<p>whats the difference between defending, challenging, and qualifying?</p>
<p>Can we get this within the context of whatever it is you’re asking about?</p>
<p>I’m given a quote: “our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts”
i need either to defend, challenge, or qualify the quote</p>
<p>defend = you believe the quote and need to back it up
challenge = you think it’s untrue and need to prove it wrong
qualify = you agree with both to some extent (not sure about this)</p>
<p>that’s my take at least…</p>
<p>thanks!
i think i might get it now</p>
<p>Qualify means that you explain what the quote means and examine the pros and cons of both sides.</p>
<p>i was p. sure qualify was like a “yes, but…”</p>
<p>also that it’s highly discouraged unless you have some sick examples that youre really confident about. otherwise, best to take a side, bro.</p>
<p>No matter what you do, make sure that you recognize the arguments of both sides. If you don’t acknowledge, you can sound closed-minded and that is not a winner. You don’t have to agree with them, just talk about why they would disagree-then refute their position if it is flawed (use evidence).</p>
<p>If you qualify, you acknowledge the other side of the argument and you settle in with some thesis that combines the “yes” and “no” and thus you diversify what the question is simply asking for.</p>
<p>qualify is like sitting on the fence, it is generally harder to get points for a definitive argument on that one.</p>
<p>however, as mentioned, you can get +++ points for acknowledging counterclaims (other view points) in your argument and then explaining their value (as in why your claim is better)</p>