identify and analyse arguments, evidence and perspectives

Resources → Subject Notes → Global Perspectives & Research → Lesson Plan

Identify and Analyse Arguments, Evidence and Perspectives

1. Key Concepts & Terminology (AO1)

TermCambridge (9239) Definition
ArgumentA claim supported by reasons, evidence and logical links.
ClaimThe central point or position being asserted.
WarrantThe logical principle that connects the claim to the evidence.
BackingAdditional justification that strengthens the warrant (e.g., theory, data).
QualifierWords that limit the strength or scope of the claim (e.g., “usually”, “in most cases”).
RebuttalCounter‑arguments or objections that the author anticipates and addresses.
AssumptionUnstated belief that underpins an argument or perspective.
PerspectiveThe viewpoint or stance of an individual, group or institution.
ProvenanceThe origin of a source – author, institution, date and context of production.
EvidenceData, facts, statistics, expert testimony, examples or other material that supports a claim.
Critical ThinkingSystematic evaluation of information for validity, relevance, bias and reliability.
EvaluationJudging the strength, reliability and significance of arguments, evidence and perspectives.

2. The Critical Path (Deconstruction → Reconstruction → Reflection → Communication & Collaboration)

  1. Deconstruction (AO1) – Identify claims, warrants, backing, qualifiers, rebuttals, assumptions and the perspectives involved.
  2. Reconstruction (AO2) – Organise the identified elements into a logical, balanced argument; synthesize evidence from different sources.
  3. Reflection (AO2) – Assess how the analysis has altered your own stance and note any new questions.
  4. Communication & Collaboration (AO3) – Present findings clearly (report, presentation, infographic) and, where required, work with peers to share sources and critique each other’s work.

Checkpoint after each stage: “What have I discovered? What still needs clarification?” – aligns with the assessment objectives.

3. Toulmin Model of Argument Analysis

ComponentWhat to Look ForExample (Carbon‑tax debate)
ClaimExplicit statement of the author’s position.“Carbon taxes reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions.”
Data/EvidenceFacts, statistics, quotations that support the claim.OECD data showing a 2.5 % annual reduction.
WarrantUnderlying principle linking evidence to claim.Economic incentives change behaviour.
BackingAdditional support for the warrant (theory, research).Studies on price elasticity of fuel.
QualifierWords that limit the claim’s certainty.“If the tax is set at a sufficient level.”
RebuttalCounter‑argument(s) acknowledged by the author.“Low‑income households may be disproportionately affected.”
AssumptionImplicit belief that must be true for the argument to hold.Consumers respond to price changes.

Mini‑exercise: Take the following excerpt and fill in the Toulmin table.
“Introducing a sugar‑tax will cut childhood obesity because higher prices discourage sugary drink purchases, as shown by Mexico’s 10 % fall in sales after the tax was introduced. However, critics say the tax will hit low‑income families hardest.”

4. Analysing Evidence (AO1 + AO2)

  • Source credibility – authority, expertise, reputation, peer‑review status.
  • Provenance – author, institution, date, context of production.
  • Relevance – directness of the link to the claim.
  • Accuracy & reliability – methodology, sample size, error margins, triangulation.
  • Timeliness – currency of the data for the issue at hand.
  • Bias & perspective – any agenda, cultural or ideological slant.
  • Primary vs. secondary – primary data are original (surveys, interviews, observations); secondary data interpret or analyse primary sources (journal articles, reports).
  • Justifying the choice of evidence – explain why each source best answers your research question (e.g., “I used the ONS household energy dataset because it provides the most recent disaggregated expenditure figures for low‑income households”).

5. Evaluating Perspectives (AO1 + AO2)

  1. Identify all relevant stakeholders (government, NGOs, industry, affected communities, etc.).
  2. Uncover each stakeholder’s assumptions.
  3. Compare strengths & weaknesses:
    • Evidence base (quantity, quality, relevance)
    • Logical coherence
    • Feasibility and practical implications
  4. Consider the wider impact (social, economic, environmental, ethical).
  5. Reflect on your own bias and how it may shape interpretation.

6. Research Methods & Methodology (Component 4)

Choose methods that best answer your research question, then justify the choice.

