A claim is defensible when it is supported by credible evidence, logical reasoning, and sound methodology. It should address counterarguments and demonstrate a clear connection between the evidence and the conclusion drawn. Additionally, a defensible claim is transparent, allowing others to evaluate the validity of the supporting arguments and evidence. Ultimately, rigor and clarity in presentation strengthen the defensibility of a claim.
It is both arguable and defensible.
Improving bicycle lanes would reduce road accidents
A claim that is not defensible is one that lacks evidence or logical reasoning to support it. For example, asserting that a specific group of people is inherently inferior without any factual basis or scientific backing falls into this category. Such claims can be dismissed as prejudiced or unfounded, as they do not withstand scrutiny or rational debate. Ultimately, defensible claims require substantiation through credible sources and coherent arguments.
A claim that is not defensible is one that lacks evidence or logical reasoning to support it. For example, stating that "all cats are secretly spies" is indefensible because it relies on unfounded assumptions and cannot be substantiated with facts. Claims must be based on verifiable data and sound arguments to be considered defensible.
A defensible thesis is one that is supported by logical reasoning, credible evidence, and thorough analysis. It should be well-researched, clearly stated, and able to withstand scrutiny and counterarguments. Additionally, a defensible thesis should contribute something new to the existing body of knowledge or offer a fresh perspective on the topic.
But it seems it is also the least defensible of circumstances.
Oh, dude, let me break it down for you. The statement "There should be no minimum voting age" is definitely arguable, like, come on, people can argue about anything these days. But is it defensible? Well, that's a whole other story. So, the answer is D) It is arguable but not defensible. Like, you can argue it all day long, but defending it might be a bit tricky.
No affirmative action is morally defensible.
The claim that the ancient Romans were not artistic is not easily defensible, if it is defensible at all. For, in respect to architecture, a number of visual arts (such as sculpture), and literature (poetry and prose alike), among other areas, the Romans were quite distinctively and admirably artistic by comparison with other ancient (and later) peoples and cultures.
A justified claim is an assertion that is supported by evidence or reasoning, making it credible and defensible. It typically relies on facts, data, or logical arguments that validate the position taken. In various contexts, such as law, ethics, or academic discourse, a justified claim is essential for persuading others and establishing trust in the argument presented. Ultimately, it demonstrates that the claim is not merely opinion but is grounded in substantiated reasoning.
A defensible thesis is a statement that can be supported with evidence and reasoning. It should be clear, specific, and arguable to encourage critical thinking and discussion. Adequate research and analysis are required to back up a defensible thesis.
Jesus