The Student Who Argues With the Prompt
A student is preparing an oral presentation for the Presenting Argument outcome. The prompt asks them to argue a position on whether their school should ban mobile phones during lunch. The student privately believes phones should be allowed but decides to argue for a ban because 'it's easier to find statistics.' Their draft opens with a statistic (78% of surveyed students check phones during breaks), then lists three reasons, then closes with 'so we should ban phones.' The teacher's feedback notes the argument lacks a clear contention, uses evidence without linking it to a claim, and ends with a restatement rather than a call to action. The student has one revision cycle before the assessed performance.
1. Diagnose the structural weaknesses in the draft and explain what a strong contention and conclusion should each do.
Read the worked answer
The draft has three linked problems. First, the opening statistic is not a contention: it presents evidence before any claim, so the audience does not know what is being argued. A contention states the position clearly and early, signalling the direction of the argument.
Second, the three reasons are listed without being connected to the statistics or to each other. Evidence must be linked to a claim - the writer should say what the 78% figure demonstrates and why it supports the ban.
Third, the conclusion merely restates the position. A strong close should return to the contention, synthesise the argument's strongest thread, and issue a call to action the audience can accept.
A workable contention might be: 'Our school should ban phones during lunch because unstructured screen time is eroding the very break students need.'
2. The student's private view conflicts with the position they are arguing. Discuss whether this is a problem for the task and how they should handle it.
Read the worked answer
Arguing a position you do not privately hold is acceptable for this task, provided the argument is genuine and well-evidenced. The outcome assesses the ability to construct and present a persuasive argument, not sincerity of belief. However, the student's stated reason - that the opposing side is 'easier to find statistics for' - is a weak justification: choosing a side for convenience tends to produce shallow argument.
Better practice is to recognise that the stronger performance comes from engaging seriously with the position, anticipating counter-arguments (for example, that phones support safety and social connection) and rebutting them. If the student genuinely cannot argue the ban convincingly, they should reconsider choosing the side they believe and building evidence for it instead. Either way, the argument must be owned, not performed.