Find the hidden assumption
Does that rule apply?
Rebuttals!
It's... complicated
BREAK THE LOGIC
100
Question prompt: “Students who wear uniforms are more disciplined. Therefore, making uniforms mandatory will improve everyone's grades.”
What is the most important assumption?
That wearing a uniform is the cause of greater discipline.
Why: The argument assumes two causal links without establishing either. Even if disciplined students get better grades, uniforms might not make students more disciplined.
100
Ms Matthew's announces, “Phones must be put away when in class.” A student in that class uses their phone in the hallway outside the classroom. Another student argues that the student broke the rule.
What could be challenged first?
Whether the rule applies outside class. Ms. Matthew's use of the term "in" creates ambiguity.
Why: The rule's existence is established, but its scope may be limited to class time. A rule cannot automatically be extended to every situation.
100
Amadaues argues, “Homework is useless because I learned everything in class and never needed to study at home.”
what is wrong with hiWhat is the strongest rebuttal?
A) “You're wrong. Homework is important.”
B) “That's just your experience. What about other students who might need that extra help?”
C) “Do your grades justify that attitude? 🤔”
D) “Teachers assign homework, so it must be useful.”
Correct response: B
Why: B challenges the generalization and asks for evidence. It addresses the reasoning instead of attacking the person or assuming the opposite conclusion is true.
And Amadaeusius is obviously a good student, so he mustn't speak on behalf of the universe
100
student says, “People have the right to choose their extracurricular activities, so nobody should expect them to notify anyone if they change their plans.”
What distinction does this argument overlook?
Freedom to choose an activity and responsibility to communicate a change in plans are separate questions.
Why: One can have the freedom to leave while still having a reasonable responsibility to notify someone, depending on the circumstances.
100
The prosecution argues that Claire was manipulated by Oladoyin because she chose Coding Club after speaking to her. What is the biggest evidence problem?
ANSWER: There is no sufficient evidence that Oladoyin manipulated Claire!! DUH!!
A possible explanation is not an established fact. The argument needs evidence of influence or manipulation.
200
“Claire promised to attend, so she must have intended to betray Gabby.” What is the hidden assumption?
That breaking a commitment proves deliberate betrayal.
Claire might have changed her mind, misunderstood, or acted thoughtlessly. The action alone doesn't prove intent. Motive, evidence, and reason would need to be established...!
Claire.
You are
Being
watched.
200
A school prohibits food in science labs. A supervised science club meets in the lab after school. Mr. Green eats an apple there, and another student claims he violated the rule.
What is the strongest question to ask?
Does the food prohibition cover the lab at all times, including after-school club meetings?
Why: The rule may apply to the location regardless of the schedule, but that must be established from its wording or an authoritative interpretation. Don't assume either answer.
200
“We should cut library funding because only a small percentage of students visit the library every day.”
Which rebuttal best addresses the argument?
A) “Libraries are beautiful and deserve respect.”
B) “The students who don't visit are lazy.”
C) “Daily attendance alone doesn't measure the library's value. What about students who use it occasionally, access digital resources, or depend on its study space?”
D) “We should cut sports funding instead.”
C)
Why: C challenges the adequacy of the evidence used to justify the conclusion and offers relevant factors that the original argument ignores.
200
Four students complete a group project. One student contributes very little because of circumstances the others do not know about. The group argues that the student deserves the same grade as everyone else because they are a team.
What makes this question complicated?
Correct response
Fairness could mean equal treatment of the group, recognition of individual contributions, or accounting for circumstances that affected participation.
Why: The dispute depends partly on competing definitions of fairness and on facts that are not yet known. A good argument must address those dimensions instead of assuming only one matters.
200
Zendetta argues: “Water is wet. Anything that touches water becomes wet. Water touches water. Therefore, water is wet.”
What is wrong with the logic:
A) Water cannot touch water because water that touches are not distinct objects but instead fuze into one.
B) It assumes that “wet” means the same thing when describing water itself as when describing something covered or saturated with water.
