Krista Boddy

Reading/Writing Lesson
Reading Strategies for Analyzing Arguments in News Editorials and Opinion Articles
Brief description of classroom setting: This classroom is in a university setting with high
intermediate to low advanced learners of English. Students comprise of 8-12 visiting scholars
and university students. Nations of origin include: China, Brazil, India, Spain, and Vietnam.
There are four teachers in training to assist with the lesson. This lesson is meant focus on reading
and writing skills as well as integrating meaning-focused input. In the previous lesson, the
language objective was to provide scanning and skimming reading strategies. This lesson is
meant to provide reading strategies for analyzing stance, identifying evidence, discerning fact
from opinion, and identifying logical fallacies. The lesson following this one will provide
organizational techniques for paragraph writing.
Pre-lesson inventory:
Overview of lesson objectives: By the end of this lesson, students will:
Language objectives:
Be able to critically analyze arguments in English news editorials and academic articles
for stance, evidence, logical fallacies, and discern fact from opinion.
Materials to take to class: Dry-erase markers, 6 copies of lesson plan, name cards, 12 copies of
handout, 12 copies of CNN editorial, 5 copies each of three Popular Science magazine articles.
Equipment needed for class: None
Assignments to collect from students: Homework from Kathleens lesson.
Special room arrangements: None
On the board: Theme: Reading strategies for analyzing argument, identifying evidence,
discerning fact from opinion and identifying logical fallacies.
Warm up: Choose a side of an issue (10 minutes)
Purpose: To identify stance on a topic and to provide credible evidence or logical arguments to
support stance.
Procedures:
1. Tell students that we all have strong opinions on certain subjects. Usually we use logic to
defend our opinions, especially when writing argumentative essays/papers. Ask, When
is the last time you argued either verbally or through academic writing on a topic you felt
strongly for or against? We are going to play a game in which I will provide a topic, and
you have to go to the side of the room (Agree/Disagree) to show your stance on the issue.
2. Ask one representative from each side to provide an argument to support their stance.
They may practice using opinion expressions and agreement/disagreement expressions
taught from previous lessons. (e.g., In my opinion, From my point of view/perspective, I
would argue that, To be honest, Personally speaking, I strongly believe that).
3. Remember to use agree/disagree strategies from Alhassanes lesson a few weeks ago:
a. Agree: that is true/You have a point there/I know what you mean/I couldnt agree
more/That is exactly how I feel/absolutely/definitely.

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
b. Disagree: Yes, but/Surely, but/Im not sure I agree/I dont see it that way/I
am not so sure about that.
4. Topics: Agree/Disagree
a. People spend too much money on their pets.
b. TV is good for children.
c. Playing video games causes more violent behavior in young people.
d. Nuclear energy is necessary.
e. Prayer should be allowed in public schools.
f. It is justifiable to use animals for laboratory experiments.
Transition: It is important to critically examine news articles and editorials for evidence and
logical fallacies (arguments which are illogical, inaccurate, insufficient, irrelevant, unrelated to
topic or appeal to readers emotions) so individuals will be able to make conclusions based on
facts and not just the authors opinion. In academic writing, we must provide credible arguments
based on facts and evidence, rather than simply emotion and opinion. It makes our writing
stronger and more accurate.
Activity 1: Read and Analyze CNN editorial for evidence and logical fallacies (15 minutes)
Purpose: For students to practice identifying evidence, credibility, bias, and logical fallacies in
an editorial.
Procedures:
1. In groups of 3 or 4, students will read through CNN article (see Appendix A) for credible
arguments, evidence, bias, and logical fallacies in an editorial.
2. They will underline credible arguments, circle evidence, put a * next to bias, and identify
logical fallacies if possible.
3. Elicit a few examples from students and write them on the board to identify elements that
make the argument stronger/weaker/more appealing for the audience.
Transition: Now that you have identified credible arguments, bias, evidence and some logical
fallacies, we are going to review some logical fallacies that we havent discussed.
Activity 2: Introduce Analytical Reading Strategies (handout-see Appendix B) (10 minutes)
Purpose:
To provide meaning-focused input regarding strategies for analyzing effectiveness of
arguments.
To discover specific logical fallacies to look for in reading news editorials and opinion
articles.
Procedures: Pass out handout and review
1. Distinguish fact from opinion: Opinions cannot be proven true or false, whereas facts
can. Ask the class if they know how to distinguish the difference.
2. Explain that in persuasive writing, claims are opinions that are supported by evidence
facts, reasons, and information that persuade the reader to agree with the author.
3. Identify evidence, credibility and bias.

