• Quick retrieval from earlier learning (Is the evidence relevant and sufficient?). Students answer on mini whiteboards.
• Show answers together and note who needs support in the main task.

1. Judge the evidence for this claim. Claim: The new reading app improves reading scores. Evidence: One pupil said she reads more now. (relevant and sufficient / relevant but not sufficient / not relevant) → relevant but not sufficientPrompt: Relevant: is the evidence actually about the claim?
2. Which claim and evidence pair matches this judgement: not relevant? (Claim: Our school should switch to LED lights. Evidence: My uncle has LED lights at home. / Claim: Cycling to school is safe in our town. Evidence: Cycling was invented in the 19th century. / Claim: Cycling to school is safe in our town. Evidence: I cycled to school last Tuesday and nothing happened.) → Claim: Cycling to school is safe in our town. Evidence: Cycling was invented in the 19th century.Prompt: Relevant: is the evidence actually about the claim?
3. Which claim and evidence pair matches this judgement: relevant but not sufficient? (Claim: Cycling to school is safe in our town. Evidence: Cycling was invented in the 19th century. / Claim: The beach needs more bins. Evidence: Seagulls are noisy birds. / Claim: Our school should switch to LED lights. Evidence: My uncle has LED lights at home.) → Claim: Our school should switch to LED lights. Evidence: My uncle has LED lights at home.Prompt: Relevant: is the evidence actually about the claim?

• Read the first lines of a short text aloud and ask what students predict will happen and why.
• Share the objective: Spotting faulty reasoning: bandwagon, slippery slope, ad hominem…. Read the success criteria together.

• Work through the example out loud, saying why you do each step, not just what you do.
• Example: Which fallacy matches this description? Presenting only two options when more exist.
• Step 1: A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that can make a weak argument sound convincing.
• Step 2: false dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist.
• Step 3: So the answer is: false dilemma
• Answer: false dilemma
• Pause after each step and ask a student to say what comes next.

• Do these together. Students try each step on whiteboards before you reveal it.
• Use the hints as prompts rather than giving the answer.

1. Which fallacy matches this description? Attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. (slippery slope / hasty generalisation / ad hominem / bandwagon) → ad hominemPrompt: Think about what each kind of faulty argument does wrong.
2. Which fallacy is used here? I met two rude tourists, so tourists are rude. (false dilemma / slippery slope / bandwagon / hasty generalisation) → hasty generalisationPrompt: Does it attack a person, follow the crowd, offer only two options, generalise from a few cases, or predict a chain of disasters?

• Students work on the student sheet. Circulate and check the first two answers of every student early.
• Students who finish: write a question of their own for a partner, with the answer.

The 6 questions are on the student sheet below, with answers in the key.

• Two questions on their own. Sort answers into got it / nearly / not yet to plan the next lesson.

1. Type the fallacy (in English) that matches this description. Attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. → ad hominemPrompt: Think about what each kind of faulty argument does wrong.
2. Which fallacy matches this description? Presenting only two options when more exist. (bandwagon / slippery slope / false dilemma / ad hominem) → false dilemmaPrompt: Think about what each kind of faulty argument does wrong.

Free online practice with hints and printable worksheets for this skill: eurekami.com/english/grade-8.