Down = be insanely skeptical of the answer choices; answer choices should have low burden of proof based on stimulus & should be able to match it to specific parts of the stimulus
Up = be insanely skeptical of the stimulus; answer choice should have huge effect on the strength of the stimulus's argument
main problem with this kind of typology that I have is that I don't really think NAs belong to the latter group, the choice reflects less an impact on the stimulus than a kind of MBT equivalent.
That's a fair view; NA is arguably more of a hybrid. You can think of it as a MBT. You can also think of it as similar to weaken in that the negation of the correct answer will weaken the argument. So in that sense, the impact of the answer is strong (the impact of the negation of an NA affects the argument significantly by showing that the premise doesn't prove the conclusion).
3 comments
so, what I gathered:
Down = be insanely skeptical of the answer choices; answer choices should have low burden of proof based on stimulus & should be able to match it to specific parts of the stimulus
Up = be insanely skeptical of the stimulus; answer choice should have huge effect on the strength of the stimulus's argument
main problem with this kind of typology that I have is that I don't really think NAs belong to the latter group, the choice reflects less an impact on the stimulus than a kind of MBT equivalent.
I was thinking the same thing about NA, shouldnt they must be true so 'down' then? #help
That's a fair view; NA is arguably more of a hybrid. You can think of it as a MBT. You can also think of it as similar to weaken in that the negation of the correct answer will weaken the argument. So in that sense, the impact of the answer is strong (the impact of the negation of an NA affects the argument significantly by showing that the premise doesn't prove the conclusion).