- At a PTA meeting, a parent says: "Our cafeteria should switch to reusable trays." Reasons and evidence: (1) The parent says the school uses about 900 disposable trays per week; she explains that's about 16,200 trays in a 18-week semester. (2) She shares a quote from the city waste department website stating that reducing single-use plastics lowers landfill volume and saves disposal costs. (3) She adds a cost comparison from two vendors showing reusable trays cost more up front but last 5+ years, while disposables must be purchased weekly. Which evaluation best fits the argument's reasoning and evidence?
Answer: The argument is strong because the reasons support the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and comes from appropriate sources.
The best evaluation is that the argument is strong because the reasons support the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and from appropriate sources. The parent uses concrete numbers (900 trays a week, 16,200 a semester), an expert source (the city waste department), and a real vendor cost comparison—three different, relevant kinds of support that all point to switching to reusable trays.
Calling the evidence "too general to trust" is wrong: the numbers and vendor figures are quite specific, and each reason ties directly to the tray claim. Saying the waste department quote "cannot count" misreads it—information from a waste department is credible expert testimony, not a personal opinion, and the math and cost facts still stand either way. Claiming the parent relies "only" on her own estimate ignores the outside sources she actually cites: the city website and two vendor comparisons. Only one option correctly recognizes that combining specific facts, expert testimony, and a comparison makes for well-supported reasoning.
- A student speaker says: "We should replace PE with more test-prep classes." Reason: "PE doesn't matter." Evidence: "PE is boring, and when I'm bored I don't learn." She concludes, "So the school should remove PE because PE should be removed." What is the clearest issue with her reasoning?
Answer: She uses circular reasoning, repeating her claim as its own reason without showing why removing PE would improve learning or scores.
Look closely at how the speaker connects her ideas. She concludes the school should remove PE "because PE should be removed"—that just restates her claim instead of giving a real reason. This is circular reasoning: the argument uses itself as proof and never explains why replacing PE would actually improve learning or test scores. That is the clearest flaw, so the choice naming circular reasoning is correct. The option praising her "solid evidence" is wrong because she never links boredom to lower scores; she only says PE is boring and gives no data. The option about "reliable outside sources" is wrong because she quotes no research, expert, or study at all—her only support is her own opinion. The option calling her reasoning careful is wrong because personal feelings about being bored are not enough evidence to judge a policy that affects the whole school. A strong argument needs independent reasons that show WHY a claim is true, not just a repeat of WHAT is claimed.
- During homeroom, Eli argues: "We should get rid of homework." His reasons: "Homework is bad, and it should be banned because it is bad. Also, my cousin stopped getting homework in 5th grade and became happier."
Which choice best explains what is wrong with Eli's argument?
Answer: It relies on circular reasoning and a single anecdote, so the reasoning and evidence are weak.
Eli's argument breaks down in two ways. First, his main reason is circular: saying homework "should be banned because it is bad" just repeats his claim instead of proving it. Second, his only evidence is a single story about one cousin, which is too small a sample to support a claim about all students. The best answer names both of these flaws—the circular reasoning and the weak, anecdotal evidence.
The choice saying the argument is fairly strong because student happiness matters is wrong: happiness may matter, but caring about a goal doesn't excuse an argument from needing real support. The choice calling the cousin a real example that reasonably supports the claim is wrong because one person's experience can't prove something about students in general—that's exactly why the evidence is weak. The choice blaming only the missing mention of grades misreads the real problem: even with grades added, the reasoning would still be circular, so that isn't the main flaw.
- In a discussion about adding more PE days, Carlos says: "We should have PE every day because there are only two kinds of students: athletes who like PE and lazy people who don't. If you don't support daily PE, you must not care about health." He also says, "My brother's school has daily PE, so it will definitely work here."
Which choice best identifies the reasoning issue in Carlos's argument?
Answer: He offers only two options for students, treats disagreement as not caring about health, and assumes one school's experience proves it will work here.
The best answer points out three separate reasoning problems. Carlos sets up a false choice by claiming students are only athletes or lazy people, when many other kinds of students exist. He attacks people who disagree by saying they don't care about health, instead of answering their actual concerns. Finally, he assumes that because his brother's school has daily PE, it will automatically work here—one example can't prove that.
