argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Sensitivity to genome inclusion and rooting
againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →Pekar et al.'s two-spillover phylodynamic inference is robust to model assumptions
The argument
Because linked claim and linked claim, the inference rests on a tree-rooting choice that is not securely determined; and because linked claim and linked claim, the very set of early genomes fed into the analysis is disputed in a way that changes the inferred number of spillovers. Together these hold that the two-spillover result shifts under defensible alternative choices of rooting and genome inclusion, bearing against its robustness to model assumptions.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →Excluding intermediate lineage A/B SARS-CoV-2 genomes materially affects Pekar et al.'s inferred number of spillovers
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Pekar et al.'s two-spillover conclusion depends on the phylogenetic rooting of early SARS-CoV-2 sequences
- InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →Intermediate A-B SARS-CoV-2 genomes existed among early human cases
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →The correct rooting of the early SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic tree is uncertain
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.