- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Thu Oct 16, 2025 4:02 pm
#121839
Hi Morgan,
The word "countered" here basically means "rebutted" or "opposed."
While the sentence itself is not shown to be false, its function as a potential objection to the argument's main conclusion (that semiplane monohulls will probably be profitable) is countered.
It may be helpful to imagine that this engineer is arguing with another engineer over whether or not semiplane monohulls will probably be profitable.
The other engineer, who believes that semiplane monohulls will not be profitable, says "semiplane monohulls will need much more fuel than conventional ships, which means that using them will be much more expensive than conventional ships, and therefore they are not likely to be profitable."
To which the first engineer (the one from the question who believes that semiplane monohulls will be profitable) responds, "While it's true that semiplane monohulls will need much more fuel than conventional ships and that using them will be much more expensive than conventional ships, this does not mean that they will not be profitable. Jets also needed much more fuel than conventional airplanes and were more expensive, but they became profitable because they offered certain advantages over conventional planes, so likewise semiplane monohulls will probably become profitable for the same reasons."
Of course, in the engineer's argument, the engineer raises this potential objection himself or herself in order to then show why it is not actually an obstacle to the engineer's conclusion.
The word "countered" here basically means "rebutted" or "opposed."
While the sentence itself is not shown to be false, its function as a potential objection to the argument's main conclusion (that semiplane monohulls will probably be profitable) is countered.
It may be helpful to imagine that this engineer is arguing with another engineer over whether or not semiplane monohulls will probably be profitable.
The other engineer, who believes that semiplane monohulls will not be profitable, says "semiplane monohulls will need much more fuel than conventional ships, which means that using them will be much more expensive than conventional ships, and therefore they are not likely to be profitable."
To which the first engineer (the one from the question who believes that semiplane monohulls will be profitable) responds, "While it's true that semiplane monohulls will need much more fuel than conventional ships and that using them will be much more expensive than conventional ships, this does not mean that they will not be profitable. Jets also needed much more fuel than conventional airplanes and were more expensive, but they became profitable because they offered certain advantages over conventional planes, so likewise semiplane monohulls will probably become profitable for the same reasons."
Of course, in the engineer's argument, the engineer raises this potential objection himself or herself in order to then show why it is not actually an obstacle to the engineer's conclusion.