Critical Reasoning(FACTS & CLAIMS)

[AsadA969]

Hi,
We have to understand the FACTS and CLAIMS most of the time to understand the Critical reasoning (Specially in Strengthen and Weaken Question). Could you please anyone to give me the QUALIFIER to understand the FACTS and CLAIMS?

Thanks to all...

[RonPurewal]

You wrote "qualifier" in all caps, suggesting that "qualifier" is some sort of special term. If that's true, then I don't understand what you are asking.

If you're just asking for the difference between a fact and a claim, then, basically, this:

* Facts are data or things that can be observed directly (by a neutral observer).

* Claims are absolutely everything else. Judgments, opinions, predictions, proposed explanations, hypotheticals... anything that's not a fact.

This is an absolute distinction. Even if a claim seems "obvious", it's still a claim.
For example:
The man on the corner is screaming obscenities at himself. --> This is a fact; it can be observed directly.
The man on the corner is insane. --> This is a claim. Even if it seems "clear" (most people would agree that a person shouting obscenities at himself in public is insane), it's still a judgment; it's not a fact, and can't be a fact.

[AsadA969]

Ron,
Thanks for your cordial response. You have provided two examples which indicate FACTS and CLAIMS and you also wrote it can be observed directly. But I wish to know that is there any SIGN to understand the FACTS and CLAIMS? You took 5 RC classes in "Thursdays with Ron". When you read a passage, you pronounced IT IS FACTS, IT IS FACTS, IT IS FACTS, BLAH.... BLAH.... BLAH. But how can I understand that THIS is facts? I mean, is there any SIGN to understand it (It is FACTS/CLAIMS)?


In strengthen and weaken question>>
you told that TO FIND THE ANSWER, we have to attack on CLAIMS NOT IN FACTS. So, my question is: after reading a CR passage how can I find out that THIS is FACTS or CLAIMS?

Thanks to read my post! Good Luck.

[tim]

Thanks to read my post! Good Luck.

Good luck with what? :)

I am totally convinced that Ron answered your question fully. If you have further questions, please articulate them more precisely. Your post contained quite a few writing errors that make it difficult to determine what you are asking beyond what Ron already answered.

[RonPurewal]

Yep.

This is mainly an issue of common-sense understanding. I'm sure that the difference already exists in your own head.

Here's another way to think about it: If something could actually be introduced as evidence in a courtroom, then it's a fact. Perhaps that will be easier to think about.

[Black Hole]

Pls Explain......

[AsadA969]

Tim,
Good luck with the "Journey of Manhattan GMAT".

Ron,
From "Thursdays with Ron" study Hall April 15, 2010:

In boldface question, you provided some QUALIFIER(e.g., clearly, certainly, must be, probably) which definitely indicate CLAIM not FACT. But, I wanna have some QUALIFIER which will indicate only FACTS.

In this study hall, you have also proved some INDICATORS which indicate "must be facts''(such as evidence, circumstance, findings.......) and "must be claim"(conclusion, position, hypothesis). But, THESE words will actually be seen in the BOLDFACE question directly. In another side (RC passage, strengthen and weaken question) THOSE words cannot be seen directly. I have to understand that these indicates FACTS or CLAIMS after reading sentence. Actually, I wish to have some QUALIFIER which directly indicate FACTS like clearly, certainly, must be, probably.

Thanks..

[RonPurewal]

You're better off just using common sense.

Just ask yourself whether something can be accurately labeled as "data" or "observations".

[AsadA969]

Thanks Ron. I got my answer.

[RonPurewal]

Ok.