Debate Team Revises an Opening Claim
At a Tubman University debate club meeting, the team is finalizing a six-minute opening statement for a regional tournament. The motion is 'Standardized testing should be abolished in Liberian secondary schools.' Kumba's draft begins: 'Tests measure nothing but memory; every teacher knows students forget everything the week after.' Joseph objects that the sentence is too absolute, and the tournament rules penalize unsupported absolutes. The coach distributes a summary of a 2019 study of 4,000 students: test scores predicted later academic performance moderately well, but 30 percent of students reported heightened anxiety around testing. She reminds the team that a strong argument separates claim, evidence, and warrant, and that one study cannot settle a policy question. With ten minutes left, the team must revise the opening so that it survives cross-examination.
1. Identify the logical problem in Kumba's sentence and explain why it weakens the team's case.
Read the worked answer
Problem: overgeneralization plus an unsupported absolute. 'Nothing but memory' is a universal negative: one counterexample - a test item that requires application or evaluation - refutes it, and the opposition will supply one. 'Every teacher knows' is a vague appeal to authority with no cited source, and 'students forget everything' is untestable as written.
Why it weakens the case. In a judged debate the burden rests on the team making the claim. An absolute claim invites the opponent to attack the weakest example instead of engaging the policy question, and the judge may discount the team's credibility for overstating. The sentence also wastes the strongest available material - the 2019 study - by putting assertion where evidence belongs.
Better move. Narrow the claim to what the evidence can support, for example that high-stakes testing produces measurable anxiety without proportional gains in later performance, and attach the evidence and warrant explicitly.
2. Rewrite the sentence as a defensible claim that uses the 2019 study, labeling the claim, the evidence, and the warrant.
Read the worked answer
Claim: 'High-stakes standardized testing imposes a measurable psychological cost on a substantial minority of students.' Evidence: 'In a 2019 study of 4,000 students, 30 percent reported heightened anxiety around testing.' Warrant: 'Anxiety affecting roughly one student in three is a cost that any policy justified by testing's benefits must account for - not a reason to abolish testing by itself, but a reason to weigh costs against benefits.'
Note the discipline. The claim is bounded ('a substantial minority,' not all students), the evidence is cited with its scope, and the warrant explains the link rather than asserting it. The paragraph should also concede the study's limit: 30 percent reporting anxiety does not prove that anxiety lowers achievement, so the team is not overreading its own source. In a six-minute speech that concession costs a few seconds and buys credibility for the larger argument.
3. The opposing team argues that because the study found test scores predict later performance, testing should be kept. Assess this inference.
Read the worked answer
The inference is a non sequitur in policy terms. It moves from 'scores predict later performance' to 'therefore the current testing regime should be kept,' which does not follow.
- Prediction is not causation. A score that correlates with later performance may be measuring prior advantage - school quality, family income, access to tutoring - as much as learning.
- The study supports at most one premise. Even if tests predict well, the policy question is comparative: do the benefits of the present regime exceed its costs, including the anxiety reported by 30 percent? The study measures neither costs nor alternatives.
- Moderate prediction is weak support for a strong policy. The summary says 'moderately well,' not that tests outperform other assessments.
Strong response: concede the predictive finding, then argue that predictability alone cannot settle the motion. The opposition must show that tests are the least costly way to obtain that information, and it has not.