Let's say Larry expresses an opinion that the kickers in football league B are more proficient at kicking extra points than those in Football League A. In response, Bob states a seemingly convincing fact that kickers in League A have a 95% success rate on extra point attempts, whereas kickers in League B have only a 65% success rate on extra point attempts. This seems to contradict Larry's claim. Let's examine the comparative merit of two different responses that might come from Larry. Response 1: That fails to take into account the fact that in League A they kick their extra points from 25 yards and in League B they kick them from 55 yards. Response 2: That's just because the centers in League B suck at hiking the ball for extra points! My gut makes me want to view the first response more credibly. However, I can't actually understand on an intellectual level why and I suspect it may have something to do with my societal upbringing. However, simply because the second response is crudely exclamatory, should that actually count against it? Am I placing too much emphasis on style and not sticking to substance in being dismissive of the second because of its crudeness? Can anyone here actually articulate not only which response they find more legitimate and convincing, except from a LOGICAL standpoint why either response is more convincing to you?