Identifying Arguments and Evidence

Introduction

When someone tries to persuade you of something, they are making an argument. Not an argument like a disagreement or a fight — in critical thinking, an "argument" means a claim supported by reasons and evidence.

Every day, you encounter arguments: in adverts trying to sell you products, in news articles presenting a viewpoint, in debates at school, and even in conversations with friends. The FSCE 11+ exam will ask you to find arguments in passages and evaluate whether they are strong or weak.

In this lesson, you'll learn what makes a good argument, how to find the main argument in a passage, and how to identify the evidence that supports it.

The Three Parts of an Argument

Every good argument has three parts:

graph TD
    A["CLAIM"] -->|"supported by"| B["EVIDENCE"]
    B -->|"connected by"| C["REASONING"]
    C -->|"proves"| A
    D["What the writer believes"] -.-> A
    E["Facts, data, or examples that support the claim"] -.-> B
    F["The logical connection between evidence and claim"] -.-> C
    style A fill:#fce4ec
    style B fill:#e3f2fd
    style C fill:#e8f5e9

1. Claim

The claim is the main point the writer is trying to make. It's what they want you to believe.

• "School should start at 10am."
• "Plastic bags should be banned."
• "Reading is the most important skill a child can learn."

2. Evidence

The evidence is the facts, examples, statistics, or expert opinions that support the claim.

• "Research shows that teenagers' brains are not fully awake until 10am."
• "Over 8 million tonnes of plastic enter the ocean every year."
• "Studies show that children who read regularly score higher in all subjects."

3. Reasoning

The reasoning is the logical connection between the evidence and the claim. It explains why the evidence supports the claim.

• "Because teenagers are not alert before 10am, starting school earlier means they cannot learn effectively. Therefore, a 10am start would improve learning."

How to Find the Main Argument

When you read a passage in the FSCE 11+ exam, follow these steps:

1. Read the whole passage first. Don't try to analyse while you read — just get the overall picture.
2. Ask: "What is the writer trying to persuade me of?" This is the claim.
3. Ask: "What evidence do they give?" Look for facts, statistics, examples, and expert quotes.
4. Ask: "How do they connect the evidence to their claim?" This is the reasoning.

Types of Evidence

Not all evidence is equal. Here are the main types you'll encounter:

Type of Evidence	Example	Strength
Statistics/data	"73% of students said..."	Strong — specific and measurable
Expert opinion	"Dr Smith, a leading scientist, says..."	Strong — based on specialist knowledge
Research/studies	"A study by Oxford University found..."	Strong — based on systematic investigation
Real examples	"In Sweden, this policy has already worked."	Medium — one example may not apply everywhere
Personal experience	"I once saw a fox in my garden."	Weak — one person's experience isn't representative
Anecdote	"My friend told me that..."	Weak — secondhand and unverifiable

Worked Examples

Worked Example 1: Identifying the Three Parts

Passage: "The school should ban fizzy drinks from the canteen. According to NHS data, children in the UK consume three times more sugar than the recommended daily amount, and fizzy drinks are one of the biggest sources. Reducing access to sugary drinks at school would help children develop healthier habits, since school is where children eat at least one of their main meals each day."

Part	Text from Passage
Claim	"The school should ban fizzy drinks from the canteen."
Evidence	"According to NHS data, children in the UK consume three times more sugar than the recommended daily amount, and fizzy drinks are one of the biggest sources."
Reasoning	"Reducing access to sugary drinks at school would help children develop healthier habits, since school is where children eat at least one of their main meals each day."

Worked Example 2: Strong vs Weak Arguments

Argument A: "We should have longer break times because I like playing outside."

Argument B: "We should have longer break times. Research by the University of Edinburgh found that children who have at least 30 minutes of active play during the school day concentrate better in afternoon lessons. Currently, our school only allows 15 minutes of break time, which is below the national average of 20 minutes."

Analysis: Argument A is weak because it only gives a personal preference ("I like playing outside") as evidence. Argument B is strong because it uses research evidence (University of Edinburgh study), specific data (30 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes), and clear reasoning (active play improves concentration).

Worked Example 3: Spotting the Evidence

Passage: "Homework should be abolished for primary school children. A major study by Professor Harris Cooper found that homework has little academic benefit for children under 11. In countries like Finland, which consistently ranks among the top in education, primary school children receive very little homework. Furthermore, excessive homework can cause stress and reduce the time available for family activities and creative play."

Evidence identified:

1. Study by Professor Harris Cooper — research evidence (strong)
2. Finland's example — real-world example (medium strength)
3. Homework causing stress — general claim (would be stronger with specific data)
4. Reducing time for family and play — reasoning (logical but not backed by specific data here)

Worked Example 4: Before and After

Question: "Read the passage and identify the main argument and the evidence used to support it."

Passage: "All primary schools should teach coding. The technology industry is the fastest-growing sector in the UK economy, with over 1.5 million people now working in tech. According to the Department for Education, schools that introduce coding see improvements in pupils' problem-solving skills across all subjects. Countries like Estonia have been teaching coding from age 7 since 2012, and their students consistently outperform UK students in international maths and science tests."

Before (a student who can't identify arguments): "The argument is about coding and technology. The evidence is that it's good for children."

This answer is too vague. It doesn't identify the specific claim, and it doesn't quote any evidence.

After (a student who identifies arguments well): "The main argument (claim) is that 'all primary schools should teach coding.' The writer supports this with three pieces of evidence: first, the statistic that the tech industry has 'over 1.5 million people working in tech,' showing there are jobs available; second, the Department for Education's finding that coding 'improves problem-solving skills across all subjects,' showing academic benefits; and third, the example of Estonia, where coding has been taught since 2012 and students 'outperform UK students,' showing it works in practice."

Worked Example 5: Identifying a Counter-Argument

Good writers often include a counter-argument — the opposite point of view — before explaining why they still disagree with it.

Passage: "Some people argue that school uniforms limit children's self-expression. However, a survey of 2,000 parents by the charity Schoolwear Association found that 89% believe uniforms reduce bullying related to clothing and help families save money. While self-expression is important, it can be achieved through art, music, and creative writing rather than through what children wear."

Main argument: School uniforms are beneficial. Counter-argument: "Some people argue that school uniforms limit children's self-expression." Rebuttal (response to counter-argument): Self-expression can be achieved in other ways (art, music, creative writing), and uniforms have benefits that outweigh this concern (reducing bullying, saving money).

Spotting counter-arguments shows advanced critical thinking in the FSCE exam.

Common Mistakes