Evaluating Reasoning & Evidence — Practice · Grade 11 English

Chapter: Public Argument, Rhetoric & Competing Accounts

What this practice covers

By the end of Evaluating Reasoning & Evidence you should be able to:

11 questions, multiple choice and written answer, each with a worked explanation.

Vocabulary used: premise, relevance, sufficiency, logical fallacy, straw man.

Problem 1

An argument is 'valid' but 'unsound' when…
  1. it uses too much emotion
  2. the conclusion follows from the premises, but at least one premise is false
  3. the conclusion is true and all premises are true
  4. it contains no evidence at all
Answer and explanation

the conclusion follows from the premises, but at least one premise is false

Validity is about the logical form; soundness also requires true premises. A valid argument with a false premise is valid but unsound.

Problem 2

'Either you support this policy completely, or you don't care about safety.' This is an example of…
  1. a valid syllogism
  2. an appeal to logos
  3. a false dilemma
  4. sufficient evidence
Answer and explanation

a false dilemma

The sentence pretends only two options exist when many positions are possible in between — a false dilemma.

Problem 3

Explain the difference between the 'relevance' and the 'sufficiency' of evidence, using your own brief example.
Answer and explanation

Relevance is whether evidence actually bears on the claim; sufficiency is whether there is enough of it. For example, one satisfied customer's review is relevant to a claim that a product works, but a single review is not sufficient to prove it works for most people.

Problem 4

A columnist writes: 'My opponent's plan can't be trusted — she failed a business class in college.' The main flaw is…
  1. a false dilemma
  2. a valid appeal to ethos
  3. insufficient evidence for a strong claim
  4. an ad hominem that attacks the person instead of the plan
Answer and explanation

an ad hominem that attacks the person instead of the plan

Dismissing the plan by attacking an irrelevant fact about the person, rather than the plan itself, is an ad hominem.

Problem 5

A report notes that towns with more public libraries also have higher average incomes, and concludes that building libraries raises income. What is the strongest critique?
  1. The evidence is irrelevant to income entirely.
  2. It mistakes correlation for causation — a third factor like overall town wealth could drive both library funding and income — and offers no evidence that libraries cause the income difference.
  3. There is no claim in the passage.
  4. The reasoning is valid and sound with no flaws.
Answer and explanation

It mistakes correlation for causation — a third factor like overall town wealth could drive both library funding and income — and offers no evidence that libraries cause the income difference.

Two things moving together does not prove one caused the other; a lurking third factor could explain both, and the report shows no causal evidence.

Problem 6

Identify the reasoning gap and improve the conclusion. Give a detail and explain its relevance.
Answer and explanation

The sequence shows association, not established causation. Absence may change with season or illness. A qualified conclusion would report the change and call for comparison with other factors.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 7

A learner writes: “The author is wrong because I prefer shorter hours.” Explain the problem and produce a better response.
Answer and explanation

A preference does not test the evidence. Evaluate who was surveyed, how the count was collected, and whether the conclusion exceeds the finding.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 8

Compare what you must inspect in these two cases. What can transfer, and what must be checked again?
Answer and explanation

Separate a claim, reasons, evidence, and the assumption connecting them. A count can support a narrow observation without establishing a broad conclusion. The method transfers, but the particular detail, scope, and context must be read again. The sequence shows association, not established causation. Absence may change with season or illness. A qualified conclusion would report the change and call for comparison with other factors.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 9

Using an assigned reading or one exercise source, write a developed response applying evaluating reasoning & evidence. Aim for 260–380 words; name the reading or reproduce the sentence you revise.
Answer and explanation

The count supports demand among most responding club members. It cannot represent all students without broader sampling. A survey including nonusers and a staffed pilot could test general demand. A complete response supplies context, a focused claim, a brief supporting detail, explanation, and a relevant qualification. Do not simply repeat this model.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 10

Write two specific feedback comments on a response to this unit: one on accuracy or meaning and one on evidence or language. Then state a revision priority.
Answer and explanation

Check whether the response explains separate a claim, reasons, evidence, and the assumption connecting them. a count can support a narrow observation without establishing a broad conclusion. Ask for a relevant detail and the reason it supports the conclusion. Prioritize the mistaken assumption shown here: “The author is wrong because I prefer shorter hours.”

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 11

Choose a fresh sentence or detail from the assigned selection. Explain how this unit’s method applies, and identify one uncertainty or limitation.
Answer and explanation

The museum memo values welcome, the historian demands agency, and the donor asks for precise attribution. An evidence panel can answer part of each concern, but favorable appearance ratings do not establish historical accuracy. The response must supply its own precise detail and explain it; copying the model without fresh evidence is insufficient.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Browse all courses