Evaluating Two Letters on a Phone Ban
Two letters to a local paper debate a proposed ban on smartphones in a secondary school. The headteacher writes that '87% of students said phones distracted them' in a survey of 50 students, that 'parents overwhelmingly support the ban', based on 12 emails, and that 'results will rise once phones are gone'. A parent replies that a national study of 2,000 pupils found no measurable effect on grades after one year, that the survey sample was too small to represent the school, and that a ban punishes the majority for a minority's behaviour. The parent also calls the headteacher 'out of touch' and says 'every parent I know agrees with me'. You are writing a critical response for a media-studies class.
1. Which letter makes the stronger evidence-based argument, and why? Refer to sample size, representativeness and causal claims.
Read the worked answer
The parent makes the stronger evidence-based argument, but not a flawless one. The national study of 2,000 pupils is a larger and more representative sample than the headteacher's 50 students, and it directly challenges the causal claim that 'results will rise'. The parent is also right to ask whether 50 students can represent the school, especially since we are not told how they were selected; a small random sample can be useful, but a small self-selecting one cannot support 'overwhelming' conclusions. The headteacher's 12 emails are even weaker evidence for 'parents overwhelmingly support': 12 messages are a self-selecting minority, not a survey. However, the parent weakens their own case with 'every parent I know' and 'out of touch'; these are anecdote and ad hominem, not evidence. So the parent wins on the central causal question, but the response should note that both letters overreach.
2. Identify one unstated assumption in the headteacher's letter and explain how it weakens the argument.
Read the worked answer
An unstated assumption in the headteacher's letter is that removing phones will remove the cause of distraction and therefore raise results. The survey only reports that students said phones distracted them; it does not show that distraction lowered grades, that phones were the main cause, or that a ban would change classroom outcomes. The letter also assumes that the 12 emails represent parents 'overwhelmingly'. Because these assumptions are hidden, the argument looks stronger than the evidence allows: the 87% figure is treated as proof of an effect on results, when it is only a self-report about attention. If the assumption fails, the policy may still be justified on other grounds, but the stated case for raising results collapses.
3. Explain one way the parent could make the response more convincing without changing their position.
Read the worked answer
To make the response more convincing without changing position, the parent should replace 'every parent I know agrees with me' with the evidence they already have: the 2,000-pupil study, the problem of the 50-student sample, and a clear distinction between banning phones and improving grades. They could also concede that phones may distract in lessons while arguing that a blanket ban is disproportionate. Dropping 'out of touch' would help because it invites the reader to see the parent as reasoned rather than resentful. The strongest version would say: 'The headteacher may be right that phones distract, but the evidence does not show that a ban raises results; a targeted classroom rule would address the problem without punishing all students.' This keeps the same position but uses evidence rather than anecdote.