C) The statistics are wrong. Who says everything that touches water becomes wet?
D) But water goes out in the sun. Water evaporates in the sun. So the water touching the water that is closest to the sun would evaporate, and the original water would be dry.
Correct answer: B
Explanation: The argument shifts between possible meanings of wet. If “wet” means covered or saturated with liquid, water might make other things wet without being described as wet in exactly the same sense. If “wet” simply means consisting of liquid, then water is wet by definition. The answer depends on how the key term is defined.
300
“This study strategy helped three students achieve excellent grades. Therefore, every student should use it.”
What must be assumed for this conclusion to hold?
A) That the strategy actually helped those students achieve excellent grades
B) That this logic is general across different circumstances and students
C) That all students want excellent grades
B) That this logic is general across different circumstances and students
Why: A strategy can work for some students without being universally effective. The argument generalizes from limited evidence.
300
Student council rules require elected representatives to attend weekly meetings... at 7:00am sharp... every Thursday... Issac agreed to attend a voluntary planning session that is not listed as a council meeting. However... he overslept and missed it! Gabby claims he violated the attendance rule!
What can be challenged:
A) GABBY IS LATE TO EVERY MEETING! SHE SHOULD NOT GET A SAY!
B) Mr. Power is chill with it, so it's okkkkkkk
C) Does the Rule even APPLY to voluntary planning sessions ???? 😳😳
D) "I DIDN'T VIOLATE THE RULE! I OVERSLEPT BECAUSE MY SISTER TOOK MY PHONE TO LISTEN TO MUSIC BECAUSE HERS WAS TAKEN AND MY ALARM TURNED OFF AND I DIDN'T WAKE UP! IT'S NOT MY FAULT! MY SISTER MANIPULATED MY PHONE!"
That the attendance rule for monthly council meetings also applies to the separate planning session.
Why: The two activities may be similar, but similarity alone does not prove that the rule covers both.
300
Moroti tells the student council that he can bring goods for the bake sale, which all student council members and class reps must bring goods for. Later, it is discovered that his little sister & grade 7 class rep, MORIFE, DID ALL THE HARD WORK. Moroti argues that he never said he'd be the one baking it, and so he never broke any rules.
BUILD the strongest rebuttal!
"All student council members and class reps must bring goods for [the bake sale]." Morife and Moroti are both on the student council. Morife is a class rep; Moroti is the treasurer. They are not one person, and they do not occupy one role! Moroti put Morife's baked goods under his name, when in reality, Morife met the expectations of the student council... Moroti DIDN'T!"
(All hypothetical... No hate)
300
A town installs streetlights in several neighbourhoods. Reported crime increases in those neighbourhoods over the next month. A councillor concludes that the streetlights caused crime to increase.
What must be considered before accepting or rejecting the conclusion?
Whether crime genuinely increased, whether reporting changed, what happened in comparable neighbourhoods, and whether other factors could explain the trend.
Why: The timing of two events does not establish causation. But the observation alone also doesn't prove that streetlights had no effect; more evidence is needed.
300
Question prompt: “Either we ban all phones at school, or students will never learn to concentrate.”
What is the structural flaw?
It presents only two possibilities when other options may exist, such as restricted use during lessons or teaching responsible phone habits.
Why: The argument relies on a false dilemma. The conclusion depends on treating two options as exhaustive without establishing that they are.
400
Question prompt: “Mandatory community service builds empathy. Therefore, every high school student should be required to complete 40 hours of volunteer work.”
Which hidden assumption is most vulnerable?
That evidence of a potential benefit justifies making the activity mandatory for every student, and that 40 hours is a reasonable requirement.
Why: The argument needs to justify the specific policy, i.e., its effectiveness, fairness, practical burdens, and why this amount is appropriate.
Yer can't just say "40 hours r mandatory"
400
A school requires students to notify a teacher when they miss class. Debate Club takes place after school, has a curriculum, and is supervised by a teacher, thus functioning as a class. Therefore, any student who misses Debate Club without notifying the teacher has violated the school's attendance policy.
