The Uncut Method Vocabulary List

to limit a claim, a qualified claim has been limited in its scope to make it more reasonable

qualify / qualified

assumption

implicit premise

general rule, usually presented to guide a specific example

principal / general principle

an argument against a given point, usually presented by the author to discredit something that "some people claim..."

counterargument

not necessarily the conclusion of the stimulus overall.

could be referring to the overall conclusion, but be on the lookout for it to refer to another conclusion discussed by the author in the course of the stimulus

a given conclusion

give reasons for something

provide evidence

make an argument against something

counter assertions

says the facts of the conclusion are not true

suggests its conclusion is incorrect

says the conclusion being discussed has not been proven, this is different than saying the conclusion is untrue

questions the adequacy of a conclusion

a thing! do not make this more complicated than a "thing"

phenomenon (singular) / phenomena (plural)

a difference between two things, usually pointed out by someone

a distinction

pointing out a difference between two things

drawing a distinction

a specific example of something being discussed

an instance

tare down someone else's argument

refute

looks to something to support their point

appeals to

make clearer

clarify

something that is claimed to be true, but might not be true (usually throws shade)

purported

a rule is not relevant, cannot use the rule in this specific situation

a principle does not apply

something is relevant, can be used in this specific situation

something applies

only one

sole

provide a

offer a

something in another situation is similar to something in this situation

(if X corresponds to Y, X acts similarly to Y, but they are in different contexts)

corresponding

acts similarly to something else in a different situation

corresponds to

using how two things are the same or different to prove your conclusion

on the basis of comparisons

as a foundation to argue from

as a basis for

not similar

disanalogous

arguing that

contending that

assumption

supposition / presupposition

assumes

supposes / presupposes

assumes something based on evidence

infers a

prove something 100% true

guarantee the truth

prove something 100% false

guarantee the falsity

question whether there's enough evidence to prove the point

question the sufficiency of evidence

we still don't know about something

remains unexplained

only

implies that the thing it's attached to is probably not enough to do what we need

merely

implies that the thing it's attached to is probably not enough to do what we need

merely

the two statements contradict one another

inconsistent statements

statement

proposition

poorly assumed, usually as an adjective to throw shade

"the supposed cause" = the pretend cause

supposed

using evidence to show that

demonstrating that

repeats

restates

pretends that X is Y to try to prove their conclusion, that is a shady thing to do

treats an X as a Y

a quality or characteristic of a thing

a property

the world of whatever you're talking about

if you go outside the scope of the argument, you've gone too far off the deep end into irrelevancy

scope

"from" introduces a premise

"to" introduces a conclusion

"reasoning from X to Y" means that answer choice is claiming X is a premise and Y is a conclusion

reasoning from X to Y

saying X is like Y, then claiming a property of X applies to Y as well

analogy