Evaluate opponents, options and predicted chains
Address the real proposal and its evidence, rather than a caricature, personal attack or unsupported extreme.
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
- Recognise straw man, false dichotomy, slippery slope and personal/counter attacks
- Explain how a flaw fails to answer the relevant argument
Preserve the opponent’s actual claim
A straw man changes an opponent’s proposal to make it easier to reject: a request for one extra late bus becomes ‘running empty buses all night’. A personal attack rejects reasoning by criticising its author; a counter attack replies that the critic behaves similarly, without answering the criticism. A relevant credibility assessment of a witness differs from dismissing a policy argument because the writer is disliked.
A false dichotomy restricts options without support: ‘Either close the library or accept unlimited costs’ ignores limited opening or capped staffing. Another form falsely treats compatible positions as exclusive, such as supporting access while also requiring a cost check.
Test each link in a predicted chain
A slippery slope alleges that a modest step inevitably leads to an extreme harmful outcome without supporting the transitions. Predicted consequences can be relevant reasoning if mechanisms, probabilities and safeguards are assessed. The flaw is not discussing future harm; it is the unsupported inevitability.
For each objection, reconstruct the actual claim, identify the substituted or missing step and explain its impact. You can reject a flawed criticism without proving the original proposal good; that proposal still needs its own support.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does rejecting a bad criticism prove the criticised proposal is good?
Worked example
Evaluate ‘If we permit one extra late service, buses will inevitably run empty all night, so reject the trial.’
Show the worked solution
- The proposal is one additional service.
- No rule requires unlimited later expansion.
- A fixed trial limit can block the alleged chain.
Answer The objection uses an unsupported slippery slope and may also caricature the limited proposal. It needs evidence for each inevitable expansion step; rejecting that criticism does not by itself prove the trial worthwhile.
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: Explain the missing step in the late-service slippery slope.
Give me a hint
Why must one service turn into all-night operation?
Compare my reasoning
- The proposed limit is one service.
- No compulsory expansion mechanism is given.
- A trial cap is a possible stopping condition.
The reasoning does not establish why one additional service must force repeated expansion to all-night operation. A fixed trial cap is compatible with the proposal and defeats the asserted inevitability unless evidence excludes it.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies the actual proposal
- Names the missing transition
- Shows a possible stopping condition
Independent: Compare ‘the critic also wastes money’ with ‘the criticised cost estimate omits staffing’. Which addresses a cost argument?
Give me a hint
Focus on the content of the calculation.
Compare my reasoning
- The first concerns the critic’s conduct.
- The second names an omission in the estimate.
- Only the second directly bears on the calculation.
The staffing objection addresses the cost argument because it identifies a relevant omission. The critic’s own spending is a counter attack and does not resolve whether the present estimate is sound.
Look for these in your work
- Distinguishes content from person
- Explains relevance
- Assesses the counter attack
Application: ‘Either support the unrestricted scheme or oppose student access entirely.’ Explain the flaw and give a compatible alternative.
Give me a hint
Consider a limited scheme with access safeguards.
Compare my reasoning
- The claim allows only two extremes.
- Limited funding or phased opening can still support access.
- Rejecting unrestricted spending does not establish opposition to access.
The claim is a false dichotomy. A person can support student access through capped or phased opening while opposing unrestricted spending. Those compatible positions show that the alleged two-option choice is incomplete.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies restricted options
- Gives a feasible middle position
- Explains the invalid inference
Common mistakes
- Calling any consequence discussion a slippery slope
- Confusing credibility assessment with personal dismissal
- Proving a criticism flawed and assuming the proposal is therefore correct
What can you explain now?
Does rejecting a bad criticism prove the criticised proposal is good?
Compare with the explanation
No, the proposal still needs independent support
A failed objection and a justified proposal are different claims.
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
Does rejecting a bad criticism prove the criticised proposal is good?
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.