Evidence · Beginner · About 4 min
Check a source
Check what the source really says
Both sides · Before the roundRead the case: Meritocracy as practiced
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
100 applicants in each income group; comparable anonymous work-sample scores.
- CV shortlist rates: 30% lower-income, 60% higher-income.
- Work-sample scores tracked later performance among hires.
- Next-cohort gap after two reforms: 10 percentage points.
- Reforms were not separately randomized.
A citation lets you, and the other side, check the evidence. Look at what the source actually says, who produced it, who was studied, how, and what it does not cover. Summaries and headlines often claim more than the source does.
In a real debate, use real sources people can look up, and follow your event’s evidence rules. The records in these lessons are made up for practice. Use them to practice checking, not as facts about the world.
Inspect the source
Subtract the rates for the specified groups. This is not a statement that every selection process has that gap.
The association supports a reason to consider this assessment. Keep “among hires” attached to it.
Two reforms and other changes coincided. The later improvement does not isolate one reform’s effect.
Go to the original
Find the study or record behind the quote or headline.
Read what was measured
Check who was studied and how, and whether it fits the claim.
Keep the limits
Do not drop the qualifier that changes what it proves.
A headline stronger than its source
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
100 applicants in each income group; comparable anonymous work-sample scores.
- CV shortlist rates: 30% lower-income, 60% higher-income.
- Work-sample scores tracked later performance among hires.
- Next-cohort gap after two reforms: 10 percentage points.
- Reforms were not separately randomized.
- Headline
Anonymous screening caused the entire reduction in inequality.
The headline credits one reform with a change two reforms produced together.
- Original context
Free preparation and an anonymous first stage were introduced together, while other changes were not controlled.
The original source never separates the two reforms.
- Negative · Accurate use
The later cohort had a smaller gap after the reform package. That supports examining reform, not certainty about a single cause.
Used accurately, the finding still helps the negative.
Know what the source supports before you decide how hard to lean on it.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
100 applicants in each income group; comparable anonymous work-sample scores.
- CV shortlist rates: 30% lower-income, 60% higher-income.
- Work-sample scores tracked later performance among hires.
- Next-cohort gap after two reforms: 10 percentage points.
- Reforms were not separately randomized.
Your turn
Negative · Cross-examinationUse the source extract to write an accurate cost claim and a question testing how the affirmative accounts for it.
Read the case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, six months, allocation by lottery.
- Weekly pay unchanged.
- Output index: 100 in each group.
- Absence: 3 days per worker at 32 hours, 5 at 40 hours; not adjusted for scheduled days.
- Coverage maintained.
- Retail/distribution payroll: 8% higher in the shorter-week group.
- Offices: no payroll increase.
- No healthcare sites.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
Help me get started
The source records… This supports… My question is…
Try it aloud
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.
Review and continue
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Read the practice task and case
Use the source extract to write an accurate cost claim and a question testing how the affirmative accounts for it.
24 volunteer workplaces, six months, allocation by lottery.
- Weekly pay unchanged.
- Output index: 100 in each group.
- Absence: 3 days per worker at 32 hours, 5 at 40 hours; not adjusted for scheduled days.
- Coverage maintained.
- Retail/distribution payroll: 8% higher in the shorter-week group.
- Offices: no payroll increase.
- No healthcare sites.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
The practice comparison records an 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution, while office payroll was unchanged. This supports a cost concern in those sites, not a claim that every employer faced the same increase. My question is: how does your replacement case weigh that cost against the time benefit in the workplaces where payroll rose?
The increase did not apply uniformly to every site.
This prevents a wider statement than the source supports.
The question prepares the central comparison.
The response keeps the source’s groups attached to the figure and uses the finding for a strategic question. It avoids both an inflated claim and a neutral summary with no role in the debate.
Review the performance
- EvidenceI identify the source and its actual finding.
- ClarityI preserve context that changes the claim.
- RefutationI connect the finding to a useful next argument.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Citing a headline as if it were the study.
- Throwing out good evidence because it does not prove everything.
Loading your progress…