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
4. Identify logical fallacies arguments which are illogical, inaccurate, insufficient,
irrelevant, unrelated to topic or appeal to readers emotions.
a. 10 Examples: bandwagon appeal, appeal to tradition, scare tactics, etc.
5. Ask the class if they can think of any more logical fallacies or examples they have seen in
recent articles or editorials.
Transition: Now that you have explored how to distinguish fact from opinion, how to identify
evidence, and learned some common logical fallacies, we are going to examine some scientific
articles and identify credible evidence, arguments, stance, as well as logical fallacies.
Activity 3: Analyzing scientific articles for credible arguments, evidence, stance, and logical
fallacies in groups (20 minutes-read for 10, analyze for 10)
Purpose: To apply specific strategies for analyzing arguments in scientific articles.
Procedures:
1. Divide the class into three groups. Have students circle their desks for discussion.
2. Each group will analyze a scientific article (see Appendix C) looking for arguments,
stance, evidence, and logical fallacies. Groups will read (they dont have to read entire
article!!) and discuss the arguments, credible evidence, bias and fallacies in the articles.
3. They will underline credible arguments, circle evidence, put a * next to bias, and identify
logical fallacies if possible.
4. Teachers-in-training please assist groups with difficult vocabulary, noticing evidence,
arguments and logical fallacies.
Closure: (5 min)
Purpose: To summarize the strategies discussed in the lesson and have students provide
examples of evidence, arguments or logical fallacies.
Procedures:
1. As a class, ask each group: 1. What was the topic of your article? 2. What types of
credible evidence, arguments, logical fallacies did you find in your article?
2. Which type of article (editorial or scientific article) is more effective? Which one
presents more effective arguments, facts, and credible data?
3. Why is it important to critically evaluate what we read?
4. Name some of the ways you will critically analyze things you read.
5. What are some logical fallacies that are new to you?
6. What are some logical fallacies that you recognize in many editorials/articles/reports?
7. Do you have any questions or do you need something explained further?
HW assignment: Write a response (1-2 pages) to one of the articles you read today using facts,
evidence, credible sources from the text, as well as logical fallacies to argue your stance. You
may use opinion and agreement/disagreement expressions learned from Eyes and Alhassanes
lessons, but base your opinion on evidence from the articles (e.g., credible experts, researchers).

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
References
Aschwanden, C. (2014, August). Cancer screening can do more harm than good. Popular
Science, 285 (2), 39.
Denzin, P. (2014). Logic and Argumentation: A Standards-Based Unit of Instruction.
(Unpublished Lesson Unit). Right to Read Adult Education Center, Greeley, CO.
Safina, C. (2014, January 28). How hunters slaughter dolphins in Japan. CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/opinion/safina-dolphin-hunt-killing-method/index.html
Siebert, C. (2015, January). Animals like us. Popular Science, 286 (1), 52-55.
Steck-Vaughn (Ed.). (2013). Reasoning Through Language Arts. Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company.
Wenner Moyer, M. (2014, August). Infant possibilities. Popular Science. 285 (2), 50-55, 84.

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
Appendix A
CNN Editorial

How hunters slaughter dolphins in Japan (opinion)

By Carl Safina: Updated 9:34 AM ET, Tue January 28, 2014
Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/opinion/safina-dolphin-hunt-killing-method/index.html

Academic papers tend to be dull, but I just read one that disturbed me. "A Veterinary and
Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the 'Drive Hunt' in Taiji,
Japan," was published last year in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. And as we'll
see below, the "new" method of killing dolphins (intended to be an improvement on the old
method) creates such terror and pain that it would be illegal to kill cows in this manner under
Japanese law itself. The paper is viewable free online, but it's not for the faint-hearted.
A little background: Each year, people kill about 22,000 dolphins and porpoises in
Japan's waters. In a town called Taiji, every year they catch and kill several hundred Bottlenose,
Striped, Risso's Dolphins, Dall's Porpoises and Pilot Whales. (The Arctic's Faroe Islands also
stages an annual Pilot Whale drive-slaughter for food, which has the side effect of providing the
residents with high doses of mercury.)
Taiji got famous in the nervy Academy Award-winning film, "The Cove." The hunting
season continues through March, activists have said. Caroline Kennedy, the new U.S.
ambassador to Japan, is among those critical of the hunt; she tweeted: "Deeply concerned by
inhumaneness of drive hunt dolphin killing."
Japanese officials have defended the hunt as legal and traditional. For some reason -likely public relations -- officials in 2010 announced a "new killing method." Until recently,
hunters speared and stabbed the dolphins to death after driving them onto the shoreline. The new
method is supposed to reduce time-to-death. As such, it's bogus...Meanwhile, the humans have a
very hard time getting into the spine. Several veterinarians and behavioral scientists who
watched a covertly recorded video wrote, "This killing method...would not be tolerated or
permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world." That includes Japan,
oddly enough.
Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must
be made to lose consciousness and must be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as
possible, any agony to the animal." These guidelines define "agony" as pain, suffering, fear,
anxiety or depression. But those livestock guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing,
which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency, which treats dolphins and whales as nothing
more than seafood with blowholes. The published Japanese description promotes this "new"
method by saying it, "results in a shorter harvest time, and is thought to improve worker safety."
(Faroe Islanders use a similar killing procedure.)

