frmichelin1-10, Exercise 1: A different verdict

Model answer (many answers are acceptable if reasoned):

Claim: "The guide is a neutral judge." Table verdict: not fully supported.
Alternative: "Mostly supported". Reasons: the owner earns nothing from the restaurants it rates, inspectors pay their bills, and the courts have so far treated ratings as opinion (Chapters 3, 5, 8). Evidence wanted: a record of rating decisions that cut against the company's commercial interest, and published details of the funding of local editions.

Claim: "Michelin inspectors are always anonymous." Table verdict: largely supported, not provable.
Alternative: "Unproven". Reasons: the only direct evidence is the company's own statement and a few former inspectors' accounts, one of whom was in dispute with the company (Chapter 8). Evidence wanted: independent audits, or several inspectors' accounts that agree.

Care: a different verdict is fine only if it names the evidence that would support it, and says what would make you change it again.