Emile believes they do (since they influence perception).

Selecting the Point at Issue

Given this analysis, the point of issue is clearly Option (E): whether a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one. This is what Sabina and Emile are debating, as Sabina says no and Emile says yes.

Key concepts

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves breaking down the components of an argument to understand its structure and validity. Sabina and Emile's debate highlights two distinct positions about the impact of language on arguments. Sabina argues that as long as terms are well-defined and used consistently, the argument's structure remains sound, unaffected by the choice of words. Emile, conversely, suggests language inherently carries connotations that impact how arguments are perceived. This emphasizes why it's crucial to dissect each part of an argument, such as premises, conclusions, and contextual implications to analyze them. With a clear breakdown, you can determine the soundness and effectiveness and explore any underlying assumptions or biases. Things to keep in mind during argument analysis include:

• Identifying core premises and conclusions.
• Evaluating the language for biases or connotations.
• Checking logical consistency and validity.

Analyzing arguments isn't just about determining if they are true or false, but about understanding how they are constructed and conveyed.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is about questioning arguments critically and rigorously. In the context of Sabina and Emile’s argument, it’s not just about whether their claims are true but understanding the reasoning behind their perspectives. Sabina mirrors an analytical approach, focusing on language consistency and definition clarity. Emile represents a critical viewpoint that considers the wider implications of language on audience perception and response. Critical thinking requires you to

• Examine assumptions and question preconceptions.
• Analyze the implications of each argument's stance.
• Consider the persuasiveness separately from its technical correctness.

By engaging critical thinking, you learn to approach arguments with an open mind and consider multiple angles, thus strengthening your evaluative skills.

Verbal Reasoning

Verbal reasoning is essential for understanding, interpreting, and logically analyzing texts and spoken arguments. With Sabina and Emile, understanding verbal reasoning involves recognizing how language can shape arguments. Sabina's stance suggests language as a mere vehicle for clear-cut argument transmission, whereas Emile sees it as a tool that can shape perception. Effective verbal reasoning requires

• Deciphering meaning beyond the superficial language use.
• Understanding the context that influences word interpretation.
• Recognizing ambiguities or implicit meanings.

Verbal reasoning is not only about comprehension but also about the ability to logically follow through and evaluate the conveyed ideas. This skill helps in distinguishing between what is being said and what is being inferred.