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
After the Japanese drivers scare the dolphins into the shallows, they corral them and tie
them together in bunches by their tails, hitch them to small boats, and drag them backward to
where they'll kill them. While being dragged, the dolphins have a hard time getting their heads
above water to breathe, and some drown. The killer is supposed to destroy the dolphin's spinal
nerve by pushing a metal rod into the spine behind its head. But the nerve is encased in the spinal
bones.
(SOME PARAGRAPHS REMOVED FOR EXTREMELY GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION)
With some understatement, the veterinarians and behavior experts describing the video
write, "the treatment of dolphins in the drive hunts sharply contradict current animal welfare
standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies ... The systematic
mistreatment of dolphins and whales, allowed and sanctioned by a highly developed country
such as Japan, is in striking contrast to European Union, United States, and even existing
Japanese [livestock] legislation." They note that in 2006 Japan instituted an unofficial ban on
invasive chimpanzee research. They conclude by saying that there is, "no logical reason to accept
a killing method that is clearly not carried out in accordance with fundamental and globally
adopted principles on the commercial utilization, care, and treatment of animals."
Dolphin killers have their reasons. They say it is "pest control," claiming -- as if in selfdefense -- that dolphins eat too many fish; and they do it for meat to sell, and to sell live young
dolphins to marine parks and swim-with-the-dolphin programs in Japan and other countries.
In a word, the usual reason: money. Not tradition. Most people in Japan don't benefit, and
no one would go hungry without dolphin and whale meat; in fact most people don't eat any. But,
officially, Japan reacts strongly to such assaults on its tradition and culture. Assaults, bear in
mind, that come mainly in the form of trying to simply film or describe what is really happening,
then politely asking them to stop it. For such a thoroughly self-westernized country as Japan,
with its baseball, jazz, tobacco, subways, global business and automakers, to object to criticism
of its "culture" is odd. To publicly stake a seemingly large proportion of their nation's cultural
identity on slaughtering dolphins and whales while westernizing in almost every way seems, to
me, strange, and mainly cruel. Let it end, for good.

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
Appendix B
Analytical Reading Strategies
I.
Distinguishing fact from opinion: Opinions cannot be proven true or false, whereas facts
can.
Tip: Pay particular attention to words such as think, feel, and believe, as these often are used to
express opinion rather than fact.
II.

Identifying evidence:

Tip: When evaluating logic or reasoning in an article, identify the main argument and search for
evidence the author provides.
a.
b.
c.

Evidence: facts, reasons, and information that persuade the reader to agree with the
author.
Credibility: trustworthiness or reliability of sources or authors (e.g., knowledge,
training, or experience on a subject).
Bias: used in arguments to prove or show only one side of an issue. How can you
avoid bias in your writing? Present a counter argument which can be dis-proven by
evidence or logical fallacies.

III. Logical Fallacies: Identifying faulty logic: arguments which are illogical, inaccurate,
insufficient, irrelevant, unrelated to topic, or appeal to readers emotions.
Examples:
1. Black or White - suggesting there are only two viewpoints, when there are more. (e.g.,
America love it or leave it.)
2. Bandwagon Appeal arguing in favor of an idea because it is popular (e.g., There is no
doubt that humans are causing global climate change. A recent poll found that 87% of the
U.S. population believes that humans are the cause of global climate change.)
3. Scare Tactics - exaggerating a danger or using threatening language (e.g., If you dont cut out
gluten and sugar now from your diet, you will get diabetes.)
4. Appeal to Emotion e.g., See the cold, freezing homeless dogs and cats left outside all
winter to starve to death. Please consider donating $30 a month to Friends of Animals.
5. Appeal to Tradition an issue or action is correct simply because we have always done it
this way. (e.g., If you want to succeed in this life, you need to go to college.)
6. Hasty Generalizing making broad statements without evidence support (e.g., Two of my
friends have gone gluten-free and they feel great! Going gluten-free improves your health.)
7. Appeal to Authority arguing that a claim is true because a trusted leader or source says it is.
(e.g., My boss, who has been with the company 15 years, told me to follow her procedure
because it is the most efficient method.)
8. Appeal to Questionable Authority - supporting an idea which is endorsed by a celebrity or
non-expert. (e.g., In the interview, Miley Cyrus, claimed the product eliminated acne by
100%.)
7

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
9. Oversimplifying when the author connects two ideas that do not share a cause-and-effect
relationship, or leaves out important factors (e.g., In Colorado, crime has dropped in the past
year due to the legalization of marijuana.)
10. Name Calling an attack on the character of the person, rather than questioning the logic of
their arguments. (e.g., My opponent doesnt support government accountability or
authenticity, and personally is a liar, cheat, racist, and greedy power-monger.)

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson
Appendix C
Popular Science Articles

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson

10

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson

11

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson

12

Krista Boddy
Reading/Writing Lesson

13