Discussion, Listening & Evidence — Drills · Grade 6 English
Chapter: Research, Media, Discussion & PresentationWhat these drills covers
By the end of Discussion, Listening & Evidence you should be able to:
- I can offer a fair question and explain how an answer could change the interpretation.
- I can identify and repair this unit’s common error using evidence.
- I can compare a changed case and explain the limit of the conclusion.
4 questions, written answer, each with a worked explanation.
Vocabulary used: discussion norm, paraphrase, elaboration, revision, perspective.
Problem 1
Answer and explanation
“Which part did you personally hear, and when did you arrive or leave?” checks access without accusing either speaker of lying.
“Which part did you personally hear, and when did you arrive or leave?” checks access without accusing either speaker of lying.
Response criteria
- Answer the actual question with accurate details.
- Explain how the evidence or language choice supports the conclusion.
- State a relevant limit, alternative or justified revision.
Problem 2
Answer and explanation
Ask which vote each person personally heard. Different access could explain the apparent conflict without proving either lied. An answer should separate observation from reports received later.
Ask which vote each person personally heard. Different access could explain the apparent conflict without proving either lied. An answer should separate observation from reports received later.
Response criteria
- Answer the actual question with accurate details.
- Explain how the evidence or language choice supports the conclusion.
- State a relevant limit, alternative or justified revision.
Problem 3
Answer and explanation
Paraphrase the actual access concern before disagreeing. Ask how the rule could account for bus timing while meeting practical needs. A claim about a rule is not a claim about all rules or the speaker’s character.
Paraphrase the actual access concern before disagreeing. Ask how the rule could account for bus timing while meeting practical needs. A claim about a rule is not a claim about all rules or the speaker’s character.
Response criteria
- Answer the actual question with accurate details.
- Explain how the evidence or language choice supports the conclusion.
- State a relevant limit, alternative or justified revision.
Problem 4
Answer and explanation
In the first case, “Which part did you personally hear, and when did you arrive or leave?” checks access without accusing either speaker of lying. In the changed case, Ask which vote each person personally heard. Different access could explain the apparent conflict without proving either lied. An answer should separate observation from reports received later. The method of defining the relationship and testing relevant evidence transfers; the particular source detail and scope must be checked anew.
In the first case, “Which part did you personally hear, and when did you arrive or leave?” checks access without accusing either speaker of lying. In the changed case, Ask which vote each person personally heard. Different access could explain the apparent conflict without proving either lied. An answer should separate observation from reports received later. The method of defining the relationship and testing relevant evidence transfers; the particular source detail and scope must be checked anew.
Response criteria
- Answer the actual question with accurate details.
- Explain how the evidence or language choice supports the conclusion.
- State a relevant limit, alternative or justified revision.