Q24

[matthew.mainen]

Can someone shed some light on the difference between arguing theory is incomplete and refuting it? My reasoning in this question was that because the author provided what he saw as a better alternative, he was rejecting and thus refuting the continuous change argument. In other words, he's saying that if either of the two theories are correct its definitely going to be mine instead of the other.

[rinagoldfield]

Hey matthew.mainen,

Your reasoning is impeccable:

My reasoning in this question was that because the author provided what he saw as a better alternative, he was rejecting and thus refuting the continuous change argument. In other words, he's saying that if either of the two theories are correct its definitely going to be mine instead of the other.

And that is why (C) is correct, and not (B).

An example of arguing that a theory is incomplete is to say "the continuous change argument has a lot of merit, but more research must be done to prove its conclusions." In other words, the theory still has some holes, but isn’t necessarily wrong.

An example of refuting a theory is to say "the continuous change argument is incorrect. The laws of 1964 caused the black economic progress in the 1960s." In other words, the theory is wrong.

Does that make sense?

[jm.kahn]

C says "factors influencing black eco progress" but the passage is about factors that influenced black eco progress between 1940 and 1975 (line 15-16). The passage talks about a historical period not current black economic progress.

C should be wrong on that basis. Why is then C credited?