Use argument mapping or logical reasoning to determine if filling critical gaps or changing assumptions would change the judgment.

Use argument mapping or logical reasoning to determine if filling critical gaps or changing assumptions would change the judgment.

• A. Assess/evaluate analytic finding
• B. Targeted technique
• C. Impact of remaining gaps and assumptions
• D. Four ways of seeing

Answer: (C)

In argument mapping and logical reasoning, a key skill is testing how robust a judgment is to missing information and to shifts in underlying premises. This means asking whether filling a critical gap with new evidence or changing an assumption would alter the conclusion. That focus—how the remaining gaps and assumptions would influence the judgment—is precisely what is being asked to determine, making the impact of remaining gaps and assumptions the best fit. Why this best fits: it centers on sensitivity and robustness. If the conclusion would change when a gap is filled or an assumption is adjusted, those gaps or assumptions are pivotal to the judgment; if the conclusion remains the same, the judgment is robust to those gaps or assumptions. The other options describe evaluating a finding, applying a specific method, or considering multiple perspectives, none of which directly target how gaps and assumptions affect the final judgment.

In argument mapping and logical reasoning, a key skill is testing how robust a judgment is to missing information and to shifts in underlying premises. This means asking whether filling a critical gap with new evidence or changing an assumption would alter the conclusion. That focus—how the remaining gaps and assumptions would influence the judgment—is precisely what is being asked to determine, making the impact of remaining gaps and assumptions the best fit.

Why this best fits: it centers on sensitivity and robustness. If the conclusion would change when a gap is filled or an assumption is adjusted, those gaps or assumptions are pivotal to the judgment; if the conclusion remains the same, the judgment is robust to those gaps or assumptions. The other options describe evaluating a finding, applying a specific method, or considering multiple perspectives, none of which directly target how gaps and assumptions affect the final judgment.