Cross-examination · Intermediate · About 5 min
Test a source or statistic
Go after the evidence where it matters
Negative · Cross-examinationRead the case: The four-day workweek
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.
- 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.
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.
Find what it is proving
What conclusion is this evidence being asked to carry?
Pick the weak spot
Ask about the one detail that could undercut that conclusion.
Have your follow-through ready
Know how you will explain in your speech why that limit 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
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.
The speaker turns a share of survey respondents into a claim about every worker.
- Negative · Question
Is that 72 out of the 90 respondents, or out of all 120 workers?
Asking for the denominator tests exactly the number they stated.
- Affirmative · Qualified claim
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.
- Negative · Strategic limit
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.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
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.
- 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 case: Meritocracy as practiced
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.
- 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 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…
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 case
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.
- 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 practice 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 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.
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
- Piling up method complaints you never use.
- Treating a limit in their evidence as proof of the opposite.
Loading your progress…