Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Miller's phases were: an introduction to the problem; a summary of views that oppose the writer's position; a statement of understanding of the region of validity of the opposing views; a statement of the writer's position; a statement of the situations in which the writer's position has merit; and a statement of the benefits of accepting the ...
Donald Rumsfeld, then US Secretary of Defense, argued against the argument from ignorance when discussing the lack of evidence for WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion: "Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." [7] [b] The aphorism "No news is good news". [8]
An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to appeal that ruling. Under certain circumstances, a court may need to hold some kind of pretrial hearing and make evidentiary rulings to resolve important issues like personal jurisdiction, or whether to impose sanctions for extreme misconduct by parties or counsel.
A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. [1] The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented.
The GLP-1 class has revolutionized the way doctors approach weight-loss treatment because it offers therapy that works – clinical trials showed 15 to 20% loss of body weight, on average ...
If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives. [10]
The facts upon which an expert opinion is based must be proved by admissible evidence. [6] The duty of experts is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so that the judge or jury can form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved. [7]
The importance of an event to contemporary author plays a role in the decision to mention it, and historian Krishnaji Chitnis states that for an argument from silence to apply, it must be of interest and significance to the person expected to be recording it, else it may be ignored; e.g. while later historians have lauded Magna Carta as a great national document, contemporary authors did not ...