Thank you John in Kansas for translating it... saving ME much time.

Oh well...I might as well go further. What she meant was... "for the purposes of this class, it being in Philosophy, just stating an opinion is not enough."

That concept ought to be in general use in many areas and on many issues, but humans being what they are, most will continue to have opinions they cannot coherently defend.

When I was a graduate teaching fellow in Philosophy, we assigned a short term paper to Phil. 101 students to get past huge multiple-choice exams as the only test.
On the first one, we thought we'd 'stimulate interest' by picking as the topic: "The Existence of God"... big mistake! I told them... and I told them... and I repeated... that what we wanted was some idea that they had read various materials and understood BOTH sides of the debate. They were NOT to just 'give their opinion' and spew the classic non-philosophic defenses. Out of 400 or so papers, we had maybe 30 that really got the point, and only 3-4 that were really, really good! The best paper was an African-American boy who 'noted' that he was, in fact, a Christian, but that he owed it to himself to understand the issues. He did fine!

I can't tell you how many sad papers I read (remember... this was Kansas) which were little more than a defense of their church and culture.

Opinions.... it makes no difference whether anyone says you are... or are not.. entitled to one, no one can stop you having one- but in some circumstances you can be graded on how you defend it!