Working with Source documents

(a) Conclusion: "Visitor numbers must be capped" — a policy/recommendation claim.

(b) Perspective: a local resident's social, environmental and cultural perspective — concerned for the island community's housing, environment and traditions.

(c) One reason (any of): visitor numbers are ten times the population; 68% of residents struggle to afford housing; beaches are eroding; traditions have become "a tourist show".

(d) Evidence type: statistical data (a survey percentage). Primary or secondary: secondary — the figure is taken from a government survey, not gathered first-hand by the author.

(a) Source A conclusion: governments must subsidise electric cars.

(b) Source B conclusion: electric-car subsidies waste public money (and should not be given).

(c) Shared issue: whether governments should subsidise electric cars.

(d) Agree or disagree: they disagree. Point of difference: whether subsidies are a worthwhile use of public money to cut emissions (A) or a wasteful, regressive policy with its own environmental costs (B).

Deconstruction. The conclusion is that tourism is essential and should not be limited ("our island's lifeline"). It is supported by two reasons — tourism funds "a fifth of all jobs" and visitor numbers "rose 20% last year" — plus a third move that dismisses opponents as "against progress".

Evaluating the evidence (R-R-S). The "fifth of jobs" and "20% rise" are statistical claims.

• Relevance: they show tourism's scale and growth, but not that it is a "lifeline" or that limiting it would cause poverty — they measure activity, not net benefit.
• Reliability: no source, date or method is given for either figure, and the source is written from a clearly pro-tourism standpoint, so the figures may be selectively presented.
• Sufficiency: two growth statistics are insufficient to support so strong a conclusion; they say nothing about the costs of tourism (housing, environment) or about how the jobs are distributed.

Evaluating the reasoning. The argument rests on an unstated assumption that the economic activity tourism generates outweighs its costs and that the jobs actually reach local families — negate this and the conclusion fails. It also commits a false dilemma (you either welcome tourism or are "against progress") and an ad hominem, dismissing opponents rather than answering them.

Judgement and A* finish. The argument is weak as it stands: its strongest element is concrete growth data, but that data is unsourced and does not establish the conclusion. To be convincing it would need further evidence: figures linking tourism to net household income or reduced poverty, data on how the jobs are distributed among locals, and an honest account of the costs (housing, environmental damage) weighed against the benefits.

Deconstruction. The conclusion is a prediction-plus-recommendation: companies should stay fully remote or "fall behind". It is supported by three reasons — a 12% productivity rise, expensive offices, and time wasted commuting — with the opening line ("clearly better for everyone") merely restating the conclusion.

Evaluating the evidence (R-R-S). The 12% figure is statistical evidence.

• Relevance: it concerns productivity, which is relevant — but at one company, not "everyone".
• Reliability: it comes from "our company" (a self-interested source), the method is unstated (how was productivity measured?), and it covers a single year that may have been exceptional.
• Sufficiency: one firm's figure cannot support a universal claim about all companies.

Evaluating the reasoning. The argument assumes the productivity rise was caused by remote work rather than other factors (a correlation-causation assumption) and that it would continue in normal conditions. It also commits a false dilemma — fully remote or fall behind — ignoring hybrid models, and is one-sided, omitting remote work's drawbacks (isolation, weaker collaboration, training of juniors).

Judgement and A* finish. The argument is unconvincing as it stands: a single, unsourced, possibly atypical statistic is stretched into a universal prediction on a false dilemma. It would need multi-company data gathered over several normal years, ideally comparing firms that did and did not go remote (a control), and a fair account of remote work's costs, before the conclusion could be accepted.

Introduction and thesis. Both sources address the impact of tourism on the island but reach opposite conclusions — A wants more tourism, B wants it capped. This answer argues that Source B is the more convincing case overall, though A's economic point is genuine.

Comparing the evidence. A offers growth statistics (a fifth of jobs, a 20% rise), whereas B offers a resident-welfare statistic (68% cannot afford housing) plus environmental and cultural claims. On relevance and sufficiency, B's evidence bears more directly on whether tourism harms the island: A's figures show economic activity but not net benefit, whereas B's survey figure speaks to a concrete harm to residents. Both, however, are weak on reliability — neither gives a full source or method, and both come from interested standpoints — so neither can be taken at face value.

Comparing the reasoning. A's case is undermined by a false dilemma and ad hominem in its fuller form ("against progress"), and assumes growth equals benefit and that jobs reach locals. B reasons more carefully by pointing to specific, varied harms (pollution, housing, culture), whereas A relies on headline growth alone — though B in turn assumes that capping numbers would not itself damage the economy, which it does not evidence.

Comparing assumptions and criteria. The deepest difference is one of criteria: A judges tourism economically (jobs, growth), B judges it socially, environmentally and culturally (housing, pollution, identity). Crucially, both can be true at once — tourism can grow the economy and harm residents — so the real question is which criterion should weigh more for a community's wellbeing.

Reasoned judgement. On balance, Source B is more convincing. Its evidence speaks more directly to the islanders' actual wellbeing, and its reasoning is less reliant on rhetorical tricks than A's. A's economic point is genuine and a complete policy would not ignore it — but growth figures alone do not establish a "lifeline", and A's false-dilemma framing weakens it further. Had A supported its claim with evidence that tourism reduces poverty for local families and addressed the housing and environmental costs, the balance could shift; as the two arguments stand, B better captures what matters for the island.

Introduction and thesis. Both sources judge the same dam but reach opposite verdicts — A a "triumph", B a "catastrophe". The key to this comparison is that they judge by different criteria, so neither simply refutes the other; the answer argues that a reasoned verdict must weigh those criteria rather than crown a winner, and that, on balance, B raises the weightier concern.

Comparing the evidence. A's evidence is economic/technological — electricity for two million homes, reduced oil imports — while B's is human and environmental — 50,000 displaced, an ecosystem destroyed. Both are fairly concrete and specific, and both are one-sided: A reports only benefits, B only harms, and neither gives an independent source. So on evidence quality the two are closely matched; the difference lies in what each chooses to measure.

Comparing the reasoning. Each argument is internally reasonable but ignores the other's criterion: A reasons as if energy output settles the question, B as if human and ecological cost settles it. Neither has actually refuted the other's factual claim — the dam can power two million homes and have displaced 50,000 people — so each commits the error of treating its own criterion as the only one that counts.

Comparing assumptions and criteria. A assumes economic and energy gains are the decisive measure of success; B assumes human rights and environmental integrity are. This is the heart of the disagreement: it is a clash of values, not of facts. A complete judgement must therefore ask which criterion should weigh more heavily here — for instance, whether large-scale benefits can ever justify the forced displacement of 50,000 people.

Reasoned judgement. Because the claims can both be true, the more convincing source is the one whose criterion carries greater moral weight for this decision. On balance, Source B raises the weightier consideration: energy benefits, though real and significant, can in principle be achieved by other means, whereas the forced displacement of 50,000 people and the destruction of a unique ecosystem are irreversible and fall on those with least power. A is not "wrong" — its benefits are genuine and must be counted — but a judgement that ignores the human and ecological cost is incomplete. The strongest position accepts A's benefits while concluding that, as presented, B identifies the more decisive harm.