Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support. Moreover, if the words are clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument' s soundness. Thus, how an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it is a good argument. Emile: Badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a poor one. After all, many words have social and political connotations that influence people' s response to claims expressed in those words, regardless of how carefully and explicitly those words are defined. Since whether people will acknowledge a fact is affected by how the fact is expressed, the conclusions they actually draw are also affected. The point at issue between Emile and Sabina is whether ['a sound argument in support of a given conclusion is a better argument than any unsound argument for that same conclusion', 'a word can be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations', 'it would be a good policy to avoid using words that are likely to lead people either to misunderstand the claims being made or to reason badly about those claims', "a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one"]