Passage A.
ββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββ βββββ ββ ββββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββ ββββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββββ βββ ββββββ βββ β ββββββ βββββ ββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββ
ββββββββ ββββββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ βββ
βββββββ β
ββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββ βββββ βββββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββ βββ βββ βββ βββ βββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββ ββ βββββββ βββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββββ ββββ βββββ βββββββββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββββββ βββββ βββββββββββ βββββ βββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββββ βββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββββ ββββ ββ ββ ββ βββββ βββββ ββββββββββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββββ βββββββββββββ
βββββ ββββββββββββ βββββ βββββ ββββββββ βββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββ βββββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββββββ βββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββββ ββββ ββββββ βββββββ βββ
In saying that Popper gives β βββββββ ββββ β
extends the idea ββ βββββ ββ βββββ ββ ββββ βββ βββββ
Passage A is all about how powerful negative evidence is for science, and the author suggests that Popper exaggerates that power. Throughout the passage, the domain of discussion is science in general. The author never suggests that Popper takes the power of negative evidence too far by extending the idea to other situations (like, say, to law or to basketball). Rather, the author argues Popper exaggerates how powerful negative evidence is for science.
underestimates the significance ββ βββ ββββ
This is the opposite of what Popper does, according to author A. Popper overestimates how powerful negative evidence is.
commits a logical βββββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββ
The author doesnβt suggest any logical fallacy or flaw. She simply says Popper takes the idea that negative evidence is more powerful than positive evidence and runs with that idea too far, exaggerating how powerful negative evidence really is.
draws too radical β ββββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββ
When author A says that popper gives the unequal weight between positive and negative evidence βhyperbolic application,β she explains that Popper thought positive evidence βhas no valueβ and one piece of negative context is all it takes to disprove a theory. So sheβs saying Popper was taking things to extremes and drawing too radical a conclusion from the fact that negative evidence can be more powerful than positive evidence.
exaggerates the idea's βββββββββ ββ β ββββββββββ ββββββ
Author A doesnβt refer to any particular theories in the first place. Her discussion is entirely generalized: she says Popper exaggerates the importance of negative evidence to science as a whole.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic