Assess weaknesses and their impact
Evaluate inadequate support, inconsistency, doubtful reliance and unanswered significant objections.
Original StudyForA scenarios and formative model answers; no Cambridge marks, predicted grades or certified mastery. Alternative reasoned answers may be valid. Full-length unseen papers, a wider mixed-problem bank and calibrated specialist teacher marking remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read an English passage closely
- Distinguish a statement from its supporting reason
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Before evaluating support, what should you identify?
What you will learn
- Assess whether support reaches the whole conclusion
- Explain how a weakness affects strength without equating disagreement with a flaw
Compare the strength of premises and conclusion
Evidence of a small average benefit cannot by itself establish a large benefit for every person. A moderate intermediate conclusion cannot support a stronger main claim without another bridge. Internal inconsistency occurs when the reasoning depends on incompatible claims, such as saying the same budget is fixed and unlimited.
Reliance on a doubtful unstated assumption or unsupported assertion weakens the conclusion for anyone who reasonably rejects that premise. Mere disagreement with the conclusion does not show a weakness; identify the step whose support fails.
Assess counter-positions in context
An argument advocating one position is not automatically weak for being one-sided. It is weakened when an obvious relevant objection threatens a premise or mechanism and remains unanswered. A response should address the objection rather than repeat the recommendation.
Explain whether a flaw is central or limited. An omitted cost can defeat an affordability conclusion while leaving a measured access benefit intact. Evaluation should not erase supported parts of an argument simply because another strand is weak.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Is a one-sided argument automatically weak?
Worked example
‘The trial saved users five minutes on average, so it will save every user at least thirty minutes.’ Evaluate support.
Show the worked solution
- The premise concerns a five-minute average.
- The conclusion concerns every user and a thirty-minute minimum.
- Neither strengthened feature follows.
Answer The support is inadequate in both magnitude and scope. The evidence may support an average trial benefit, but cannot establish a thirty-minute minimum for every user.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Identify the two unsupported changes in the travel-time conclusion.
Give me a hint
Compare amount and population.
Compare my reasoning
- Five becomes at least thirty minutes.
- Average becomes every user.
- No additional evidence supports either change.
The reasoning inflates the size from a five-minute average to a thirty-minute minimum and extends the scope to every user. Both require support not supplied by the trial figure.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies magnitude
- Identifies scope
- Links both to missing support
Independent: A proposal says costs are fixed at 100 credits but later promises any extra staffing at no additional cost without evidence. Assess its reliance and consistency.
Give me a hint
Check whether the second claim is established.
Compare my reasoning
- Extra staffing usually requires an explanation of funding or capacity.
- The zero-extra-cost assertion is unsupported.
- The affordability conclusion relies on it.
The proposal relies on an unsupported claim that extra staffing adds no cost. It is not necessarily contradictory if a funded reserve exists, but none is given; the fixed-cost conclusion therefore lacks support for expanded staffing.
Look for these in your work
- Avoids inventing a contradiction
- Identifies reliance
- Explains the effect on affordability
Application: An argument gives strong demand evidence but ignores a stated accessibility barrier. Assess what survives and what needs repair.
Give me a hint
Separate demand from universal access.
Compare my reasoning
- Demand evidence may remain credible.
- The barrier threatens the access claim.
- A relevant mitigation or narrower conclusion is needed.
The demand strand can remain supported, but a claim of accessible provision for everyone is weakened by the unanswered barrier. The argument needs an effective access plan or a narrower conclusion; dismissing all demand evidence would go beyond the identified weakness.
Look for these in your work
- Preserves supported evidence
- Targets the objection
- Proposes a relevant repair
Common mistakes
- Calling disagreement a flaw
- Treating advocacy itself as defective
- Discarding every supported strand after one weakness
What can you explain now?
Is a one-sided argument automatically weak?
Compare with the explanation
No, it must still address significant relevant objections
The task is justified persuasion; an unanswered decisive objection is the relevant weakness.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Is a one-sided argument automatically weak?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.