Here, I can argue that this math problem is very complicated and therefore it is a serious problem to me. For the sake of the argument, let's just say I no sh*t about math while you are an expert. Let's say you and I are to solve an average-level math problem. Therefore, intricacy should be rather an opinion. Because I think intricacy of the crops is something that the researchers perceived. I could be dead wrong, so feel free to rectify me.įirst, I did not perceive 'their intricacy' as a fact, like you mentioned. Here are some of my thoughts on your counter argument. Please let me know if this understanding is correct Bunuel It would be in OPPOSITE DIRECTION at most, but to DISPUTE would be too extreme IMHO. He believes in some other reason than the previously stated opinion (IC - BF2). Here, Seemingly the author does not DISPUTE the statement per say. Thus, it is clear that most, if not all, crop circles are indeed the work of humans. (E) Nope, BF1 is definitely not an opinion. The main conclusion is that crop circles are man-made. (A) BF2 is definitely the main conclusion. Therefore, we can clearly see that BF1 is the evidence supporting the belief that crop circles are not man-made, which is an intermediate conclusion that will be disputed later. But then later in 1991 it turned out that some dudes from Southhampton admitted that, which is the main conclusion of the argument, they made the crop circles by hand. Why? Because 'the plants seemed bent but not broken'. The argument can be understood as follows: There are some researchers who believed that crop circles are not man-made. BF2 is a conclusion also not supported by the argument. (E) BF1 is an opinion that is disputed by the argument. (D) BF1 is an observation that seemed to support a conclusion that the argument opposes. (C) BF1 is a fact that, along with another fact, proves a conclusion. (B) BF1 is evidence presented for a belief that is disputed by the argument. BF2 is the main conclusion of the argument. (A) BF1 is evidence whose existence is questioned by the argument. The portions in boldface play which of the following roles? But in 1991, two men from Southampton confessed to having made hundreds of crop circles since the dusk of the 1970s with nothing more complex than ropes and boards. Some who researched the crop circles were convinced that their intricacy and the fact that the plants seemed bent but not broken precluded a human creator, which implied that they were the product of either unknown natural phenomenon or extra-terrestrials. Crop circles are large circle-based geometric patterns formed by flattening crops and are mostly came across on farms in southern England.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |