A few weeks ago you took what I called a Line of Reasoning test. I asked you to focus on questions 1a, 1b, and 3. Through the answers to these you were to show me that you understand what makes an argument strong.
I gave you the AICE Global Perspectives test from May/June 2016.
There was a wide range of grades but most of the mistakes were common across the board.
The number one issue was that when asked to explain you wrote examples. The way I differentiate between these two phrases are as so:
- Explain -> answer the WHY of a question
- Why does the answer you have given support the question?
- Why does it matter if the author is credible?
- Why does an author need to include examples?
- Examples -> answer the WHAT/HOW of a question
- How did the author show that? What examples did they use?
This mix up lead to many students giving a list of examples without ever explaining why they were using them to support the claim. It is great if you can provide an example, but only if you can tell your reader why that example is important to answering the question.
These are key elements to putting together an argument. Not just stating here is a bunch of evidence, but telling your reader or audience why the evidence is important in the context of your argument. If you are arguing for smaller class sizes, and you tell me that at a school they have class sizes of 12….what else can you tell me about why it matters!?!?! Do not leave your audience hanging or confused. You need to fully explain your reasoning.
Below is an example of a “perfect” test. It is not 100% perfect, but it is a good example.
Remember, this test was only worth 20 points. In the grand scheme of the quarter, it is not the end of the world if you did not do well on this test. But, use it to learn from. Come at lunch and ask me questions about the grade of your test. Keep it to review. Re-write the answers to see if you can answer the question differently.
Hold onto this test so that you can review it when it comes to test season!
Keep up the great work!
(Credits to Christina Bell and Olivia Janzen)
1a. Eco-cities have many benefits. One benefit is that building them might end national conflicts. Another benefit is that eco-cities can provide us with a new way of living. In the future, the middle-class people will be able to live in urbanized homes.
1b. There are a few reasons why the author thinks eco-cities will not bring benefits to everyone. One reason that it will not be beneficial to everyone is because they are too expensive. Only wealthy people can move into eco-cities which is not helping fix urban growth, because it is just giving the wealthy people somewhere to run away to. Another reason why eco-cities might not benefit us is because it might lead to segregation. Eco-cities will just split people up and put the wealthier people into their own “gated community.” Eco-cities may not benefit all people.
**This is one of the few answers that used similar claims, but differentiated the explanations which is why this answer was allowed.**
3. Document 2’s argument has a more convincing argument than Document 1. This is because it stays focused on its main claim, which is that eco-cities are beneficial to its country. It gives strong reasons on the effects of building an eco-city. However, in Document 1, it does not give descriptive explanation on how it would affect the people and the world if they build an eco-city. Both documents give evidence that supports their argument. For example, they both have facts on eco-cities. One thing that makes Document 2 stand out is that its counter claim flowed into the article, and it did not confuse the reader on which side the argument is on for the eco-cities. On the other side, Document 1 was confusing on if it was pre-eco-cities or against eco-cities.
However, Document 2 did show some weaknesses. The main one was that it only referenced China and what they are doing with “new urbanization.” This is a major flaw because in a global argument you want it to have an effect on everyone and everywhere. Document 1 did cite many different countries. Another weakness in Document 2 was that it did not cite any sources in the article. this is not good for the article because it does not give it credibility or accuracy. In Document 1, they did cite an article. For example, “according to an article on Worldfinance.com.” Lastly in Document 2, the author did not show expertise or did not mention any experts on the topic. This shows that the article is not all first hand evidence. However in Document 1, it mentioned a reporter from a magazine.
In conclusion, the overall argument in Document 2 was strong, through strong evidence and a clear and understandable argument.