What is the best premise to challenge?
A) Students HAVE to notify a teacher when they miss class
B) Debate functions as a class
C) The school attendance policy actually applies to Debate club
D) "All of this is meaningless; kids miss class all the time and don't get prosecuted for it!"
C) The school attendance policy actually applies to Debate club
Why:
Just because Debate Club may or may not function as a class (very "what if" logic...) doesn't mean that the school's attendance policy actually applies to Debate Club in the real world.
400
“Our debate team won a totally legit 100% non-fictional provincial tournament, so our arguments must have been the strongest arguments in every round.”
What is the most effective rebuttal?
A) “Winning means nothing.”
B) “Your team probably got lucky.”
C) “Winning establishes the tournament outcome, but not that every argument was strongest. We would need to evaluate the individual arguments and judging criteria.”
D) “Our team is better than yours.”
Correct response: C
Why: C separates the observed outcome from the broader conclusion being drawn. A team can win without every argument being superior, and a judge's decision is not automatically proof of every claim's quality.
400
A school has enough funding to expand either its arts program or its sports program this year, but not both. Sports have more participants, while arts programs provide opportunities for students who do not participate in sports.
Which conclusion is most defensible?
A) Sports must receive funding because more students participate.
B) Arts must receive funding because participation numbers are irrelevant.
C) The school should compare costs, educational benefits, accessibility, demand, and the needs of students before deciding.
D) Neither program should receive funding because the decision is difficult.
Correct response: C
Why: Participation is relevant but not necessarily decisive. The choice involves competing goals, and a sound conclusion depends on the criteria used to assess them.
400
“Every effective tutoring program is expensive. This tutoring program is expensive. Therefore, this tutoring program is effective.”
Why does the conclusion fail to follow?
The premise says effective programs are expensive; it does not say that every expensive program is effective.
Why: This reverses the direction of the implication. Cost alone does not establish effectiveness.
500
“Social media contributes to anxiety among some teenagers. Therefore, banning teenagers from social media is the best way to improve adolescent mental health.”
Identify the most vulnerable hidden assumption.
That a complete ban would meaningfully improve mental health, would be effective in practice, and would be better than less restrictive alternatives.
Why: Establishing that a problem exists does not establish that a particular solution is effective or proportionate. The argument skips the comparison between possible interventions.
"On June 10, 2026, the federal government tabled Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act – legislation that would bar Canadians under the age of 16 from holding social media accounts and create a powerful new federal regulator to police the internet. It is the most far-reaching online-safety law in Canadian history, and the centrepiece of an aggressive global wave of child-protection rules now sweeping democracies from Canberra to Brussels. For parents, platforms and privacy advocates alike, the Canada social media ban raises a single hard question: can you keep kids off Instagram without checking the ID of every adult in the country?"
500
Gabby begins a debate club session by saying there can only be 1 winner, and by debate club rules, the winner gets the prize. However, Sareet and Claire volunteer for separate, non-competing roles. Therefore, they can't win prizes. However, Gabby still rewards them for their hard work. Everyone gasps. Zendetta rises, Amadaeus too. Issac screams, "Revolution!" Cate and Mirabel share a disappointed look. Kamilia is missing. But everyone is mad.
What loophole could easily resolve this conflict?
Sareet and Claire were never competing. They weren't in the competition. They volunteered for organizational and acting roles. So, in their case, the rewards aren't the same as a prize for winning.
The true crime is Gabby not giving Mr. Power a reward for being a court judge. And instead gave him leftover candy !!
500
The prosecution argues that Claire betrayed the club by attending the coding club instead, without notifying Gabby or Mr. Power. Suppose they argue that this qualifies as betrayal because Claire said she would go but then chose not to, without warning, when Gabby relied on Claire's attendance for logistical reasons. Violating trust & confidence, which caused damage to the club: fewer than the required # of students needed to attend for the game to be played showed up.
