Lesson_Analysing_and_Evaluating_Arguments_Rosa_vs_Lin/ global perspectives.pptx

global perspectives

1. Lesson Overview Topic: Analysing and evaluating competing arguments (Exam Practice Q3: Rosa vs Lin) Year: 10 | Duration: 45–60 min Purpose: Practise extended response (Q3-style): consider both arguments, evaluate reasoning/evidence/language, support judgement using the sources. Materials: Exam prompt, Aki’s & Marisa’s responses, source texts, planning sheet, highlighters, whiteboard/projector.

2. Learning Objectives • Identify claims, evidence and language choices in two contrasting arguments. • Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of reasoning, evidence and language. • Write a balanced judgement supported by the sources.

3. Success Criteria ✓ I consider both Rosa and Lin. ✓ I evaluate reasoning and evidence (not just opinion). ✓ I quote or paraphrase the sources. ✓ My answer has a clear structure: intro, balanced paragraphs, conclusion.

4. Starter (5–7 min) Display the question: ‘Which argument do you find more convincing, Rosa’s or Lin’s?’ → Think–Pair–Share: What makes an argument convincing? Possible answers: credible evidence, logical reasoning, balanced tone, clarity.

5. Source Extracts (from Rosa & Lin) Rosa (artist): Art belongs to the people who made it. Returning art corrects injustice. Example: Nazi art theft. Lin (collector): Art belongs to all humanity. Keep it where it is safest (e.g. British Museum, Rosetta Stone).

6. Sample Responses Aki – focuses on safety but lacks supporting evidence or analysis. Marisa – supports Rosa, mentions stolen art, begins to evaluate bias but lacks depth. Darva – balanced evaluation, considers logic, bias, and gives a clear conclusion.

7. Evaluation Checklist ✔ Is the claim clear? ✔ What evidence is used (facts, examples, authority)? ✔ Is the reasoning logical? ✔ What language is used (emotive, neutral, persuasive)? ✔ Are there signs of bias or missing perspectives?

8. Guided Practice (10–12 min) Use the planning sheet: Left column – Rosa: claim / evidence / language / evaluation Right column – Lin: claim / evidence / language / evaluation Discuss: Which points are strongest? Which are weakest?

9. Model Evaluation Paragraph Rosa argues that art should be returned to its creators; she appeals to justice (e.g. art stolen in wars) and uses moral language. This is persuasive ethically but lacks practical evidence. Lin’s view focuses on preservation and public access. This is logical and pragmatic but may be biased as she is a collector. → Balanced judgement: Rosa’s ethical reasoning vs Lin’s practical concerns.

10. Independent Practice (12–15 min) Write your exam-style response (Q3). Use sentence starters: • Both Rosa and Lin make important points. Rosa claims… She supports this by… • Lin’s argument is… The evidence for Lin is… • On balance, I find ___ more convincing because…

11. Peer Assessment (5–8 min) Swap with a partner. Check: • Both arguments considered? (Y/N) • Reasoning/evidence/language evaluated? (Score 1–3) • Logical conclusion? (Y/N) Annotate examples of effective evaluation.

12. Exam Rubric – Question 3 Level 1 (Limited): Opinion only, little reference to reasoning or evidence. Level 2 (Basic): Mentions both arguments but evaluates superficially. Level 3 (Secure): Evaluates reasoning, evidence, and language clearly. Level 4 (Excellent): Balanced, detailed evaluation using quotations and nuanced judgement.

13. Global Perspectives Extension Consider: Whose perspective is missing? Who benefits from restitution vs preservation? How might cultural context affect the debate? → Connect ethical (justice) vs practical (preservation) reasoning.

14. Homework / Extension Write a full Q3-style extended response using a new source pair. For higher attainers: critique assumptions and suggest evidence to strengthen each argument.