Argument Autopsy

| | Accuracy & Source | [ ] High [ ] Mid [ ] Low | Is the National Writing Institute a credible authority on essay evaluation? Explain why or why not:

|

3

Phase 3: Fallacy Interrogation

Contaminant A: Paragraph [§3]

"These developers are nothing more than profit-hungry Silicon Valley executives..."

Identified Fallacy:

[ ] Ad Hominem [ ] Straw Man [ ] Slippery Slope

Why this weakens the argument:

Contaminant B: Paragraph [§4]

"We can either preserve real human mentorship... or surrender to mindless corporate automation."

Identified Fallacy:

[ ] False Dilemma [ ] Hasty Generalization [ ] Red Herring

Why this weakens the argument:

Phase 4: Official Forensic Verdict

SOUND SHAKY COLLAPSED

Forensic Defense Statement: Synthesize your analysis. Is Dr. Ross's overall argument sound, shaky, or collapsed? Cite specific strengths, evidence quality, and logical defects to justify your verdict.

Investigation verified by Rhetorical Forensics Division Standards: RI.9-10.8 • W.9-10.9

Critical Warrants & Evaluative Verdict

Name: __________________________

3

Part 3: Interrogating Implicit Warrants (Assumptions)

The Toulmin Bridge: In [§2], Cho argues that because phones reduce test performance in struggling students, schools have an obligation to confiscate or ban them entirely.

What unstated assumption (warrant) must Cho believe about the primary role of high school?

A) School should teach self-regulation through temptation.

B) Academic test performance outweighs personal autonomy during the school day.

C) Technology has no valid pedagogical utility in modern learning.

Challenge this warrant: In what scenario might this assumption fail or be considered flawed?

4

Part 4: Evaluating the Rebuttal

A. The Opposing Concern Cho Addresses:

B. Cho's Rebuttal Strategy:

Critique Cho's Rebuttal: Does comparing modern campus emergencies to historical front-office protocols hold up, or is it an outdated comparison? Explain:

Part 5: Evaluative Soundness Synthesis (RI.9-10.8)

Verdict: [ ] SOUND [ ] SHAKY [ ] COLLAPSED

Write an evaluative paragraph (4-5 sentences): Did David Cho successfully prove his case for a bell-to-bell phone ban? Assess the strength of his evidence, the validity of his warrants, and what additional data he would need to provide to make his argument airtight.

English Language Arts • Critical Rhetoric & Logic Unit Rubric Score: _____ / 20 pts

B. An ad hominem fallacy attacking motives rather than the claim.

C. A red herring introducing extraneous space travel laws.

D. An empirical refutation grounded in peer-reviewed psychology.

4. The "either/or" sentence in [§2] distorts the debate by:

A. Creating a false dilemma that ignores middle-ground solutions.

B. Committing a straw man fallacy regarding launch costs.

C. Relying on circular reasoning that repeats the opening thesis.

D. Appealing to popular bandwagon sentiment among citizens.

Turn over to complete the Short-Answer Evidence Analysis and Evaluative Verdict Essay. PAGE 1 OF 2 →

Assessment Section 2

Evidence Analysis & Evaluative Defense

Student Name: _______________________

2

Part 2: Short-Answer Evidence Evaluation (6 pts each)

5. Evidence Sufficiency: Examine the data in [§1] (Geophysical Letters study on soot). Does this single study provide sufficient justification to demand an immediate worldwide legal ban on all commercial flights? Explain why or why not using the RSA criteria:

6. Rebuttal Evaluation: How does Dr. Thorne respond to the counterargument that space tourism drives technological innovation? Evaluate whether his response is logically sound or flawed, citing specific evidence from [§2]:

Part 3: Final Forensic Verdict Essay (11 pts)

Verdict: [ ] SOUND [ ] SHAKY [ ] COLLAPSED

Synthesize your full evaluation of Dr. Thorne's argument (5-6 sentences). Deliver a definitive verdict on its overall soundness. You must analyze: (1) the strength and relevance of his empirical evidence, (2) the validity of his underlying assumptions, and (3) the impact of logical fallacies on his credibility.

Rubric: Claim & Verdict (3 pts) • Evidence & Warrant Analysis (4 pts) • Fallacy Critique (2 pts) • Clarity & Text Evidence (2 pts)

Grade 9 English Language Arts • Assessment RI.9-10.8 Final Exam Score: _____ / 35

Standard RI.9-10.8

W

Argument Breakdown Worksheet Key (Smartphone Editorial)

1. Central Claim: School boards must enact strict bell-to-bell smartphone bans to protect learning and mental health.

2. Subclaims: (A) Phones destroy attention span and reduce cognitive bandwidth. (B) Phones fuel cyberbullying and anxiety.

3. Evidence Quality [§2]: London School of Economics empirical study is highly credible and relevant, but insufficient alone to prove universal effects across diverse cultural settings.

4. Part 3 Warrant: Correct option is B (Academic performance takes priority over student device autonomy).

5. Rebuttal Evaluation [§3]: Cho argues front offices handled crises for a century. Flaw: Ignores modern safety concerns (e.g., active campus lockdowns) where direct immediate contact is sought by families.

Exemplar Evaluative Paragraph: "David Cho constructs a moderately sound argument, anchoring his academic claims in rigorous empirical data from the London School of Economics. However, his argument becomes shaky when addressing counterarguments. By asserting that historical front-desk office procedures suffice for modern emergencies, he fails to address genuine parental safety anxieties during real-time lockdowns. To achieve complete soundness, Cho must corroborate his mental health claims with peer-reviewed psychological data and propose an actionable emergency communication protocol."

Test Solutions: Space Tourism Editorial

Summative Solutions

Q1: Central Claim Key: B Ban justified by ecological harm.

Q2: Implicit Warrant Key: A High-damage non-essentials merit bans.

Q3: Fallacy Type Key: B Ad Hominem personal insult.

Q4: Distortion Key: A False Dilemma either/or trap.

Q5 Evidence Sufficiency (6 pts): Full credit requires noting that while Geophysical Letters is a credible source, one single atmospheric study cannot conclusively prove the systemic global climate impact of a nascent industry without cross-disciplinary validation.

Q6 Rebuttal Evaluation (6 pts): Full credit requires identifying that Thorne completely ignores the substance of technological spillover (e.g., satellite solar technology) and instead relies on an Ad Hominem attack on executive character.

Rhetorical Forensics Unit • Teacher Resource Guide CCSS Alignment: RI.9-10.8 • W.9-10.9