Four Sources, One Conclusion
Marcus is drafting an argumentative essay on whether his school should ban phones during the lunch period. He has four sources. (1) A survey he ran of 40 classmates; 28 say phones make lunch “more fun.” (2) A news article about an Ohio school that banned phones and saw office referrals drop 30% - the same year it hired two additional hall monitors. (3) A 2022 meta-analysis of 22 studies finding small negative associations between lunchtime phone use and face-to-face interaction. (4) A 2009 op-ed arguing phones are “a harmless fad.” Marcus's outline cites all four and concludes that the ban is “clearly necessary.” His teacher requires him to use at least three sources and to address a counterargument.
1. Which source should Marcus cut, and which should he keep despite its weakness? Justify both decisions by what each source can and cannot establish.
Read the worked answer
Cut Source 4. It is 17 years old, it is an op-ed (assertion, not evidence), and its claim that phones are “a harmless fad” is the very proposition in dispute. Citing it signals that Marcus could not find better support.
Keep Source 1 despite n = 40 and self-report. It establishes what students at his school say, which is relevant to a building-level policy in a way that a meta-analysis is not. Its limits are real: 28 of 40 is a majority of a small, self-selected group, and “more fun” is not the outcome a phone policy targets.
The trap being tested: the reflex is to cut the weakest evidence and keep the strongest. But a 40-person survey he conducted is more relevant to his audience than a 22-study meta-analysis, even though it is weaker evidence in the abstract. Relevance and evidentiary strength are different axes, and a good essay uses each source for what it can carry.
2. Rewrite Marcus's conclusion so that the claim matches the evidence, and explain each change you made.
Read the worked answer
Problems in the original: “clearly” asserts certainty no source provides; “necessary” is far stronger than “helpful” or “justified”; and no source tests a ban at his school, so the conclusion outruns every premise.
Model revision: “A lunchtime phone ban is a defensible option here: the strongest evidence links lunchtime phone use to modest reductions in face-to-face interaction, and students at this school report that phones shape their lunch period. Because no study in these sources tests a ban directly, the case rests on a reasonable inference rather than proof.”
What changed:
- “Necessary” → “defensible option” (policy proposal, not inevitability).
- Certainty → inference explicitly labeled as inference.
- The meta-analysis described at its actual strength: “modest,” “association.”
- The survey attributed to its real scope: “students at this school,” not students generally.
3. How should Marcus handle the confound in Source 2 - omit it, mention it, or concede it at length?
Read the worked answer
Mention it in one clause, then move on.
- Omitting is risky: a reader who checks the article finds the two hall monitors, and the essay loses credibility on every other claim.
- Dwelling is wasteful: a full paragraph on the source's weakness turns supporting evidence into a discussion of itself and stalls the argument.
Model sentence: “One Ohio high school reported a 30% drop in office referrals after banning phones, though it also added two hall monitors that year, so the drop cannot be credited to the ban alone.”
That sentence uses the source, states its limit, and exits. It also preempts the counterargument: naming a flaw before an opponent does converts a vulnerability into evidence that the writer has weighed the material.