In the martial art of critical thinking, you are...
A black belt in evidence analysis!
Back to main menu
Under 13s are not encouraged to share on social media
The main claim of an article is what everything else is pointing towards: the big idea.
Claims can be surprisingly hard to spot. They're typically near the beginning or, sometimes, near the end – though occasionally can be found almost anywhere.
They often have a strong thematic connection to the headline – but not always.
They're sometimes signalled with special phrases such as "to sum up" or "the main point is" or "our conclusion is". But not always.
They're often shorter and punchier than other sentences.
Look for what the author is trying to convey as the take-home message – what do they want you to remember about this article if you only remember a single thing?
this example from the Moral Maze where where the witness marks her main claim very clearly with "I still have to conclude..." The software will then guide you to what it thinks is the main claim by marking it with a wavy red line.
The claim is backed up by reasons. There are usually several reasons backing up the main claim of an article.
There is often a part of a reason that ties in very closely with a part of a claim – a claim that, say, pineapple imports from Cost Rica have been increasing, might be supported by evidence talking about pineapples or about Costa Rica.
Sometimes evidence and reasons are introduced with special phrases such as "a key reason is" or "that's because" or "due to". But not always.
Reasons can involve things like statements from people or reports, statistical details, personal experience and more.
Look for what the author of the article is supplying to get you to understand or believe the main claim.
this example from the Moral Maze where in his introduction, Michael Buerk lays out the issue and then (after 30 seconds) the most important reason. You can also listen to this
example, in which a series of reasons are introduced, each marked by "because". The software will then guide you to what it thinks are the reasons by marking them with a wavy red line.
Reasons are connected to claims in many different ways. The Evidence Toolkit allows you to tease apart two different broad categories of reasons: those that are presented as facts and those presented as opinions. Facts should in principle be objectively checkable; opinions are intrinsically subjective. (Though there is more grey area than you might expect...)
Within the category of facts, there are several specific types of reasoning. Statistical reasoning uses evidence from a sample of a population; example-based reasoning uses just a single case to justify a claim. There are many other types of factual reasoning though – here we lump them together as 'Other'. Click to hear how statistical , example and other fact-based reasoning can be used effectively in debates from the Moral Maze.
Within the category of opinions, there are three more specific types depending on whose opinions are being used. Expert opinions carry a lot of weight if the expert is appropriately qualified. Popular opinion can be influential too, although we need to be more careful how we treat it. And personal opinion can be valuable but only gives a narrow, limited evidence base. Click hear to how expert, popular, and personal opinion-based reasoning can be put into practice with illustrations from the Moral Maze.
One part of being impartial and balanced is considering alternative opinions. These are sometimes known as 'objections.' Authors might not agree with objections to their claim, but might nevertheless mention them (either to partly concede, to emphasise that other opinions exist, or to subsequently provide counterarguments of their own).
These objections are sometimes introduced with special phrases such as "on the other hand" or "admittedly" or "to some extent". But not always.
Objections are usually mentioned in the middle or towards the end of an article.
Click here to hear an example of such balance, in which Douglas Murray agrees with his opponent, Giles Fraser, and concedes that the Qur’an, has passages, which are "highly inflammatory" whilst maintaining his point that that’s not a reason to ban the book (or any other book, for that matter).
The goal of The Evidence Toolkit is to encourage thinking about thinking, and in particular to stimulate and scaffold critical thinking of print and online media. To do this, we have carefully selected articles representing different political and thematic orientations, both news and op-ed, including one article that is satirical. For each article, we have designed the software, the lesson plans and the teacher notes to encourage students to ask deep questions of the content and its context. Students are guided towards answers to those questions that have been assembled by a team of experts. Help is available in the form of illustrations of each concept taken from episodes of the BBC Radio 4 radio programme, The Moral Maze, in which combative, provocative and engaging live debate depends upon the quick witted reasoning skills of the participants. (To listen to these clips you will need flashplayer installed so that you can use iPlayer. You will need to stop the clips manually). Finally, after having worked on the pre-prepared articles, students are invited to try out their skills on articles of their choosing, where there is no longer guidance from experts, only hints and tips on the process from the software. At that point the training wheels are off, and the students are free to exercise their new-found skills of critical thinking.
The Evidence Toolkit
Tools for getting from news to truth
The first task is to find the main claim in the article: what's the article really saying?
You can select a fragment of text in the article that you think is expressing the main claim. If you click "Help me!" over on the right, the Reason Checker will suggest what it thinks is the main claim by underlining it with a wavy red line. You can then select the text if you agree. Finally, click "I'm done" to see how you've done.
All dietary advice was fruit company conspiracy
FRUIT companies have misled the public into thinking fat and processed sugar are bad, it has emerged.
As it emerged that saturated fats are good for you, researchers pointed the finger at major fruit producers, known collectively as ‘Big Fruit'.
Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: "Everyone knows Mars bars are nicer than fruit – and therefore better for you. Fruit companies pay scientists to falsify data saying fruit is good for you while slagging off everything else.
"That's how powerful Big Fruit is.
"In my son's school canteen, they're selling fruit for virtually nothing to get kids hooked at an early age.
"If you watch a sitcom or soap opera, you'll notice bowls of fruit in kitchens – bananas, oranges and gleaming apples.
"You see fruit every day in paintings and wallpaper designs. All part of the campaign to make us fruit puppets.
"Actually you can get all the fruit you need from eating a packet of Starburst every day."
Mother-of-two Emma Bradford said: "If fruit was really good for you it wouldn't make for such an unsatisfying meal.
"Yesterday I ate four pears and was still starving. Compare that to a single bag of chips which totally sets you up for the day, especially if you add mayonnaise."
"Office worker Stephen Malley said: "Dieticians are liars and hate ordinary people. That's why they invented atom bombs and germs and won't let you eat what you want.
"From now on I'm only listening to my stomach."