But the prosecution argues: Even if it qualifies as betrayal, Claire should not be found guilty of betrayal for simply breaking trust. Many people break trust on a daily basis with no formal consequence. And similar to most of these situations, Gabby didn't do much of anything to establish that trust = obligation. She didn't confide in Claire that she needed her to go; she did not write down Debate Club laws stating that Claire must show up to every session or at least not fail to notify Gabby of her absence. Gabby did not even state that there'd be consequences for not going. She simply asked who was going to attend. A statement that does not equal the construction of a contract of trust. Even if that trust existed but was unspoken and to be assumed, the prosecution fails to explain why betrayal is the most appropriate label for their argument. An argument that suggests a more appropriate label would be damaging club outcomes, though it leaves room for speculation that the low club attendance # in general could've caused the damage, not Claire alone.
WHAT MAKES THIS A STRONG REBUTTAL?
A. Because without a written rule, no obligation can ever exist.
B. Because Claire had the freedom to attend any club, which automatically means the prosecution has no case.
C. Because it challenges the assumed obligation, questions whether the alleged conduct meets the definition of betrayal, and disputes whether Claire actually caused the harm.
D. Because Gabby's feelings are irrelevant, so the prosecution's argument can be dismissed entirely.
C. Because it challenges the assumed obligation, questions whether the alleged conduct meets the definition of betrayal, and disputes whether Claire actually caused the harm.
The hint to attack an argument is to attack its structure:
1. Prosecution argues that Claire is guilty. The Defense challenges the standard for guilt
2. Prosecution assumes that Claire's statement that she would attend created a sufficiently strong obligation that failing to notify Gabby constituted betrayal. The defence asks what actually established that obligation. Was there a club rule? An explicit commitment? A clear expectation that students must notify someone if their plans changed? They exposed a gap between “Claire said she would come” and “Claire committed an offence by not coming.”
3. The prosecution interprets the action itself as betrayal. The defence demands that the prosecution justify that interpretation instead of treating it as self-evident.
4. The prosecution argues Claire is entirely at fault. The defence offers an alternative explanation for the harm. Attacking the foundation of the prosecution's argument!
500
A school proposes mandatory public speaking for every English student because communication skills are important. Mr. Doyle supports the policy because it builds confidence; Mr. Parab argues that mandatory public speaking can create unnecessary barriers for students with different needs. Ms. Walsh is just glad that she not being forced to test her english students (she doesn't give us tests btw, look forward to highschool english).
What is the strongest way to evaluate this dispute?
Examine whether the policy ACTUALLY achieves its educational goals (actually beneficial), and figure out how many students ACTUALLY need alternative ways of demonstrating communication skills, and then figure out accommodations scaled to the # of students who need them.
Why: The debate involves a legitimate educational goal and competing concerns about how to achieve it. A strong response neither assumes that a valuable skill justifies every method of teaching it nor treats every burden as proof that the goal should be abandoned.
500
“Newfoundland and Labrador generated approximately 97% of its electricity from hydroelectricity in 2023. A data centre powered by low-emission electricity could have lower operational emissions than a comparable facility using a more carbon-intensive grid. Therefore, Newfoundland should encourage data-centre development for environmental reasons.”
Newfoundland and Labrador
What additional information would be most important before accepting the conclusion?
A) Whether the data centre would create an impressive-looking building.
B) The validity of data centres being environmentally beneficial as a whole rather than an alternative, and if the facility's large energy consumption displaces electricity from other uses
C) AI takes up too much water and therefore is environmentally destructive, and the only way to solve environmental issues regarding AI is to leave the idea behind or else everyone is doomed.
D) Whether the company describes itself as environmentally responsible.
E) yes bc aura
Correct answer: B.
Why: Low-emission electricity is a relevant advantage, but it does not automatically make every data-centre project environmentally beneficial. Additional demand can put pressure on the grid, and the actual impact depends on the facility’s design, energy requirements, cooling system and the electricity supply available when it operates.