Build an argument that can answer a challenge · Construire un argument capable de répondre à une contestation
| English | Français |
|---|---|
| argument/ˈɑːɡjuːmənt/ | argument |
| counterexample/ˈkaʊntəreɡzæmpl/ | contre-exemple |
| qualification/ˌkwɒlɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/ | la qualification |
A confident claim meets a difficult case
- A student says experts should always be trusted. Another asks about two experts who disagree. A useful argument needs a reason for trust and an explanation of what happens when those reasons conflict.
- An argument 论证 connects evidence and reasons to a conclusion. Begin with the exact question your teacher has approved, rather than a general speech about experts.
Give the claim a clear scope
- “Trust experts” hides the conditions. A more precise claim asks whether relevant expertise, transparent methods and checks by others give a reason to trust a particular conclusion.
- State what your example is meant to show. A specialist’s medical training may matter for a diagnosis, but it does not automatically establish expertise in bridge design.
Which claim has the clearest scope? · Laquelle des affirmations a la portée la plus claire ?
The second claim states conditions that can be examined. · La seconde affirmation énonce des conditions qui peuvent être examinées.
An expert’s title alone settles a disagreement between specialists. · Le titre d'un expert seul règle un désaccord entre spécialistes.
Compare the relevant evidence, methods and uncertainty instead of relying only on titles. · Comparez les preuves pertinentes, les méthodes et l'incertitude plutôt que de vous fier uniquement aux titres.
Let a challenge test the reasoning
- A counterexample 反例 is a case that challenges a general claim. Two equally relevant experts may disagree because the evidence is incomplete or their methods differ.
- Explain why the case matters. It may show that trust should depend on reasons and the available checks, rather than a title alone. Merely mentioning disagreement does not explain its effect.
What makes an example a useful challenge? · Qu'est-ce qui fait qu'un exemple constitue une contestation utile ?
A relevant challenge examines what the claim assumes or covers. · Une contestation pertinente examine ce que l'affirmation suppose ou couvre.
Revise the conclusion using the challenge
- A qualification 限定 makes the conditions of a claim clearer. You might trust relevant expertise while comparing the methods and uncertainty when specialists disagree.
- Do not replace reasoning with “both sides are right”. Decide what the evidence justifies, which limit changes that decision and what further check would help.
Why might a recent inspection matter more than an old photograph? · Pourquoi une inspection récente pourrait-elle compter davantage qu'une ancienne photographie ?
Relevance to the current decision matters; method and limits still need checking. · La pertinence par rapport à la décision actuelle compte ; la méthode et les limites restent à vérifier.
Check the whole line of reasoning
- Read each paragraph and ask how it helps answer the exact question. Include a specific example, the inference you draw from it and a relevant limitation.
- Use the prescribed title for the correct assessment session if this becomes TOK essay preparation. These reasoning steps do not replace the official task requirements or teacher feedback rules.
Match each part of an argument to its role. · Reliez chaque partie d'un argument à son rôle.
The parts should form a connected answer to the question. · Les parties doivent former une réponse cohérente à la question.
Which checks help revise an essay argument? · Quels contrôles permettent de réviser un argument de dissertation ?
Sources need an explained role in the argument; citation alone is insufficient. · Les sources doivent avoir un rôle explicité dans l'argument ; une simple citation est insuffisante.
Two engineers disagree about the condition of a small footbridge. One has inspected it recently; the other relies on an older photograph. Their titles alone do not settle the issue. The recent inspection may provide more relevant evidence, but you still need to examine the inspection method and the claim’s uncertainty. The conclusion is conditional: relevant expertise can support trust when its evidence and methods are appropriate to the decision.
A claim, an opposing claim and a final sentence are not yet a developed argument. Explain how the challenge changes your reasons or the scope of the conclusion.
Give a reasoned claim, test it with a specific challenge and explain a conditional conclusion that answers the question.