Critical Evaluation
C2 readers don’t just understand arguments—they inspect them. This unit trains “argument surgery”: spotting bias, diagnosing fallacies, and judging evidence quality so students can respond with clear, fair, and rigorous reasoning.
SWBAT (Objectives)
- Separate claim from evidence and assumptions in an argument.
- Identify common cognitive and rhetorical bias (loaded language, framing, omission).
- Recognize fallacies (straw man, false dilemma, ad hominem, slippery slope, etc.) and explain why they weaken reasoning.
- Evaluate evidence quality (source credibility, methodology, relevance, representativeness).
- Perform “argument surgery”: revise a weak argument into a stronger, fairer version.
Bias (How Arguments Tilt Meaning)
- Loaded words: “reckless,” “disaster,” “obvious”
- Framing: “protecting freedom” vs “allowing harm”
- Cherry-picking: only supporting examples
- Omission: missing constraints, limitations, counter-cases
Swap emotional labels for precise description.
“This policy is a disaster” → “This policy may increase costs and reduce access in X cases.”
“If someone disagreed, what would they say is missing, exaggerated, or unfairly framed?”
Fallacies (Common Reasoning Breakdowns)
- Straw man: misrepresenting the other side
- False dilemma: “only two options”
- Slippery slope: unsupported chain of consequences
- Ad hominem: attacking the person, not the claim
- Hasty generalization: small sample → big conclusion
“That doesn’t follow because…”
“That assumes X, but X isn’t proven.”
“Those two options aren’t exhaustive—there’s also…”
“That example may not be representative because…”
Identify the faulty logic clearly and propose a better version of the claim. The goal is precision, not “gotcha.”
Evidence Quality (Strength, Relevance, Limits)
- Is the source credible and transparent?
- Is the evidence relevant to the claim?
- Is the sample representative?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
- Does correlation get mistaken for causation?
“The data suggests…” · “This is consistent with…” · “A limitation is…”
“This may not generalize to…” · “The causal link remains unclear.”
Strong: methodology + context + limits.
Weak: anecdotes, vague “studies show,” unclear numbers, no comparison point.
Argument Surgery (Step-by-Step)
Claim → reasons → evidence → assumptions → conclusion. If any link is missing, the argument weakens.
Bias? fallacy? weak evidence? irrelevant evidence? missing counterargument? unclear definitions?
Replace loaded language, add constraints, strengthen evidence, and rewrite claims with accurate strength.
Original: “Anyone who disagrees with this policy doesn’t care about safety.”
Diagnosis: ad hominem + false framing.
Repaired: “Supporters argue the policy improves safety, while critics worry about cost and enforcement. The key question is whether safety gains outweigh those concerns.”
Practice (Reading + Reasoning)
Highlight loaded terms, missing context, and framing. Rewrite in neutral language.
Identify fallacies and explain the “break” in reasoning in one clear sentence.
Rank evidence (A–D). Justify using credibility, relevance, representativeness, and limitations.
Final Task: Argument Surgery Report
- Map the argument (claim → reasons → evidence).
- Identify: 2 bias signals + 2 fallacies + 2 evidence weaknesses.
- Write 4 “repair notes” (what to change and why).
- Rewrite the argument in 180–240 words.
- Use neutral tone, defined terms, balanced counterargument.
- Adjust claim strength (hedging) to match evidence.
- Write a 120–160 word critical response: agree / disagree / partially agree.
- Support with one stronger piece of evidence or a clear reasoning chain.
- Keep the response respectful and specific.
Materials & Downloads
- Unit 4 Slides — PPTX
- Bias Checklist — PDF
- Fallacies Handout — PDF
- Evidence Quality Rubric — PDF
- Argument Map Template — PDF
- Argument Surgery Workbook — PDF
- Practice Worksheet — PDF · Answer Key — PDF
- Task Sheet — PDF · Rubric — PDF
Swap placeholders with real file paths. Keep links consistent:
/levels/c2/assets/.