This worksheet can be used independently or with the classroom lesson plan. The scenarios are fictional and the answer key is separated after the student pages.
Student Instructions#
- For each statement, identify the claim that needs evaluation.
- Mark the words that frame a person, group, or source.
- Classify the statement: poisoning the well, another fallacy, fair source criticism, or direct evidential criticism.
- Give one sentence of reasoning.
- Rewrite any unfair statement as a specific, checkable concern.
Part A: Classify#
| No. | Statement | Classification | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Before Asha explains the forecast, remember that her team benefits if the budget grows. | ||
| 2 | The forecast assumes 4% growth, but the cited table reports 1.8%. | ||
| 3 | The report is sponsored by the supplier; request the contract, method, and an independent cost estimate. | ||
| 4 | Milo asked for a one-month trial, but the reply says Milo wants to cancel the service forever. | ||
| 5 | When told the inspection was missing, the manager answered, “Your team missed one last year.” | ||
| 6 | Why is this dishonest witness wasting the committee's time? |
Part B: Rewrite#
Each rewrite should preserve any legitimate concern and add a way to test it.
- “Anyone who objects to the timetable is afraid of hard work.”
- “That article came from a campaigning group, so none of its evidence matters.”
- “Before Luis raises safety again, remember that he enjoys delaying launches.”
- “People from that department always protect one another.”
Part C: Explain a Boundary Case#
A witness previously fabricated a document in an unrelated dispute. The witness now describes an event that was also recorded by two cameras and three independent observers.
In 120–180 words, explain how the past fabrication should affect initial confidence, what evidence should be checked, why blanket dismissal would be too broad, and whether the conclusion depends on the witness.
Answer Key#
Part A: 1 poisoning the well plus possible appeal to motive; 2 direct evidential criticism; 3 fair source criticism; 4 straw man; 5 tu quoque; 6 loaded question and possible poisoning the well.
Part B answers vary. A strong rewrite names the exact claim, limits the credibility concern, and requests documents, criteria, corroboration, or another relevant check.
Part C: the fabrication is relevant to credibility and may lower initial confidence. It does not erase independent recordings and observers. A strong answer separates the witness's unsupported assertions from details that can be corroborated.
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Accurate classification with reason | 12 |
| Four fair rewrites | 8 |
| Boundary-case relevance and proportionality | 5 |
| Clear use of evidence and verification | 5 |
| Total | 30 |