The choice about research studies and a clear scheduling plan is wrong because Carlos never mentions any studies and never explains how daily PE would fit the schedule. The choice saying a real-life example makes his reasoning solid and error-free is wrong because a single example does not cancel out the fallacies he uses. The choice about statistics is wrong because Carlos gives no statistics at all, so there is nothing to make the argument hold up. Only the first choice correctly names the flawed reasoning in what Carlos actually says.
- In a class debate about phones, Jordan says: "We must ban phones all day. If we allow phones at lunch, students will start using them in class, then grades will definitely crash, and soon nobody will learn anything." He adds, "Everyone I know agrees phones are ruining school."
Which choice best identifies the main problem with Jordan's reasoning?
Answer: He uses slippery slope and bandwagon reasoning instead of showing clear cause-and-effect supported by evidence.
Jordan's argument sounds forceful, but its reasoning is faulty in two ways. First, he uses a slippery slope: he claims that phones at lunch will "definitely" lead to phones in class, then crashing grades, then nobody learning—treating an extreme chain of events as certain without proving any of those connections. Second, he uses bandwagon reasoning: "everyone I know agrees" appeals to popularity instead of offering evidence. The choice naming both fallacies and the missing cause-and-effect evidence is correct. Claiming his argument would be sound if he added a few benefits is wrong, because listing benefits would not fix his unproven predictions or his appeal to popularity. Saying predictions are never allowed is wrong, because predictions can be perfectly valid in a debate when they are backed by evidence—his problem is the missing evidence, not the prediction itself. Saying the real weakness is the order of his reasons is wrong, because where he places his conclusion does not change whether his logic is sound; a debater may state a conclusion first and still reason well. Only the first choice identifies the actual flaws in how Jordan connects his claims and supports them.
- At a school board public comment session, a parent argues: "We should remove all homework from grades 6–8." Reasons and evidence offered: (1) "Homework causes stress," followed by "Stress is bad." (2) "We should remove homework because homework shouldn't exist." (3) The parent says, "Studies show homework doesn't help," but does not name any studies, authors, or results.
Which choice best evaluates the argument's reasoning and evidence?
Answer: The argument is weak because it uses circular reasoning and vague references to "studies" without specific, relevant evidence to support the claim.
The best answer points out two real problems: circular reasoning and vague evidence. Saying "remove homework because homework shouldn't exist" just repeats the claim instead of proving it, and mentioning "studies" without naming any authors or results gives you nothing you can check. That makes the argument weak.
The choice calling the argument strong because it names stress and points to research is wrong—naming a problem and vaguely gesturing at studies is not enough support; you need specific, verifiable evidence.
The choice claiming the argument is sound because stress matters more than test scores swaps in a new criterion the parent never established, and it excuses the missing evidence instead of judging whether the argument actually proved its point.
The choice saying the argument is well-supported because restating the claim adds a second reason mistakes repetition for evidence—rewording a claim never counts as new support. When you evaluate an argument, check that reasons truly back the claim and that evidence is specific and credible.
- During a discussion about dress codes, a student speaker argues: "We should remove the dress code entirely." Reasons and evidence: (1) "Dress codes are unfair," because "they're unfair." (2) "Other schools don't have dress codes, so we shouldn't either." (3) The speaker adds, "If you disagree, you're just trying to control people," but gives no examples of current rules or how they are enforced.
Which choice best identifies the speaker's reasoning problem?
Answer: The speaker's reasoning is flawed due to circular reasoning, bandwagon thinking, and an ad hominem attack instead of evidence about the actual dress code's effects.
The strongest answer names three real problems in the speech. Saying dress codes are unfair "because they're unfair" is circular reasoning—it repeats the claim instead of supporting it. Saying we should copy other schools is bandwagon thinking—popularity isn't proof. Saying people who disagree "just want control" is an ad hominem attack—it targets opponents instead of the issue. None of these gives real evidence about how the dress code actually affects students.
The choice that praises copying other schools is wrong because what works elsewhere isn't automatically right here; a model still needs evidence. The choice that calls the unfairness reason clear is wrong because restating a claim is circular—it never explains why the policy is unfair. The choice that says leaving out statistics is the only problem is wrong because it ignores the circular and bandwagon reasoning and mistakenly treats a personal attack as a "relevant reason," when attacks are not evidence.
A sound argument would explain why the change helps students and back it with real examples and outcomes.
