A plausible objection changes the follow-up comparison
Present concrete inputs and the intermediate reasoning steps that connect them to a conclusion, including a revealing wrong move or alternative where available.
Freakonomics
Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner · 111 weeksA plausible objection changes the follow-up comparison
SHORT SOURCE EXCERPT“some non-cheaters were needed as a control group”
When the school system considers retesting suspected classrooms, the authors introduce an alternative: lower scores could result because the repeat test does not count. The reported design therefore includes classrooms thought to have strong teaching and ordinary nonsuspicious classrooms, alongside the suspected group.
This makes the choice of comparison intelligible. The reader can see why a decrease in one group alone would leave an alternative open and why the controls matter to the inference.
The source in context.
A late-pickup fine opens a discussion of economic, social and moral incentives. Teachers, wrestlers and an office bagel business then let the authors examine cheating, display traces in data and describe ways of testing suspicious patterns.
Open this chapterWhat this example supports
This makes the choice of comparison intelligible. The reader can see why a decrease in one group alone would leave an alternative open and why the controls matter to the inference.
Its limit
This is the authors’ description of the retest and result; independent study design review and reanalysis have not been conducted. It is a later stage of the same investigation, not a second independent replication.
Source & edition
Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics; supplied revised and expanded edition, copyright 2005 and 2006; Adobe Digital Edition September 2009, ISBN 9780061792809.
Supplied text, lines 588–596. The short quotation is checked against the source.
The completed whole-source AI synthesis supplied candidate observations and the broad argument map. This Codex editorial pass checked original source headings, section boundaries, openings and selected argumentative contexts; inspected every retained example; checked the existing pattern dictionary and base examples; and rewrote or rejected nominations. It is a source-checked editorial pass, not a new independently adjudicated whole-book reading.
supplied revised and expanded edition, copyright 2005 and 2006; Adobe Digital Edition September 2009, ISBN 9780061792809