  • Literature review – systematic analysis of secondary sources; ideal for establishing the scholarly context.
  • Surveys / Questionnaires – collect quantitative primary data; useful for measuring attitudes or behaviours across a large sample.
  • Interviews (structured, semi‑structured, unstructured) – obtain qualitative insights; allow depth and nuance.
  • Observations – direct primary data from real‑world settings; valuable for behavioural studies.
  • Statistical analysis – interpret numerical data (regression, trend analysis, chi‑square); demonstrates analytical rigour.
  • Case studies – in‑depth examination of a specific instance; useful for illustrating complex interactions.

7. Ethical Considerations & Authenticity (mandatory for all coursework)

  • Obtain informed consent for any primary data collection; keep consent forms on file.
  • Protect anonymity and confidentiality where required (pseudonyms, data encryption).
  • Avoid plagiarism – paraphrase, quote correctly and cite all sources using Harvard or APA style.
  • Submit a signed Declaration of Authenticity (see §4.4 of the syllabus) confirming that the work is your own.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (e.g., funding from a stakeholder).
  • Follow safeguarding guidelines when working with vulnerable groups.

8. Global Topics, Themes & Issues (choose ≥ 3 topics)

Cambridge provides a list of 30+ topics. Below is the full list; students must select at least three and then pick two or more themes for each.

  • Climate change & sustainability
  • Human rights & social justice
  • Health, disease & pandemics
  • Technology, media & digital society
  • Economic development, inequality & poverty
  • Population growth & migration
  • Education & lifelong learning
  • Food security & agriculture
  • Energy & resources
  • Urbanisation & built environment
  • Culture, identity & heritage
  • Security, conflict & peacebuilding
  • Governance, law & policy
  • Environmental degradation & biodiversity loss
  • Global governance & international organisations

For each chosen topic, select at least two themes (e.g., “environmental impact” and “policy response”) to generate contrasting perspectives.

9. Assessment Components & AO Weighting

ComponentWhat is assessedRelevant AO(s)
Written exam (2 hrs)Answer 2–3 essay‑type questions; focus on identification, analysis and evaluation of arguments.AO1 + AO3 (AO2 limited to short analysis)
Individual essay (1 500 words)Develop a sustained argument on a chosen global issue.AO1, AO2, AO3
Team research project (≈ 2 500 words + presentation)Collect primary data, analyse arguments/evidence, evaluate perspectives, reflect on findings.AO1, AO2, AO3 (collaboration counted in AO3)
Research report (individual, ≈ 2 500 words)Full cycle from question formulation to evaluation and reflection.AO1, AO2, AO3

Overall weighting: AO1 = 65 %, AO2 = 20 %, AO3 = 15 %.

10. Command Words & Exam Technique

Command wordWhat the examiner expects
AnalyseBreak down an argument or evidence into its constituent parts (claim, warrant, backing, etc.) and explain the relationships.
EvaluateJudge the strengths and limitations of an argument, evidence or perspective, using criteria such as credibility, bias, relevance and impact.
DiscussPresent a balanced view, covering at least two contrasting perspectives, and conclude with your own reasoned judgement.
CompareIdentify similarities and differences between two or more arguments, pieces of evidence or perspectives.
JustifyProvide reasons for a choice (e.g., method, source) and explain why it is appropriate.
ReflectConsider how the analysis has affected your own view and suggest further questions or implications.

11. Framework for Analysis – Step‑by‑Step Guide (aligns with AO1‑AO3)

StepPurpose (AO)Output
1. Define the research question AO1 – focus the investigation Clear, scoped question (e.g., “How do carbon taxes affect low‑income households in the UK?”)
2. Choose global topics & themes AO1 – contextualise the issue Topic: Climate change; Themes: Economic policy, Social equity
3. Select & justify research methods AO2 – methodological reasoning Mixed‑methods: secondary OECD report + primary interviews; justified because quantitative data show trends while interviews reveal lived experience.
4. Gather evidence (record provenance) AO1 – source credibility & provenance OECD report (2022), UK ONS dataset (2023), interview transcripts (2024)
5. Deconstruct arguments (Toulmin) AO1 – identify claim, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal, assumption Completed Toulmin table for each source
6. Reconstruct a balanced argument AO2 – synthesis & logical sequencing Outline that integrates supporting and opposing evidence, with clear linking sentences.
7. Evaluate evidence & perspectives AO2 – critical appraisal (credibility, bias, impact) Annotated evaluation matrix (see Section 4 & 5)
8. Reflect on findings AO2 – personal insight & future questions Brief paragraph: “The analysis has shifted my view because …”
9. Communicate results AO3 – clear structure, academic language, citations Research report (≈ 2 500 words) + slide deck + infographic
10. Collaborate (team projects only) AO3 – shared responsibilities, peer feedback Task allocation chart, meeting minutes, joint bibliography