- A PE teacher argues: "Students should have PE every day." Reasons/evidence: (1) "Exercise improves focus." Evidence: the teacher cites a named study from a children's hospital showing students who got 20 minutes of moderate activity before class scored higher on attention tasks than a control group. (2) "Daily PE will raise grades in every subject." Evidence: "When I was in school, I had PE daily and I got good grades." (3) "It will improve health." Evidence: the teacher cites county health data showing rising rates of teen obesity and notes that schools with daily activity programs report lower BMI averages in a state report. Which choice best evaluates the evidence overall?
Answer: The evidence is strong overall because it includes multiple credible sources, but the claim that daily PE will raise grades in every subject is weakly supported by a single anecdote.
The best answer recognizes that evidence quality can vary within one argument. Two claims are well supported: the focus claim uses a named hospital study with a control group, and the health claim uses county data plus a state report. But the claim that daily PE raises grades in every subject rests only on the teacher's personal anecdote, which cannot prove that result for all students. So the evidence is strong overall, with one weak point.
The choice saying the evidence is weak overall goes too far—it ignores the credible study and data that genuinely support two of the claims. The choice calling the evidence strong because each claim has support treats a personal anecdote as equal to research, but a single memory does not reliably prove a claim about all students and subjects. The choice claiming the health data cannot support a health claim is wrong—county obesity rates and BMI comparisons are directly relevant to whether daily activity improves health. Only one option correctly separates the strong evidence from the single weak point.
- In a debate about dress codes, Talia says: "We should make the dress code stricter because students who disagree are just trying to get attention and don't care about learning." She adds, "My friend's old school had a strict dress code and it was a better school."
Which choice best identifies the flaw in Talia's argument?
Answer: She attacks the character of people who disagree and makes a vague comparison without showing how a stricter dress code would actually improve learning.
Talia's argument has two problems. First, instead of answering her opponents' ideas, she attacks the people themselves, claiming students who disagree are just seeking attention and don't care about learning—that's an ad hominem attack. Second, her only support is that a friend's school with a strict dress code was 'better,' a vague comparison that never shows how the dress code caused better learning. The best answer names both of these flaws, which is why it is correct.
The choice saying she backs her insults with detailed statistics is wrong because Talia never gives any numbers or data at all. The choice praising her specific example misses the point: her example is vague and unsupported, and it also ignores her unfair attack on opponents. The choice claiming she uses reasonable evidence and treats opponents fairly is the opposite of what happens—she insults people and offers almost no real support. Only the keyed answer correctly identifies the actual weaknesses in her reasoning and evidence.
- At a student council meeting, Maya argues: "Our school should start 30 minutes later next year." She gives these reasons and evidence: (1) Teens need more sleep; she cites the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. (2) She says a nearby district moved its start time from 7:45 to 8:30 and reported fewer first-period tardies and better attendance the next semester. (3) She adds that later start times can reduce car crashes involving teen drivers; she references a study summary from the CDC about reduced crash rates after start-time delays. Based on Maya's reasoning and evidence, which evaluation is most accurate?
Answer: Maya's argument is strong because her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she supports them with relevant evidence from credible organizations and a real-world example.
The strong-argument choice is correct. Maya makes a clear claim—start school 30 minutes later—and each reason supports it with fitting evidence: the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation is expert testimony, the nearby district is a real-world example, and the CDC study summary is research. Her reasons and evidence connect directly to what she is proposing.
The choice calling her argument weak is wrong because Maya does not rely on opinion; she names credible sources (AAP, CDC) and gives a real example, so the claim that nothing is tied to a source is false.
The choice saying her reasons drift from the claim is wrong because all three reasons—more sleep, better attendance, fewer crashes—are directly about the effects of a later start time, exactly what she is arguing for.
The choice calling her evidence not nearly enough is wrong because she actually offers a good range: an expert recommendation, a comparable district example, and a research summary. That mix is relevant and credible support, not insufficient evidence. To evaluate an argument, check whether the reasons connect to the claim and whether the evidence is relevant, credible, and enough to back each reason.
- At a student council meeting, Maya argues: "Our school should start 30 minutes later." She gives these reasons and evidence: (1) Teens need more sleep; she cites the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending middle and high schools start at 8:30 a.m. or later. (2) Schools that start later often see better attendance; she mentions a nearby district that moved its start time later and reported a 12% drop in tardies the next semester (according to the district's posted report). (3) Safety improves because students are less drowsy; she adds that the CDC links insufficient sleep to attention problems.
Is Maya's argument sound and well-supported?
