> The specific empirical concerns it raised are contradicted by evidence, logic, or both.
versus
> The rebuttal identifies individual examples that intuitively suggest my analyses were too conservative, but, on the one hand, closer examination shows the examples are not actually conservative, and on the other, the removal of those examples leaves the results unchanged.
What the first example lacks in detail, the second example lacks in clarity. Perhaps in context the second example could be understood, but it seems counterproductive to avoid using phrases like "contradicted by evidence", which at least let us know what the goal is for an argument that follows.
Again, perhaps context would make the second sample more clear, but it was provided as a writing sample free of context.
