Thinking Skills Paper 2

Question 1 – suspects & witnesses (Evaluating evidence) CIRCUMSTANCES Things that happened, and where they happened SUSPECTS People accused of doing something wrong (or, at least, could be accused) WITNESSES People who may have seen what happened, or heard about it, or know something about it

SUSPECTS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY EVIDENCE Did they have a reason to do it? Did they have the chance to do it? EVIDENCE Is there convincing evidence they actually did it?

EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITNESS STATEMENTS Facts from which conclusions may be inferred WITNESS STATEMENTS Direct witness = ‘eye-witness’ Indirect witness

WITNESSES RELIABILITY PLAUSIBILITY CORROBORATION of the person of what they say CORROBORATION for what they say

RELIABILITY of the person REPUTATION Do other people respect and trust them? Do they have a position of authority or trust?   NEUTRALITY Are they biased? (prejudiced towards, or against, another person or thing) Do they have a vested interest? (a reason or motive to lie)

RELIABILITY of the person ABILITY TO SEE ( = ABILITY TO PERCEIVE) Could an eye-witness see and hear properly? OR ABILITY TO KNOW Does an indirect witness have any special knowledge or experience? (Do they offer more than hearsay, speculation or opinion?)

PLAUSIBILITY of what they say Are the statements of a witness consistent, coherent and reasonable? (OR are there unusual changes, contradictions or very unlikely details?)

CORROBORATION for what they say From other witness statements From circumstantial evidence

1 (d) Direct answer to the question ‘Do you agree …?’, ‘To what extent …?’, ‘How likely …?’ Choose from an imagined scale of 4 answers, such as: Strongly agree, partly agree, generally disagree, strongly disagree Very much, partly, only slightly, not at all Very likely, quite likely, unlikely, very unlikely If in doubt, choose one of the middle ones

Most important evidence Discuss this first: it shows you have evaluated the sources Be clear. Use words like: ‘Most important to consider …’, or ‘Probably the most important evidence …’ Other evidence Go through all or most of the sources Give an evaluation of the evidence: ‘also significant’, ‘partly useful’, ‘unreliable’, ‘inconclusive’, …

Plausible alternative scenarios Make clear what you think is the most likely explanation Suggest at least one alternative explanation – something you think is less likely but still a possibility (and say why) Further investigation Suggest If you were in charge, what would you investigate next? This shows again that you are evaluating the evidence

Question 1 terminology Motive Opportunity Circumstantial evidence Eye-witness /indirect witness Relevance Reliability Plausibility / credibility Corroboration Claims Bias & vested interest Ability to see Hearsay Speculation & opinion Consistency / contradictions Conclusive / inconclusive Alternative scenario

Question 2 – scientific information (Evaluating broadly scientific sources) Considerations for all parts: Is the information in each source relevant? Note any deliberate confusion in the evidence. Remember the Coffee & Caffeine question Is it reliable? Is it useful? (Is it sufficiently complete, accurate and precise?) Does it have support from other sources? What may be the implications of this information?

2 (d) ‘How far would you agree …?’, etc. Direct answer to the question ‘How far would you agree …?’, etc. ‘Strongly agree, generally agree, mostly disagree, strongly disagree’, etc.   Most important information Discuss this first: ‘Most important is Source X, because …’ Other information Give an evaluation of each source, such as: ‘also relevant’, ‘probably quite reliable’, ‘only partly supports’, ‘inconclusive’, … Further information To understand this topic better, what else would you want to know?

Question 2 terminology Conditions Factors Claims Relevance Reliability Usefulness Support Implications Vested interest Speculation Jumping to conclusions Contradictions Correlation & cause Conclusive / inconclusive

Question 3 – longer passage (Analysis, evaluation & further argument) ANALYSIS = ‘identify the structure’ MAIN CONCLUSION INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS SUPPORTING REASONS EXAMPLES COUNTER ARGUMENT

ANALYSIS Part (a): identify the main conclusion Use the ‘because/therefore’ test Decide if you need the whole sentence or only part of it COPY it straight from the passage Part (b): identify 3 reasons that support the MC Three key reasons (intermediate conclusions) If you find more than three, just use the best ones Again, COPY them from the passage

EVALUATION Part (c): evaluate the reasoning EVALUATION = ‘Comment on the quality of the argument: its strengths, weaknesses and assumptions’ Comment much more on weaknesses than strengths ‘Assumptions’ are always implicit: so you cannot quote one from the passage! Discuss each paragraph in turn: how well do the reasons and examples support each intermediate conclusion?

Q.3 evaluation terminology Assumptions Unsupported assertions Straw person argument Conflation Restricting the options Emotive language Ad hominem argument Circular argument Contradictions Generalisations Exaggeration Slippery slope reasoning Analogies Examples Anecdote Open to challenge

FURTHER ARGUMENT Part (d): write your own short argument It might be to support or to challenge, or it might give you a choice Include at least a main conclusion, two or three reasons, and an example (and preferably a CA and IC, too) Your main conclusion can be copied from the question Do not use material already in the passage

Recommended revision for paper 2 Q.1 BUILDERS (text & notes) Q.2 CYCLING vs. DRIVING (text & notes) Q.3 DRUGS IN SPORT (text & notes)

Paper 2 – the most difficult parts Q.1 (d) – usually 6 marks Q.2 (d) – usually 6 marks Q.3 (c) – usually 5 marks These require your most complete evaluation skills And they are worth almost 40% of all the marks So really concentrate and think hard! AND ENJOY THE CHALLENGE ! !