Sophisticated Discourse Markers: Argument and Evaluation Exercise

Answers

1. The proposal is intellectually elegant and politically ambitious; that said, it leaves the funding mechanism worryingly vague.
2. The committee may have acted in good faith; be that as it may, its failure to consult the affected communities undermines the legitimacy of the decision.
3. The report is exhaustive in scope and meticulous in its documentation; for all that, its central recommendation is surprisingly timid.
4. Insofar as the data measure household income rather than individual wealth, the conclusion should be treated as provisional.
5. The scheme is legally questionable; what is more, it is unlikely to deliver the savings its supporters advertise.
6. The study has methodological limitations, but its sample is unusually large and its findings are consistent with earlier research; on balance, it deserves serious attention.
7. The new evidence does not weaken the prosecution’s case; if anything, it makes the original timeline more plausible.
8. The policy has attracted not merely isolated complaints but sustained criticism from across the political spectrum; indeed, several of its original advocates now describe it as unworkable.
9. A tax cut may stimulate demand in a recession; conversely, the same measure may intensify inflationary pressure when the economy is already overheating.
10. Notwithstanding the panel’s reservations about cost, the board approved the project on the grounds of long-term strategic value.
11. The witness could identify the process but not the individual who authorised it; in other words, the testimony establishes how the decision was made, not who made it.
12. The critique is severe; to be fair, the authors acknowledge most of these limitations in a detailed appendix.