Evidence · Beginner · About 4 min
Check a source
Read the record behind the headline
Both sides · Before the roundRead the fictional case: Meritocracy as practiced
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Fictional source extract, Hiring Audit D: 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 inspect the support. Check the original wording, the source’s identity, the people measured, the method and the finding’s limits. A confident summary can claim more than its source.
In a real case, make a real source traceable and follow the event’s evidence rules. These extracts are explicitly fictional teaching records. Inspect them as practice, not as findings about actual employers or society.
Inspect the fictional 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.
Find the original
Locate the record behind the quotation or summary.
Inspect the relevant context
Read what was measured and how it bears on the claim.
Use it accurately
Preserve the qualification that changes the inference.
A headline stronger than its source
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Fictional source extract, Hiring Audit D: 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.
This attributes a combined change to one cause.
- Original context
Free preparation and an anonymous first stage were introduced together, while other changes were not controlled.
The source does not isolate either reform.
- Negative · Accurate use
The later cohort had a smaller gap after the reform package. That supports examining reform, not certainty about a single cause.
The finding can still contribute to the negative’s case.
Check what the source supports before deciding how strongly to use it.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Fictional source extract, Hiring Audit D: 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 fictional case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional source extract, Comparison B: 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 fictional case
Use the source extract to write an accurate cost claim and a question testing how the affirmative accounts for it.
Fictional source extract, Comparison B: 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 fictional 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
- Using a headline as if it were the original source.
- Discarding a useful observation because it does not prove every part of the case.
Loading your progress…