5.

6.

7.

5 5 tus 10 points When we used techniques to convert a passage into a structured paraphrase our efforts were bound by cues and explicit commitments evidenced in the author's choice of terms and expressions. When converting a structured paraphrase into an argument schematization, however, we were able to exercise some freedom in determining which claims serve as either support or concluding statements. What was the single type of statement whose status or function was deemed to be ambiguous when converting a structured paraphrase to an argument schematization? An ambiguous statement is one that requires consultation of the context of the passage to properly categorize it as either a supporting or a concluding statement. Choose one answer from among the following labels. A [q] statement An [r] statement An [e] statement. An [s] statement. 6 10 points Building a structured paraphrase often relied on the meaning of specific phrases or terms. Analyzing phrases such as "in order to or terms such as because helped us to understand the function that a certain statement served within the passage. Building an argument schematization, by contrast, does not proceed on the basis of a similar analysis. What is one reason to think that we can draw this distinction between a structured paraphrase and an argument schematization? Choose one answer. Done iz-lti-iad-prod.instructure.com AAC Return Submit Sometimes, when building a diagnostic argument, we are unable to classify a statement as serving a specific function because there are no cues (such as expressions like "so," "in order to." "because." and so on) to guide our classification. In such cases we use the [s] label. Yet the same [s] statement, within the context of building a structured paraphrase for the passage in question, may be classified as a la statement Therefore the analysis of terms and phrases and sentence structure, that is, the kind of analysis that we use when building a diagnostic argument, is different from the kind of analysis that we perform when building a structured paraphrase. Sometimes, when distinguishing between main and tributary arguments, we are unable to classify a statement as serving a specific function because there are no cues (such as expressions like "so," "in order to," "because." and so on) to guide our classification. In such cases we use the [q] label. Yet the same [a] statement, within the context of building a structured paraphrase for the passage in question, may be classified as a tributary argument. Therefore the analysis of terms and phrases and sentence structure, that is, the kind of analysis that we use when distinguishing between main and tributary arguments, is different from the kind of analysis that we perform when building a