Big Idea 2 Skills: Interpreting Arguments and Evidence in AP Seminar

Argument

A reasoned position on a question or issue that includes a conclusion the author wants accepted plus reasons and evidence offered to justify it (not just a topic).

Claim

A statement the author presents as true and wants the audience to accept; claims can stack (main conclusion supported by smaller claims).

Thesis (Overall Claim / Conclusion)

The main position the author ultimately wants the audience to accept; the “therefore” point of the argument.

Supporting Claim (Reason)

A statement that, if true, would make the thesis more believable; explains why the author thinks the conclusion follows.

Subclaim

A smaller claim used to justify or strengthen a supporting claim within an argument.

Claim of Fact

A claim asserting something is true or false (often signaled by “is,” “shows,” “data indicate”); typically requires accurate data and sound methods.

Claim of Value

A claim that judges something as good/bad or better/worse (often signaled by “should,” “harmful,” “ethical”); needs clear criteria and reasoning, not just a single statistic.

Claim of Policy

A claim proposing an action or solution (often signaled by “must,” “need to,” “ought to”); should address feasibility, tradeoffs, and likely consequences.

Claim of Cause

A claim explaining why something happens (often signaled by “because,” “leads to,” “results in”); requires reasoning that rules out alternative explanations.

Evidence

Information used to support a claim; becomes persuasive when it is relevant, credible, and properly interpreted (not merely because it is cited).

Quantitative Data

Numerical evidence such as surveys, experiments, official statistics, and trends used to support or test claims.

Qualitative Evidence

Non-numerical evidence such as interviews, observations, case studies, and ethnographies that provides depth, context, and perspectives.

Expert Testimony

Statements from qualified researchers or professionals used as support; strength depends on the expert’s relevant expertise and credibility.

Primary Source

Original material (e.g., a study, law, speech, raw dataset) that provides direct evidence rather than interpretation.

Secondary Source

A source that interprets, summarizes, or reports on primary sources (e.g., reviews, analyses, many news articles).

Anecdote (Example)

An individual story or instance used to illustrate a point; can clarify but is usually weak for broad generalizations by itself.

Interpretation of Evidence

The author’s explanation of what evidence “means”; distinct from the evidence itself and may involve an unsupported leap.

Assumption

An unstated belief treated as true without proof that must hold for the argument’s reasoning to work.

Warrant

The underlying principle that makes evidence relevant to a claim (the “bridge” explaining why the evidence supports the conclusion).

Line of Reasoning

The ordered chain connecting reasons and evidence to a conclusion; evaluated for clarity, consistency, and sufficiency.

Deductive Reasoning

Reasoning aimed at certainty: if premises are true and logic is valid, the conclusion must be true.

Inductive Reasoning

Reasoning aimed at probability: evidence makes a conclusion more likely but not guaranteed; conclusions should match the strength of the evidence.

Logical Fallacy

A common error in reasoning that weakens an argument; effective analysis explains how the flaw reduces the claim’s support, not just the label.

Corroboration (Triangulation)

Building confidence by checking whether multiple independent sources or methods point to similar conclusions; helps detect weak or misinterpreted “facts.”

Source Credibility (Source Quality)

How trustworthy a source is for your purpose, based on authority/expertise, purpose and potential bias, evidence transparency, currency/context, and relevance to the research question.