9.22 Argument Structure and Evaluating Claims Worksheet

A policy brief argues that the community partnerships office should create a mentor database for project-based learning because it helps students find experts who can answer research questions. Its main evidence is that classes using the pilot database scheduled 34 mentor conversations in one semester. The brief concedes that mentor advice must be accurate and appropriate for school projects; it answers by saying that staff can vet mentors, record topics, and require teacher approval before meetings. A reviewer must decide whether the evidence, reasoning, and response are strong enough for the scope of the claim.

A policy brief argues that the academic senate should add evidence workshops before research essays because they help students distinguish strong support from loosely related facts. Its main evidence is that draft reviews showed fewer unsupported claims after students completed the workshop. The brief concedes that a workshop might repeat skills teachers already cover; it answers by saying that teachers can use pre-assessments to place students in targeted mini-lessons. A reviewer must decide whether the evidence, reasoning, and response are strong enough for the scope of the claim.

A policy brief argues that the agriculture club should donate produce from the community garden because it connects service learning with practical food support. Its main evidence is that the club donated 180 pounds of produce during the fall harvest. The brief concedes that donations must be consistent enough for pantry planning; it answers by saying that the club can share expected harvest windows and label donations as supplemental. A reviewer must decide whether the evidence, reasoning, and response are strong enough for the scope of the claim.