* e- a" S" \8 {2 x; i$ }9 {1 H( u ) D+ k) B# T4 uGiven the matters discussed above ; c9 X1 l. r) _8 Y 4 c% V& ^3 t: q3 n4 V O: t( R! S6 M! ]- q" W$ k; b/ q& m, c6 |
# }5 w' A6 E ~9 nThis argument is not persuasive as it stands 2 p: l9 G- v% X) Y5 N ( g# \/ t3 q( O' o 5 a$ u& ` Y# C( g % Y5 ~2 K7 G0 Q2 e' f- T) B8 @xx is unsounded to establish a general conclusion& N: e8 a1 x# C u2 f
* M7 O( m/ K. v0 F: f/ M+ X R6 y! j) {7 o! V) A 1 Q+ ]. `1 A6 h+ S. c; G it is judicious to admit point of the issue even though such point may suffer from some explicit shortcoming - S- [+ |0 F, `3 M/ B5 @$ k; F: l$ |) c% M % e7 e* E0 j4 U3 m0 T 1 Q6 V* `8 o0 {3 Z! c, J) n+ r2 c8 s$ {2 x
- }% ~) y F r* ~ j# `4 Y ; G6 e1 ~ b' a0 g3 ]; Y6 D# E5 i5 @: X* L3 v {. o
* x/ p+ r( `* D( J( y + P( V! B3 x6 `5 ~+ R5 ^, u% S5 S* @/ l6 P* w. K" M4 T7 c, e; P omit) ]0 U9 r0 X5 }. u- I/ f- X ; X; r9 [2 X3 J. w4 @
7 P' b4 h- i$ Z, c. z) B2 M& U c# R/ E% A5 H8 H3 I9 K0 Z" x2 s nullify 8 u+ S/ Q+ E9 P2 c5 D( p3 L3 r( j* E; d# P" T
4 T/ g Q* L2 S. n4 h1 J- c1 m0 |2 V( c v7 Q overstate 8 ?" `% D; M, C. E1 V; j + m) B7 w% ~# t. F6 V/ ], c3 D m4 g 7 C t: P J* h: M1 A) A drawback # S$ J1 Q& s& U, ^$ C$ b8 ^- K! ]$ I; G1 V+ Z' C3 i2 I ) G% L/ g% m3 a& Y c - O( L; c/ ?3 P gratuitous, o- z: H! d+ ?$ A7 `( f4 m# g9 n
7 V1 I; k+ d( l7 n4 c ' D- w6 K2 ^0 L0 | N6 x. x, p3 @3 r" @1 O neglect' @( C3 o7 _$ G1 a 4 c/ K$ l0 b w. F ' _2 y% C) s- B& b5 N2 ] ) |9 ~, [* k! s* p lose sight of . k+ r' q' l( j4 ?. k( a. Y) D- A6 y1 x" @% q" V3 H, t # O' W7 _# J/ Q: m! z( T- W ' _4 J4 @; i8 @4 j9 E- F" s skeptical+ W2 F* g& q- c- l, s- |0 r
; T( b1 a7 X3 C# y( e% a 1 B) j4 r- [/ |$ j9 W/ e % n" m9 D8 {: I1 O! b( fexaggerate 4 Y' \7 Z7 g" l( R6 a) o( V8 `6 S. |. k9 y