Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward

Emil-Kunkin on September 15, 2023

The author is not trying to convince you of that, because there's nothing that could conceivably by considered evidence that pompous cats are irritating. The first question is a set of facts because we don't have a conclusion, we only really have loosely related statements that lack an authors' attempt to convince us of something.

The term however can be used to indicate a conclusion, but it doesn't have to be. I think the only terms that are pretty much always indicative of a conclusion are thus and therefore.


I would add that my personal take (and I think others will disagree) is that distinguishing sets of facts from arguments is an overrated skill at first.I think it's something that's an outgrowth of understanding what you've read, and that focusing on distinguishing isn't necessarily a great use of your time. My main reason for this is that the question stem will tell you if you need to approach a passage as an argument or as a set of facts. A must be true, must be false, and a paradox question will always be something we should treat as sets of facts. Pretty much all the others are going to be arguments.

Emil-Kunkin on September 15, 2023

The author is not trying to convince you of that, because there's nothing that could conceivably by considered evidence that pompous cats are irritating. The first question is a set of facts because we don't have a conclusion, we only really have loosely related statements that lack an authors' attempt to convince us of something.

The term however can be used to indicate a conclusion, but it doesn't have to be. I think the only terms that are pretty much always indicative of a conclusion are thus and therefore.


I would add that my personal take (and I think others will disagree) is that distinguishing sets of facts from arguments is an overrated skill at first.I think it's something that's an outgrowth of understanding what you've read, and that focusing on distinguishing isn't necessarily a great use of your time. My main reason for this is that the question stem will tell you if you need to approach a passage as an argument or as a set of facts. A must be true, must be false, and a paradox question will always be something we should treat as sets of facts. Pretty much all the others are going to be arguments.