Answer: Yes; her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she uses relevant evidence from credible organizations and a concrete example.
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (Is the logic sound? Do reasons support the claim? Are connections clear? No fallacies like bandwagon, slippery slope, or circular reasoning?) AND EVIDENCE (Is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports the claim? Credible—from reliable sources? Types include facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Maya's argument claims schools should start 30 minutes later, supported by three clear reasons: teens need more sleep (backed by American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation), later starts improve attendance (supported by specific district data showing 12% drop in tardies), and safety improves (citing CDC on sleep and attention). Choice B is correct because Maya's reasons connect logically to her claim and she provides relevant evidence from credible organizations (AAP, CDC) plus a concrete example with specific data. Her argument fails the tests in other choices: it's not mostly emotional (A), expert opinions do count as evidence when from credible sources (C), and arguments aren't automatically sound just because they affect students (D). This teaches students to identify sound arguments: clear claim + logical reasons + sufficient relevant evidence from credible sources, avoiding both unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.
- At a town meeting, a community member says: "We should install more streetlights near the middle school." Reasons and evidence: (1) The police department's public log shows 18 reports of vandalism within three blocks of the school between 6–10 p.m. over the past 6 months. (2) A city planning report from last year found that blocks with improved lighting in a nearby neighborhood had a 22% decrease in nighttime property damage reports after installation. (3) The speaker also says, "The area feels scary," and several neighbors nod.
Which choice best evaluates the overall strength of the speaker's argument?
Answer: The argument is fairly strong because it relies on relevant local data and a comparable report to support a reasonable cause-and-effect claim, treating shared feelings as minor extra support.
The best evaluation is that the argument is fairly strong. The speaker offers relevant local evidence (18 vandalism reports near the school), a comparable study (a 22% drop in damage after better lighting nearby), and a clear cause-and-effect claim. The shared feelings from neighbors are just minor extra support, not the backbone of the case—so the reasoning holds up.
The choice saying the feelings are the main support misreads the argument: the emotional appeal is minor, while the statistics do the real work. The choice claiming the reports prove streetlights are the single guaranteed fix overstates things—the data suggest lighting helps, not that it is a guaranteed cure, so calling the reasoning too cautious is wrong. The choice saying the comparison proves lighting works everywhere and makes the police data unnecessary also overreaches; one nearby neighborhood cannot prove a universal result, and the local data actually strengthen the case rather than being pointless. Only the first choice correctly weighs the reasoning and the evidence together.
- In a health class discussion, Sam argues: "Our school should offer a later option for PE for students who feel anxious in large groups." Reasons: "Anxiety can make it hard to participate, and giving options helps students stay active." Evidence: He says, "Studies show anxiety is increasing," but he does not name any study, date, or source. He also says, "My friend skipped PE twice last month because of anxiety."
Which choice best evaluates Sam's evidence?
Answer: The evidence is relevant but insufficient because it is vague about research and relies mainly on a single anecdote.
The best answer notices two problems at once: the research reference is too vague to check (no source, date, or findings), and the only concrete support is one friend's experience. Because the evidence does connect to the anxiety claim, it is relevant—but relevant is not the same as enough, so it stays insufficient.
The choice calling the evidence sufficient is wrong because the words "studies show" do not prove anything when no study is named, and a single example can't stand in for solid support. The choice calling it "mostly strong" is tempting but wrong: it treats vague, unnamed research as a real connection and assumes one extra example would fix things, when the deeper problem is that neither piece of evidence is verifiable or representative. The choice calling the evidence irrelevant goes too far—Sam's points actually do relate to anxiety and PE; the real issue is that they are weak and unsupported, not off-topic. Only the keyed answer names both flaws accurately: relevant in aim, but insufficient in substance.
- Two students give short arguments about cafeteria food:
Student 1: "We should add a vegetarian main option every day." Reasons/evidence: (a) The cafeteria manager reports that about 14% of students select the vegetarian option on days it is offered. (b) A survey of 300 students found 38% would choose a vegetarian main at least once a week if available daily. (c) The student suggests rotating three recipes already used on Meatless Monday to avoid extra training.
Student 2: "We should add a vegetarian main option every day because vegetables are healthy." Evidence: "My friend started eating salads and now never gets sick."
Which choice best compares the strength of the two arguments?
Answer: Student 1's argument is stronger because it uses multiple relevant pieces of evidence (records and survey results) and addresses feasibility, while Student 2 relies on a single anecdote.
