Work through the list without notes. If you cannot do a statement, follow its link, then come back. Guide = study guide; Practice = practice questions.
Understanding
- I can explain how a lack of understanding of a subject leads to oversimplification and generalisation. (Guide: “Why simple claims break”; Practice question 1)
- I can explain why effective arguments avoid absolute terms when they join an ongoing conversation. (Guide: “Why simple claims break”; Practice question 4)
- I can explain why a qualified claim can be stronger than an absolute one. (Guide: “Writing the revised claim without going vague”)
Skills
- I can spot absolute words, hasty generalisation, single cause and false dichotomy in a claim. (Guide: “How oversimplification looks on the page”; Practice questions 1 and 6)
- I can sort a new piece of evidence into supports, refutes or complicates. (Guide: “Evidence has three possible relationships to a claim”; Practice questions 3 and 7)
- I can revise an oversimplified claim into one that has position, scope and condition. (Guide: Worked example 1; Practice questions 2 and 5)
- I can avoid over-hedging while still qualifying a claim. (Guide: “Writing the revised claim without going vague”; Practice question 2)
Reasoning
- I can explain how a writer’s choices show an understanding of complexity, and how that affects credibility. (Guide: Worked example 2; Practice question 8)
- I can decide whether to change a claim’s scope or abandon its position when evidence complicates it. (Guide: Worked example 1; Practice question 7)
- I can use a public-domain example, such as Mill’s sentence on knowing only one’s own side, to show precision about limits. (Guide: “A public-domain example of respect for complexity”)
All ticked? Move on to the Topic 7.3 study guide, Qualifying a Claim with Modifiers.