Evidence Evaluation & Support Flashcards

An AWA argument draws on evidence from a study funded by the company whose product is being evaluated. What is the primary concern?

Answer: Funding source creates a potential conflict of interest that may introduce bias into study design or reporting

A financial stake in the outcome can—consciously or unconsciously—influence how a study is designed, conducted, or reported, warranting skepticism.

Which technique best demonstrates how to use counterevidence responsibly in an AWA argument?

Answer: Acknowledge the counterevidence, explain its limitations, and show why it does not defeat the main claim

Engaging with counterevidence and explaining its limits shows intellectual honesty and strengthens the argument's credibility.

An argument concludes that a medication is safe because no participants reported side effects during a two-week trial. What evidential limitation is most critical to flag?

Answer: The trial duration is too short to detect long-term or delayed side effects

Many significant side effects emerge only after extended use, so a two-week observation period cannot establish long-term safety.

In an AWA critique, what is meant by 'the scope of the evidence does not match the scope of the conclusion'?

Answer: The evidence covers a narrow or specific context while the conclusion makes a broad or universal claim

A mismatch in scope occurs when limited evidence—local, short-term, or small-sample—is used to justify sweeping, general conclusions.

An AWA argument supports a business recommendation by noting that 'competitors who tried this strategy failed.' How does this evidence actually undermine the argument?

Answer: Evidence that the strategy failed for others contradicts rather than supports the recommendation to adopt it

Citing competitor failures as support for adopting the same strategy is self-defeating—it is counterevidence, not supporting evidence.

Which question is most useful when assessing whether an AWA argument's evidence is sufficient to support its conclusion?

Answer: Does the evidence, even if true, logically necessitate the conclusion, or could the conclusion still be false?

Sufficiency asks whether the evidence, taken at face value, closes the logical gap between premises and conclusion or leaves room for doubt.

An AWA argument states: 'Since sales of organic food have tripled, consumers clearly prefer healthier lifestyles.' What unwarranted assumption does this evidence contain?

Answer: That purchasing organic food is equivalent to preferring a healthier lifestyle broadly, ignoring other motivations like environmental concern or marketing

Consumers may buy organic food for reasons unrelated to overall health lifestyle preferences, such as environmental values, taste, or social signaling.