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