Strategy & closing · Advanced · About 6 min
Weigh competing consequences
Compare scale, severity and confidence
Both sides · RebuttalRead the fictional case: AI and the future of work
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
Impact comparison asks which consequences should influence the judgment most. Consider magnitude, likelihood, timing, duration and who bears the effect. Select the dimensions that actually separate these cases.
Calculations help when units and assumptions are sound. They mislead when unlike outcomes are silently treated as equal or unsupported probabilities create a precise-looking answer. Explain the judgment the numbers cannot make by themselves.
Explore an example before trying
The argument still needs to answer the negative’s concern about more severe individual losses.
The argument must account for the real scale and duration of the gains, not merely invoke a severe outcome.
The review records these outcomes, but does not isolate every cause or forecast the whole economy. Both sides need a reason for extending their pattern.
State the effects
Keep the group, measure and period attached.
Compare a relevant dimension
Explain how scale, severity, timing or confidence favors your argument.
Test the rival comparison
Answer the strongest reason to weigh the other way.
Your response
Negative · RebuttalDevelop a negative impact comparison using two dimensions. Answer the affirmative’s strongest scale argument and state a condition that would weaken your case.
Read the fictional case: AI and the future of work
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
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
Our priority is… Their scale argument… We weigh… Our case weakens if…
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.
The same record supports competing weights
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
- Affirmative on scale
The gains reach 300 retained workers and recur in their weekly time and pay. That breadth and repetition support an overall benefit.
The argument still needs to answer the negative’s concern about more severe individual losses.
- Negative on severity
Eighteen remain unemployed and 24 earn less elsewhere. Loss of work or income can carry more weight per person than a smaller gain to someone securely employed.
The argument must account for the real scale and duration of the gains, not merely invoke a severe outcome.
- Confidence and reach
The review records these outcomes, but does not isolate every cause or forecast the whole economy. Both sides need a reason for extending their pattern.
Do not demand certainty from one forecast while treating your own as automatic.
Make the reason for the weight visible, including the assumptions it depends on.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
Review and continue
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Read the practice task and fictional case
Develop a negative impact comparison using two dimensions. Answer the affirmative’s strongest scale argument and state a condition that would weaken your case.
Fictional round packet: a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption. Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added. Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later. The other 22 new roles went to different applicants. The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy. The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
The affirmative has scale: 300 retained workers gained pay and time. We prioritize severity and duration because 18 displaced workers lacked employment at six months and 24 took lower pay. Those losses can threaten a whole income, so treating every affected person as an equal unit understates them. Our comparison weakens if later evidence shows rapid transitions to comparable work; it strengthens if the losses persist. We also need a reason to expect this pattern beyond the review.
These explain the negative’s preferred weight.
The response explains why scale alone may not decide the comparison.
Later evidence could reduce the duration and severity of loss.
The response makes a reasoned negative comparison, answers the rival dimension and names the evidence that would change its weight. It does not use a formula to hide unlike outcomes.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsI compare substantive consequences using relevant dimensions.
- EvidenceI meet the strongest rival comparison.
- PersuasionI explain the confidence or condition my judgment depends on.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Using a large number without explaining its unit or significance.
- Treating an observed short-term effect as a guaranteed economy-wide forecast.
Loading your progress…