Plastic pollution and claim fun

This unit has mostly been about....

• whales

• plastic pollution

• nurdles

• paper towels, conditioner, and cottage cheese

What is a claim as used in this unit?

• A claim is something that you are arguing to be true

• A claim is a point on the top of your head

• A claim is something that you are taking as your own.

• A claim is a piece of property that you are saying in MINE MINE MINE!

What does it mean if something is sufficient?

• There is very little of it.

• There is enough of it

• There is none of it.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.4

CCSS.RI.8.4

CCSS.RI.9-10.4

CCSS.RL.7.4

CCSS.RL.8.4

Which world would BEST be associated with the word "relevant"?

• relive

• reopen

• related

• realized

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.4

CCSS.RI.7.4

CCSS.RI.8.4

CCSS.RL.7.4

CCSS.RL.8.4

When reasoning is sound, it ______.

• Is backed up by relevant information

• is backed by made up claims

• has a claim that is backed with sufficient evidence, not matter the relevancy

• contains a claim that is backed with relevant and sufficient evidence

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

If someone has an opinion on a topic (ex: they love the turtles and want them to live long healthy lives in a plastic free ocean), it is likely that they have a ____ towards the turtles.

• billboard

• binge

• bias

• bogus

Tags

CCSS.RL.5.6

When asked to evaluate a claim/argument in writing, the test people want you to.....

• state the claim and if it backed by relevant information. They do not care if there is sufficient evidence.

• state the claim in the first sentence and then state if the evidence is sufficient and relevant.

• start by stating who the speaker is and if he or she is biased. Then, you will state the claim and the relevant information.

• include the claim in the very beginning of the paragraph. Then, explain if the evidence is both sufficient and relevant. Finally, you will determine if the argument is sound and if there is any bias. You will end with an overall statement to determine if the argument is or is not strong.

Joey spent a year studying moon rocks and he determines that they are NOT made of cheese, but rather Olivine and Ilmenit. He will earn money for his findings and discovery.

He gathered 700 samples of what was believed to be rocks from the moon from 5 different places in the US, 2 locations in Japan, 2 locations in Kenya, 1 location in Nigeria, and a location in Australia. He also studies 85 samples brought to earth by astronauts. He conducted 20 studies on the composition of the rocks and another 20 on the composition of 4 different types of cheeses.

Which paragraph would provide the BEST evaluation of the claim

• Joey is a biased man who just wants to make money. He created an imaginary claim about moon rocks and moon cheese. His samples were not relevant because they were unrelated to his claim. Joey is very, very bad and needs to be locked up.

• The claim is that moon rocks are not actually made of cheese. The evidence for this study was relevant because the study of both cheese and rocks was related to the claim. The evidence was sufficient because rock samples were taken from multiple countries over a year long period and were compared to different types of cheese. The reasoning is sound, because in all case the rocks did not contain common elements with the cheese. The researcher may be biased because he will earn money for his findings. However, his research provides contains such a wide range of rocks and cheeses that the findings would be considered valid and the argument is strong.

• The claim is that moon rocks are not actually made of cheese. The evidence is not relevant because Joey only studied rocks from the earth and cheese made on earth. The evidence was sufficient, however because his research used many types of rocks and several types of cheese. The reasoning is not sound because it is only sufficient and not relevant. Joey is biased because he will make money for his work. As a result, the overall argument is only fair because there is some research, but it is not all related.

• The evidence for this claim is relevant because Joey studied rocks from space, as well as rocks found on earth, and cheese, which are all related to the claim. The evidence is sufficient because Joey had over 700 samples. The overall reasoning is sound because if cheese and rocks contain different substances, one could conclude they not related. The claim is that rocks are not made from moon cheese. Joey did a good job with his argument

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

reread this evaluation.

The evidence for this claim is relevant because Joey studied rocks from space, as well as rocks found on earth, and cheese, which are all related to the claim. The evidence is sufficient because Joey had over 700 samples. The overall reasoning is sound because if cheese and rocks contain different substances, one could conclude they not related. The claim is that rocks are not made from moon cheese. Joey did a good job with his argument

What are some of the errors with the argument?

• It did not address Joey's claim at the end.

• It should have included the claim early on and must address Joey's bias.

• It only included facts and no details.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RL.7.1

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

Catherine and Diego work for the artic wildlife foundation. They visited Alaska one time in 2018 and Canada one time in 2020. During their visit they determined that trash is killing Polar bears are a high rate because both of the bears they encountered had plastic in their stomachs. Which of the following paragraphs provides the BEST evaluation of their claim.

• The claim is that plastic kills polar bears. The evidence is relevant because studying bears is related to the claim. The evidence is sufficient because they found two dead bears who ate plastic over a two year period. The researchers are biased because they want the bears to live.

• The evidence is both sufficient and relevant because the bears died. The researchers are biased and want bears to live. The conducted two studies and looked at two bears, so this leads us to believe all bears die from eating plastic. This was a good study and everything is clear.

• The claim is the plastic pollution is a major killer of polar bears. The evidence presented is relevant because the researchers found plastic in the stomachs of the dead bear, but the evidence was not sufficient because only two bears were studied. The sample was not large enough to concluded the plastic was a major cause of death in most polar bears. The reasoning is therefore not sound, because there was not enough data to conclude that other facts were not responsible for the deaths of other polar bears. The researchers may be biased, as they work for a company who seeks to improve the quality of live for article animals. The overall argument was not strong because the information provided was too limited.

• The researchers made a bad argument because they didn't have enough information. They studied two bears. this was not sufficient. They had a bit of relevant information but it just was not enough. The researchers were biased towards the bears and against plastic. They think that plastic is bad. So, my overall evaluation of this claim is that is was just so-so. They had an idea but they did not have enough facts to back it up.

• The people claimed that plastic hurts polar bears. They made a poor claim because they only studied two bears.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.1

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RL.7.1