One question found in recent examinations has been along the following lines:
Is the reasoning stronger in document 1 or document 2? Justify your answer with selective reference to key strengths and weaknesses in each document and their effect on the strength of the reasoning.
To tackle this question:
● Read each document carefully, seeking strengths as well as weaknesses in each and underlining them.
● Focus on the way specific claims are supported and the effect this has on the overall reasoning.
Revised
If asked to evaluate a longer passage as a response to another, it is useful to underline the parts of the second argument that contradict or refer to points made by the first, to help you organise your answer.
Exam tip
Revised
9 Ev alu ation
● Decide whether to assess one document and then the other, comparing them at the end, or to switch frequently between them, comparing them in a number of ways as you go. The latter is more sophisticated but some candidates find it confusing.
● Ensure that you conclude with a holistic judgement that follows from your observations and is not overdrawn.
Another question type is as follows:
Discuss the extent to which document 2 counters document 1.
You should come to a reasoned judgement.
Remember that this question, worth about 20 marks, comes under the heading ‘Evaluate’. It is not to be confused with the ‘Analyse’ question mentioned earlier (‘To what extent does the author of document 1 support claim X and on what grounds?’).
This time you need to look closely at the content of the two arguments.
It is likely that they disagree to some extent, but in quite subtle ways, perhaps with some common ground. Your task is to summarise accurately the reasoning in each, using your own words to show understanding but with supportive quotation. As you do so, compare them, drawing attention to points of conflict and points of agreement. Remember to reach a final judgement about how strongly they disagree.
Candidates sometimes write most of the essay about one document and focus almost exclusively on weaknesses.
Typical mistakes
Check your understanding
1 How does deductive reasoning differ from inductive?
2 In hypothetical deductive reasoning, what is meant by the antecedent of the premise?
3 What is meant by the consequent of the premise?
4 What is another phrase for modus ponens?
5 Is denying the consequent a valid form of reasoning or a formal fallacy?
6 What name is given to a type of deductive reasoning such as ‘All As are B; C is A, therefore C is B’?
7 Does an appeal to authority strengthen reasoning?
Answers on p. 106
Tested
Exam practice
1 Turn again to the Janet Street-Porter article (p. 88) and answer the following:
How eff ectively does Street-Porter support the claim in the article’s title that ‘a return to the ration book is the answer to obesity’? [20]
2 Is the reasoning stronger in Street-Porter’s argument (p. 88) or in Gard’s argument below? Justify
your answer with selective reference to key strengths and weaknesses in each document and their eff ect
on the strength of the reasoning. [20]
We should never lose sight of the fact that Western populations are, by and large, as healthy as they have ever been. We might also remember that there is a large body of opinion to the effect that one of the greatest threats to Western economic prosperity is our ageing population. While there are some that say we are about to see life expectancies nose dive, the majority of demographic opinion sees life expectancy continuing to rise. It is impossible for both points of view to be correct.
These complexities should direct us towards a focus on people’s health and the quality of their lives as opposed to their body weight. Rather than making policies and laws that indiscriminately target everyone, we should be identifying those groups for whom access to physical activity and high-quality
9 Ev alu ation
food is a problem. We know that people will use the streets for exercise if they think they are safe.
We know that people who are poor and working multiple low-paid jobs will use junk food because it is cheap and convenient.
There is no all-encompassing obesity crisis but there are always areas of public health which are worthy of concerted attention. The past tells us that, if preventative public health is to be our goal, focussing on the material conditions of people’s lives rather than hectoring, blaming and shaming them is more likely to achieve results.
(Extract from Obesity and Public Policy:
Thinking Clearly and Treading Carefully, Dr Michael Gard, Charles Sturt University)
Answers online
Exam summary
✔ You will be expected to evaluate the support given to a claim over several paragraphs or one or two whole documents. This will require a carefully planned and structured essay.
✔ As well as identifying flaws and strengths studied in Units 1 and 2, including making use of credibility criteria, you should be able to recognise the following and comment on their effects on the reasoning:
● deductively valid argument structures such as affirming the antecedent (modus ponens) and denying the consequent (modus tollens)
● formal fallacies, affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent
● syllogisms
● fallacy of the undistributed middle
● false converse
● appeals
● other rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions and loaded language
● More detailed assessment of analogies and hypothetical reasoning may be needed.
✔ Any assumptions will need to be identified and assessed.
✔ You may be asked to evaluate moves from one strand of the argument to another.
✔ There could be a question asking you to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two arguments, deciding which is the stronger, or to assess the effectiveness of one as a response to the other.
✔ You might need to discuss the extent to which one document counters the other and come to a reasoned judgement.
✔ Remember to take a holistic overview of any passage being evaluated, assessing its development through the various strands to its conclusion.
Online