Claim It
Which is the stronger claim?
A. Rudy is bad at teamwork.
B. Rudy’s performance in the teamwork category indicates there may be room for improvement.
B (objective, neutral, singular)
Which is stronger evidence?
A. Rudy prefers working alone.
B. Rudy earned an average score of 4.1 in collaboration.
B (specific and quantified)
Why is this weak reasoning?
“This proves Rudy struggles with teamwork.”
It restates the claim instead of explaining implications.
“Rudy earned an average score of 3.8 in the Collaboration sub-category.”
Evidence
What is wrong?
“Rudy is awful at teamwork.”
Not objective / emotionally charged.
Which is the better claim?
A. Rudy struggles with teamwork and needs to improve.
B. Rudy’s performance in the teamwork category indicates there may be room for improvement.
B (objective, no advice, singular)
What makes this weak evidence?
“Everyone thinks Rudy is hard to work with.”
Vague and not specific; lacks data or source.
What is missing?
“These scores show Rudy has challenges.”
The “so what” — no discussion of impact or implications.
“Rudy appears to face challenges in the teamwork category.”
Claim
What is missing?
Rudy struggles with teamwork. He got a 4.
Specific evidence details + reasoning.
Rewrite this claim to make it objective:
“Rudy is terrible at leading and completely useless in group settings.”
Rudy appears to face challenges with leadership and contributing effectively in group settings.
Does this evidence support the claim?
Claim: Rudy struggles with teamwork.
Evidence: Rudy earned a 9.5 in technical competency.
No (irrelevant to teamwork claim)
Improve this reasoning:
“This means Rudy needs to work harder.”
Remove advice; reasoning should stay informative and objective.
“These low scores may indicate tension within group settings.”
Reasoning
Identify two issues:
Rudy earned a 3.8 in teamwork, which proves he is bad at group work.
“Proves” is too strong
Not objective
Lacks reasoning depth
What is wrong with this claim?
“Rudy earned a 3.8 in teamwork and struggles to collaborate.”
It includes evidence in the claim.
What improvement is needed here?
“Rudy doesn’t communicate well.”
Needs specificity or source (data, quote, score, example).
Does this reasoning follow CER rules?
“Rudy should complete a communication training module.”
No — includes advice (CER here is informative, not persuasive).
“Respondent I stated that Rudy ‘prefers to work alone.’”
Evidence
Find three problems:
Rudy is not a good leader. He should take a class. He got bad scores.
Includes advice
Vague evidence
Weak reasoning
Not objective
You are given this evidence:
Rudy earned a 4.2 in collaboration.
Two respondents mentioned difficulty communicating with him.
His projects were often completed late.
Write a singular claim.
Rudy’s performance suggests challenges in teamwork and collaboration.
Which piece best supports this claim?
Claim: Rudy demonstrates strong technical competency.
A. Rudy earned a 9.6 average in technical competency.
B. Rudy is smart.
C. Rudy tries hard.
A (specific, measurable, directly aligned)
Evidence:
3.8 teamwork average
Two peer concerns about communication
Reasoning:
This pattern may create tension in group projects, which could reduce efficiency in the short term and weaken team morale over time.
Why is this strong reasoning?
Explains immediate impact
Explains long-term impact
Avoids restating the claim
Stays objective
“This pattern could weaken trust among team members over time.”
Reasoning
Fix this entire mini paragraph:
Rudy is terrible at teamwork. He got a 3. He needs to improve his communication skills. This shows he hurts the team.
Make claim objective
Quantify evidence
Remove advice
Add true reasoning
Avoid emotional wording