Evidence Supporting Ideas

Activities to try

1. 1

   Weigh the evidence on a claim-balance

   Why it works: In science it is the STRENGTH and RELEVANCE of evidence that decides an argument — not simply how many weak cards you pile on, nor how vivid the story is (although several strong, independent studies that agree do add weight). Sometimes the evidence tips the scale AGAINST the claim you started out believing.

   1. Take a concrete claim, e.g. 'chewing gum improves memory' or 'this plant food makes seeds sprout faster', written at the top of a balance scale (drawn on paper or shown on screen).
   2. Receive a deck of evidence cards: a friend's story (anecdote), a single quick test, a large repeated controlled study, and a couple of irrelevant-but-flashy facts.
   3. Sort each card onto a 'supports / refutes / irrelevant' board, then place supporting and refuting cards on the balance so the scale tips for or against the claim.
   4. Assign each card a strength and justify the placement using a strength ladder: anecdote / single reading < small controlled test < large, repeated, controlled study.
   5. State a final judgement: which way does the evidence tip, and is it strong enough to accept, reject, or stay unsure about the claim?
2. 2

   Debate the claim out loud

   Why it works: Argument from evidence is a real exchange: you marshal evidence to support or refute, weigh an opponent's evidence by its design, and change your mind when the stronger evidence demands it.

   1. Take a side in a spoken exchange where a partner (another learner, a teacher in role, or a scripted persona) advances a claim backed by weak evidence — e.g. a single anecdote.
   2. Refute it with stronger evidence, naming why your evidence is stronger (controlled comparison, repeated trials).
   3. Defend your own claim when the partner challenges it, and judge the quality of the evidence the partner offers rather than how confidently they speak.
   4. Reach a reasoned position, revising it if the opponent's evidence turns out stronger.
3. 3

   Sort, rank, and compare evidence across claims

   Why it works: Support-vs-refute, relevance, strength ranking, and telling facts from reasoned judgement and from speculation are separable judgements you can apply item by item — and the same evidence pool can bear differently on competing claims.

   1. Categorise a set of evidence items for a given claim as supports / refutes / irrelevant.
   2. Sequence several pieces of evidence from weakest to strongest and explain the ordering.
   3. Given a mix of statements, sort them into three kinds — a fact/observation, a reasoned judgement based on research findings, and a speculation or bare opinion — and say how you can tell them apart.
   4. Given two competing claims and a shared pool of evidence, decide for each piece which claim it supports, which it refutes, or whether it is irrelevant to both — then judge which claim the pool overall better supports.
   5. As a quick warm-up, compare two short investigations and say whose evidence is stronger (controlled comparison with many trials vs a single uncontrolled observation); the full claim-vs-evidence reasoning is developed in the seed-sprouting check, so treat this as a brief classification, not a repeat of it.