Learning Objectives
Analyse and evaluate two arguments through reasoning, evidence, language, sources, bias and values, compare them explicitly and reach a consistent judgement about persuasiveness.
Purpose Of Question 3
Question 3 asks which of two arguments is more convincing. It is an extended response worth 16 marks. You must analyse both arguments, compare them explicitly, evaluate reasoning, evidence and language and reach a judgement consistent with the evaluation.
Do not answer the global issue itself. The question is not “Which side do you personally agree with?” It is “Which argument is more convincing?” Your task is to judge the quality of the arguments presented.
Analysis And Evaluation
Analysis
Analysis breaks each argument into its claims, reasons, evidence, assumptions, examples, values and structure. It explains how the parts work together.
Evaluation
Evaluation judges how well those parts support the conclusion. It explains strengths, weaknesses and their effect on persuasiveness.
Difference
- Analysis: The writer supports the claim with a national survey.
- Evaluation: The national survey strengthens the argument because it is directly relevant and broad, although its value depends on how the sample was selected.
Identify Each Main Conclusion
Before comparing details, write one short note stating what each writer wants the audience to accept. If you misunderstand the conclusions, the entire essay may compare the wrong things.
Then map the principal reasons. An argument with a clear chain from reason to conclusion may be stronger than one that jumps between unrelated claims.
Evaluate Reasoning
- Logic: Do the reasons support the conclusion?
- Relevance: Does each point address the actual issue?
- Assumptions: What is accepted without evidence?
- Balance: Does the writer acknowledge limitations or alternatives?
- Consistency: Do any claims contradict each other?
- Causation: Does the writer confuse correlation with cause?
- Consequences: Are predicted effects plausible and explained?
Reasoning Weakness
“Cities with more cycle lanes are healthier, so cycle lanes always cause better health.” The reasoning overlooks other factors such as income, healthcare and existing exercise habits.
Evaluate Evidence
- Range: Is more than one type of evidence used?
- Relevance: Does the evidence directly support the claim?
- Sufficiency: Is there enough evidence for the scale of the conclusion?
- Source: Is the evidence from a credible and appropriate source?
- Date: Is it current enough for the issue?
- Expertise: Does the person have suitable knowledge?
- Representativeness: Can the sample support the wider claim?
- Corroboration: Is evidence supported by other independent material?
Avoid the empty statement “there is no evidence” when the source contains examples or testimony. Instead judge the type and strength of what is actually present.
Testimony And Expertise
Personal experience can make an argument vivid and may be relevant to a local issue, but one experience may not represent others. Expert testimony is stronger when the expertise is relevant, identifiable and supported by evidence.
A family member’s occupation may provide experience but may also create a vested interest. Explain both possibilities rather than treating experience as automatically strong or weak.
Evaluate Language
Consider clarity, precision, tone, exaggeration and emotional appeal. Language matters because it can affect trust and objectivity, but it should not dominate the essay.
Do Not Use A Mechanical Rule
Emotive language is not always a weakness. It may effectively communicate urgency. It becomes a weakness when it substitutes for reasoning, exaggerates the evidence or attacks opponents.
Bias, Values And Vested Interests
Identify a specific source of possible bias. A campaign group may select evidence supporting its mission; a business may benefit financially; a resident may prioritise local interests. Then explain how this affects balance or credibility.
Clear values can strengthen transparency because the reader understands the writer’s priorities. However, values are not factual evidence and may not be shared by everyone.
Compare Explicitly
Do not write one separate mini-essay on Writer A and another on Writer B with no links. Use comparative sentences throughout.
Comparative Language
- Both writers use examples, but Writer A’s examples are broader and independently sourced.
- Unlike Writer B, Writer A acknowledges a limitation.
- Writer B uses more precise evidence; however, Writer A develops a clearer causal explanation.
- Although both show possible bias, Writer B’s vested interest is more direct.
A Strong Essay Structure
Recommended Structure
- Introduction: state the provisional judgement and the main reason.
- Paragraph 1: compare the reasoning and structure of both arguments.
- Paragraph 2: compare the evidence, sources and expertise.
- Paragraph 3: compare language, balance, values and possible bias.
- Conclusion: weigh the most important differences and confirm which argument is more convincing.
The order can change. The essential features are coverage of both arguments, explicit comparison, evaluation and a supported judgement.
Make Judgement Match Evaluation
Do not select a writer merely because you agree with the conclusion. Select the argument that is better supported, more logical, more balanced or more credible according to your analysis.
Qualified Judgement
“Writer A is more convincing overall because the argument uses broader and more relevant evidence and recognises a limitation. Writer B raises an important ethical concern, but relies mainly on assertion and an unrepresentative personal example.”
Original Practice Arguments
Argument A
A technology company director argues that schools should use artificial intelligence tutors because they can provide instant feedback and reduce teachers’ workload. She cites a three-month trial funded by her company in four private schools, where 72 per cent of pupils said they enjoyed the software.
Argument B
A teachers’ union representative argues that AI tutors should be introduced cautiously. He refers to an independent national study showing uneven accuracy across subjects and says pupils still need human judgement, encouragement and safeguarding.
Possible Evaluation
Argument A provides a statistic and practical benefits, but the trial is narrow, measures enjoyment rather than learning and was funded by a company with a financial interest. Argument B has a more independent and wider source and identifies specific limitations, though the precise study method and data are not given. On the available material, B may be more convincing because its evidence is more relevant to reliability and its reasoning is more balanced.
Common Mistakes
- Explaining which view is personally preferred.
- Summarising both arguments without evaluating them.
- Discussing only one argument in depth.
- Counting examples rather than judging their quality.
- Calling a writer biased without a specific reason.
- Treating emotive language as automatically invalid.
- Writing two separate descriptions with no comparison.
- Giving a conclusion that contradicts the body of the essay.
Exam Checklist
- I identify the main conclusion of both arguments.
- I analyse reasoning as well as evidence.
- I compare throughout rather than writing two isolated summaries.
- I identify specific strengths and weaknesses.
- I use source details to support evaluations.
- My conclusion explains why one argument is more convincing overall.
Lesson Summary
- Question 3 judges argument quality, not personal agreement with a viewpoint.
- Analysis explains the parts of an argument; evaluation judges how well they work.
- Both arguments must be covered and explicitly compared.
- Evidence should be judged for relevance, sufficiency, source, date, expertise and representativeness.
- Language, values and vested interests matter when their effect is explained.
- The final judgement must follow from the evaluation.
