| Evaluation criteria |
U |
P |
F |
G |
E |
| Structure of reasoning/ argumentation |
There is too little language for evaluation of argumentation/ reasoning skills. |
There is no use of reasons to support the speaker`s position. |
A single reason is used for one statement. |
More than one reason is used for one statement. |
A variety of reasons provide sufficient grounds to accept the argument. |
| Specificity of reasoning/ argumentation |
- |
Reasoning/argumentation is not developed. |
Reasoning is ambiguous and not specific. |
Reasoning is brief and clear. |
Reasoning completely matches the context. |
| Consistency between the thesis and arguments |
- |
There are contradictions and inconsistencies between the thesis and arguments. |
Arguments do not support a statement or a statement is modified. |
One or two lapses in deductive connections or development of reasons may be unbalanced. |
Arguments are appropriate, extensive, and well logically organized / arranged. |
| Exemplified argumentation |
- |
No example is provided. |
The only example is not specifically linked to the main point. |
The example is appropriate; it provides specifics and details in support of a claim. |
Argumentation is supported by more than one meaningful example. |
| Argumentation by analogy |
- |
Argumentation is presented without making use of analogies. |
Arguments by analogy are not convincing. |
The two things being compared are similar in some respects, making the argument stronger. |
The analogy between two things is striking, meaning that it is much stronger and more convincing than the usual kind of comparison. |
| Argumentation from authority |
- |
Arguments lack the reference to the authority. |
An argument from authority may not always be used clearly or appropriately |
An argument from authority is used although there may be some under-/over-use. |
The argument is presented with the reference to the authority. There is a link to the information sources. |
| Objective reasoning |
- |
Reasoning is influenced by personal characteristics, feelings or opinions of the subject. |
Reasoning is partially based on the individual experience. |
Reasoning is mainly objective although there may be an overemphasis placed on some subjective factors while others are diminished. |
Reasoning expresses a reality without subjectively modifying it. |
| Emotiveness |
- |
Emotional negative sense overweighs rational argument |
Reasoning is based on heavy exaggerations. |
The use of emotive terms in arguments is sometimes but not always manipulative. |
An emotional appeal is used effectively making the target audience more open to the arguments. |
| Reliability |
- |
Arguments are not fair or fabricated. |
Arguments are presented in list-like manner and/or there may be little explanation of connection between some of the evidence and corresponding ideas. |
Speakers follow up ideas with references to researched evidence. Reliability of arguments is noted and facts ties to ideas/reasons are explained to audience. Transitions between ideas and support may be jumpy, but argument is well rounded, thorough, and reliable. |
All ideas are backed up with specific, researched evidence. Evidence presents both facts and researched opinions and reliability/relevance of the research is clear. There are no invented and false facts in reasoning. |
