Cross-examination · Intermediate · About 5 min
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks.
Every source has limits. The ones worth asking about in cross-ex are the ones that break the argument. The wrong comparison group, a missing control or a measure of the wrong thing can knock out a specific claim. Reading off a list of flaws usually wastes your time.
Start with what they are using the evidence to prove. If they cite a survey about preferences to show people prefer something, asking whether it measured pay goes nowhere. If they use that same survey to claim pay went up, now you have a real question.
Practice record
72 of 90 respondents preferred the shorter week: 80%.
The other 30 workers did not respond. Preference is not a measure of coverage or income.
What conclusion is this evidence being asked to carry?
Ask about the one detail that could undercut that conclusion.
Know how you will explain in your speech why that limit matters.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks.
Eighty percent of all workers preferred the shorter week.
The speaker turns a share of survey respondents into a claim about every worker.
Is that 72 out of the 90 respondents, or out of all 120 workers?
Asking for the denominator tests exactly the number they stated.
It is 80% of respondents. Seventy-two of all 120 workers reported that preference.
The result still helps them, but now it covers fewer people.
I will not argue that nobody preferred it. I will challenge whether this preference justifies replacement.
Fixing the number doesn’t erase the benefit. Decide what the correction is worth to your case.
Attack the conclusion they need from the evidence, not the fact that it has limits.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks.
Ask one question testing the claim that the later cohort proves which reform reduced the shortlist gap. Explain the use of the answer.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
Were… changed separately? If not, I can argue…
Use the timer for a spoken attempt if it helps. Practice without recording, then note what you would improve.
Speaking is self-reviewed. No microphone or recording is required.
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Ask one question testing the claim that the later cohort proves which reform reduced the shortlist gap. Explain the use of the answer.
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
Were free preparation and anonymous screening tested separately? If both changed together, the smaller gap supports improvement after the package but does not establish which reform produced it. I can use that distinction against a claim about one specific cause.
The question distinguishes the effects of simultaneous changes.
The smaller gap was really measured. Don’t deny it.
The rebuttal should target that inference rather than dismiss the entire record.
The question goes after the cause claim and still accepts that the gap got smaller.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Loading your progress…