The strongest argument backs its claim with enough relevant, reliable evidence. Student 1 gives cafeteria records showing current demand (14%), survey results predicting future demand (38% of 300 students), and a feasibility plan (reuse three Meatless Monday recipes). Student 2 offers only a general claim and one story about a friend. So the choice naming Student 1 as stronger for its multiple relevant evidence pieces and its feasibility point is correct.
The option preferring Student 2 for a vivid personal example is wrong: one anecdote about a single friend cannot support a school-wide policy the way data can, even if it sounds convincing. The option calling them equally strong treats 'connecting to a benefit' as more important than evidence quality, but a claim needs enough real support, not just a mention of health. The option favoring Student 2's broad claim reverses good reasoning: a bigger claim (every student, every day) actually needs more evidence, not less, so one example is not enough.
- A student named Devon argues in a debate: "Our school should require every student to complete 40 hours of community service to graduate." His reasons and evidence: (1) "Colleges like service," so "it will help everyone get into college." (2) "I did 10 hours last summer and it felt good." (3) "If we don't require service, students will become selfish adults."
Which choice best identifies the flaw in Devon's argument?
Answer: Devon's argument is flawed because it relies on a personal anecdote and an unsupported slippery-slope claim, and it assumes the requirement will benefit all students without evidence.
The best answer points out three real problems: Devon uses one personal story (10 hours felt good), which cannot prove a rule is good for the whole school; he claims skipping service will turn students into selfish adults, a slippery-slope leap with no support; and he assumes everyone will benefit without any evidence. The choice calling his argument strong is wrong because one person's good feeling is not enough proof for a school-wide rule. The choice calling his argument sound is wrong because "colleges like service" does not guarantee that every student will be accepted—liking something is not a promise. The last choice is wrong because it names only a small issue (an undefined word) while treating his weak anecdote and slippery-slope reasoning as if they were solid; those are the actual flaws, so his evidence is not specific and reliable. Only one choice names the argument's genuine weaknesses in reasoning and evidence.
- At a community meeting, a parent argues: "The town should build a new skate park." Reasons/evidence: (1) "Kids need more safe places to exercise." (2) "Skateboarding is popular." Evidence given: "I saw a lot of kids skating in the grocery store parking lot last Saturday, and my nephew says he'd go every day." Evaluate the evidence in this argument.
Answer: The evidence is insufficient because it relies mostly on a brief observation and an anecdote, with no broader data about demand, safety, or cost.
To judge an argument, you check whether the evidence is enough to support the claim. The best answer points out that the evidence is insufficient: seeing kids skate on one Saturday and hearing one nephew's opinion are only a brief observation and an anecdote. They don't show town-wide demand, safety needs, or costs, so they can't reasonably support building a whole skate park. The choice calling the evidence sufficient is wrong because a single busy day and one person's opinion can't represent an entire town's needs. The choice calling the evidence irrelevant is wrong because whether skating is safe and popular actually is relevant to a public facility decision—the real problem is that too little evidence is given, not that the wrong kind is given. The choice calling the evidence strong is wrong because a personal sighting and a relative's promise are exactly the small, non-representative sources that can't reliably measure how many people would use the park. Strong evidence needs enough credible information, not just one or two personal observations.
- During a class debate about phones, Jordan says: "We should ban phones during lunch." Reasons/evidence: (1) "Everyone at my table is on their phone, so banning phones is the only fair choice." (2) "If we don't ban phones now, soon nobody will talk at school, then friendships will disappear, and our whole school community will fall apart." (3) "I saw one student trip while texting last week, so phones are clearly dangerous at lunch." What is the biggest problem with Jordan's argument?
Answer: It relies on flawed reasoning like bandwagon and slippery slope, and the evidence is too limited to support a schoolwide ban.
The best answer points out that Jordan's reasoning breaks down in several places. Saying banning phones is 'fair' just because everyone at his table uses them is a bandwagon appeal. Claiming that no ban will lead to no talking, then no friendships, then a collapsed community is a slippery slope—an extreme chain of predictions with nothing to back it up. And one person tripping while texting is far too little evidence to support a rule for the whole school. So the argument has both faulty logic and thin evidence.