12. Case‑Study Example (Carbon Tax – Expanded)

  1. Research question: “What are the social and economic effects of a carbon tax on low‑income households in the UK?”
  2. Global topic & themes: Climate change (environmental impact) + Economic inequality (social justice).
  3. Evidence gathered:
    • OECD secondary report (2022) – 2.5 % annual emissions reduction (secondary).
    • UK Office for National Statistics – household energy expenditure 2023 (primary data from public dataset).
    • Interviews with 12 low‑income residents (primary qualitative, 2024).
  4. Argument (Toulmin):
    • Claim: A well‑designed carbon tax can lower emissions without disproportionately harming low‑income households.
    • Data: Sweden’s sugar‑tax led to a 10 % drop in sugary‑drink sales; a UK rebate scheme reduced the cost burden by 30 %.
    • Warrant: Financial incentives alter consumption patterns when revenue is recycled.
    • Backing: Economic literature on price elasticity of energy demand.
    • Qualifier: “Provided that a targeted rebate or dividend is implemented.”
    • Rebuttal: Critics argue administrative costs may erode rebates.
    • Assumption: Households respond to price signals rather than habit.
  5. Evaluation of evidence:
    • Credibility – OECD and ONS are authoritative; interview sample is small but offers contextual depth.
    • Relevance – Directly addresses emissions and household cost.
    • Bias – Government data may under‑report informal energy use; interviewees may exaggerate hardship.
    • Timeliness – All sources 2020‑2024 – current for policy debate.
  6. Perspective analysis:
    • Government – emphasises environmental targets; assumes rebate will offset regressive impact.
    • Low‑income households – worry about immediate cost spikes; value certainty of income support.
    • Environmental NGOs – prioritise emissions reduction, support tax even if modest regressive effects.
  7. Reflection: The evidence suggests that a carbon tax can be socially acceptable if revenue recycling is robust; my initial view that any tax is inherently unfair has been nuanced.
  8. Communication: Findings presented in a 2 500‑word report (Harvard citations), a 10‑minute slide deck, and an infographic illustrating the tax‑rebate flow.

13. Assessment Criteria (What Examiners Look For)

  • AO1 – Knowledge & Understanding (65 %): Accurate identification of arguments, terminology, evidence and provenance.
  • AO2 – Application & Analysis (20 %): Depth of evaluation, synthesis of multiple perspectives, reflective insight, justification of methods.
  • AO3 – Communication (15 %): Logical structure, academic language, correct referencing, effective visual presentation, and evidence of collaboration where required.

14. Suggested Diagram

Flowchart – From Research Question to Evaluation of Arguments & Evidence (illustrates the Critical Path).

15. Quick Checklist for Students (AO1‑AO3)

  • ✔️ Defined a clear research question and linked it to at least three global topics.
  • ✔️ Collected both primary and secondary evidence; recorded provenance for every source.
  • ✔️ Identified claim, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal and underlying assumptions using the Toulmin table.
  • ✔️ Evaluated each piece of evidence for credibility, relevance, accuracy, timeliness and bias.
  • ✔️ Compared at least three perspectives, noting stakeholder interests and assumptions.
  • ✔️ Reflected on how the analysis has changed your own view and noted further questions.
  • ✔️ Structured the report with clear headings, Harvard/APA citations and a full bibliography.
  • ✔️ Met all ethical requirements and signed the Declaration of Authenticity.
  • ✔️ Documented collaboration (task allocation, peer‑review notes) for team projects.

Create an account or Login to take a Quiz

36 views
0 improvement suggestions

Log in to suggest improvements to this note.