Cross-examination · Intermediate · About 5 min
Test a source or statistic
Find the source weakness that matters
Negative · Cross-examinationRead 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 practice brief: ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks. Of 90 survey respondents, 72 preferred it. Weekly completed tasks rose from 100 to 104 across the same teams, while new software was also introduced. Customer coverage, pay, and long-term output were not measured.
A source question is useful when its answer changes the argument. A wrong denominator, a missing comparison or an irrelevant measure can undermine a specific inference. Listing every limitation is rarely the best use of a short cross-ex.
Start with the claim being made. If the speaker cites preference as preference, proving it did not measure pay adds little. If they use preference to claim higher pay, that mismatch becomes important.
Fictional 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.
Identify the inference
What conclusion is the source being asked to support?
Choose the vulnerability
Test the source detail that could weaken that conclusion.
Establish the consequence
Prepare the explanation of why the limitation matters.
The same survey, two different challenges
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional practice brief: ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks. Of 90 survey respondents, 72 preferred it. Weekly completed tasks rose from 100 to 104 across the same teams, while new software was also introduced. Customer coverage, pay, and long-term output were not measured.
- Affirmative · Claim
Eighty percent of all workers preferred the shorter week.
This incorrectly extends the respondents’ percentage to every worker in the pilot.
- Negative · Question
Is that 72 out of the 90 respondents, or out of all 120 workers?
The denominator directly tests the claim made.
- Affirmative · Qualified claim
It is 80% of respondents. Seventy-two of all 120 workers reported that preference.
The result remains useful, but the original scope has narrowed.
- Negative · Strategic limit
I will not argue that nobody preferred it. I will challenge whether this preference justifies replacement.
A corrected number does not automatically destroy the benefit.
Attack the inference you need to defeat, not the existence of a limitation.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional practice brief: ten volunteer office teams with 120 workers tried a 32-hour week for four weeks. Of 90 survey respondents, 72 preferred it. Weekly completed tasks rose from 100 to 104 across the same teams, while new software was also introduced. Customer coverage, pay, and long-term output were not measured.
Your turn
Negative · Cross-examinationAsk one question testing the claim that the later cohort proves which reform reduced the shortlist gap. Explain the use of the answer.
Read the fictional case: Meritocracy as practiced
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Fictional round packet: a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants. Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants. Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank. In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled. 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 invented 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…
Help me get started
Were… changed separately? If not, I can argue…
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 Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Read the practice task and fictional case
Ask one question testing the claim that the later cohort proves which reform reduced the shortlist gap. Explain the use of the answer.
Fictional round packet: a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants. Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants. Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank. In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled. 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 invented audit as a description of all societies.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
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 measured gap remains real within the fiction.
The rebuttal should target that inference rather than dismiss the entire record.
The challenge is targeted. It does not turn a causal limitation into a denial that the later gap was smaller.
Review the performance
- EvidenceI challenged a claim actually being made.
- RefutationI selected a relevant source limitation.
- ClarityI explained the limited conclusion the answer supports.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Collecting methodological objections with no strategic use.
- Treating a limitation as proof of the opposite result.
Loading your progress…