The choice calling the argument convincing is wrong because a single tripping incident cannot prove phones are dangerous for everyone; that overgeneralizes from one event. The choice praising it as well supported is wrong because 'everyone is doing it' does not justify a ban, and simply declaring fairness most important doesn't make the reasoning sound. The choice that calls it weak names a real-sounding gap, but 'not explaining benefits' isn't the biggest problem—the argument's core flaws are its fallacies and lack of solid evidence, so this misidentifies the main weakness.
- In science club, Priya argues: "Our school should install more water bottle filling stations." Reasons/evidence: (1) "It will reduce plastic waste." Evidence: Priya says, "I think plastic bottles are bad for the planet." (2) "It will save students money." Evidence: "My friend bought three water bottles last week." (3) "Other schools do it." Evidence: "I saw a video where a school had one." Which revision would best strengthen Priya's argument?
Answer: Add specific, relevant evidence such as how many plastic bottles the school sells or throws away weekly, costs over time, and examples from comparable schools with results.
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires identifying weaknesses in evidence (vague, anecdotal, unsupported) and knowing how to strengthen them with specific, relevant data. Priya's argument for water bottle filling stations has good reasons (reduce waste, save money, precedent) but weak evidence: 'plastic bottles are bad' is vague opinion, 'my friend bought three bottles' is one anecdote, and 'saw a video' lacks specifics. Answer A correctly identifies the best revision: add specific, relevant evidence such as quantifiable data (how many bottles the school uses/discards weekly shows the waste problem's scope), cost analysis (comparing bottle purchases to filling station costs over time), and detailed examples from comparable schools with measurable results (reduced waste percentages, cost savings). Answer B is wrong—emotional language without data doesn't strengthen arguments; C is wrong—insulting people is ad hominem fallacy, not evidence; D is wrong—removing reasons and repeating claims weakens arguments. Strong arguments need specific, measurable evidence: instead of 'plastic is bad,' show '500 bottles weekly in our trash'; instead of 'friend bought bottles,' show 'survey found students spend average $15/month on water'; instead of 'saw a video,' cite 'Jefferson Middle reduced plastic waste 40% after installing stations per their sustainability report.'
- At a school assembly, a speaker says: "We should install more security cameras in hallways because cameras prevent bullying." Reasons: "Bullies won't bully if they know they're being watched." Evidence: He states, "A famous school in another state added cameras, and bullying disappeared." He does not name the school or provide any report. He also adds, "If you disagree, you probably don't care about victims."
Which choice best evaluates the speaker's reasoning and evidence?
Answer: The argument is weak because it relies on an unsupported story and includes an unfair personal attack instead of addressing counterarguments.
The best answer points out two real problems: the speaker's only evidence is a vague story about "a famous school" with no name or report to check, and instead of answering people who disagree, he attacks them by saying they don't care about victims. Both of these weaken his case.
The choice saying the argument is strong because it stirs concern for students is wrong—making people feel worried does not prove that cameras actually prevent bullying. The choice that trusts the example because the speaker sounds certain is also wrong—confidence is not proof, and an unnamed, unverifiable school is not solid evidence. The last choice correctly calls the argument weak but for a made-up reason: evidence from another state can still count. The real flaw is that the story cannot be checked, not simply that it happened somewhere else.
- During a class debate, Jordan says: "We should ban phones during lunch." His reasons: "Phones are distracting, and if we don't ban them, students will stop talking to each other. Then nobody will have real friends, and our whole school community will fall apart." As evidence, he adds: "I saw two students sitting quietly on their phones yesterday."
Which choice best identifies the main problem with Jordan's argument?
Answer: It uses a slippery slope, jumping from phone use at lunch to extreme outcomes without proving those steps will happen, and the evidence is too limited.
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (is the logic sound? Do reasons support the claim? Are connections clear? No fallacies like bandwagon 'everyone does it', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—are facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Jordan's argument claims phones should be banned during lunch because they're distracting, leading to students not talking, then having no friends, then the school community falling apart, supported only by seeing two quiet students on phones yesterday. The correct answer A identifies the slippery slope fallacy—Jordan jumps from phone use to extreme outcomes without proving each step will occur, and his evidence (one observation of two students) is insufficient to support a school-wide policy. Answer B incorrectly accepts one example as proof of a widespread problem; C misidentifies the fallacy as ad hominem when Jordan doesn't attack character; D wrongly suggests that important values don't need evidence. This exemplifies weak argumentation through slippery slope reasoning that assumes extreme consequences without proof, combined with insufficient anecdotal evidence that cannot support broad claims about all students.
