Introductory Lesson:
Understanding claims, Evidence, and Bias
Many 6th graders are familiar with persuasive essays or opinion papers. These are similar to advertisements. Authors only share information that gets readers on their side, and sometimes they even twist facts to sound better than they really are. If you wanted to find out the "truth" about a product you would not go to the ad, and when people read opinion essays they also suspect that they are not getting the truth.
One skill that can help us write better arguments, is learning to think critically about the information others give us. We know we shouldn't just believe everything but we need to practice poking holes in the "evidence" that others provide. This will help you look over your own work, and think about how others might poke holes in your claims. This can help you add more support or answer any potential questions readers might have. The more you can answer their questions, the more people will trust you.
This video makes a lot of claims, and supports those claims with "evidence" that is not really evidence. Let's start using our critical thinking skills, to poke some holes in what we see here!
One skill that can help us write better arguments, is learning to think critically about the information others give us. We know we shouldn't just believe everything but we need to practice poking holes in the "evidence" that others provide. This will help you look over your own work, and think about how others might poke holes in your claims. This can help you add more support or answer any potential questions readers might have. The more you can answer their questions, the more people will trust you.
This video makes a lot of claims, and supports those claims with "evidence" that is not really evidence. Let's start using our critical thinking skills, to poke some holes in what we see here!
Here are some Examples:
1. "Liquid light technology"
-What is that? The company made that term up, so it could mean whatever they want. I could say my shoelace is made with liquid light technology and if you argued with me, I could just say that I define "liquid light technology" as when people make shoelaces in the light, while drinking water. Another question I have, is, "How is this lotion technology based?" It sounds like it's just lotion that has shimmer in it. I think that it's not really "technology" at all, but the company calls their product "technology-based" to make potential buyers feel like the product is supported by trustworthy academic research or smart people, when it is really NOT. Very tricky...
2. "Perfects and refines"-
How so? There are no specifics there, and perfection means different things to different people. Many people would not like to have a shimmery face, and would not call that perfect. Plus, what if you have a skin problem that is not solved by shimmery lotion? It is bold to claim this one product can perfect and refine anyone's skin. Maybe if they were more specific about what problem this product solves, we could trust it more. However, the company doesn't want to do that because they are hoping anyone will buy this, and not just a group of people with one specific problem.
3. "75% of 256 agree" (this was at the bottom in small print)
-256 what? 256 scientists? 256 women who tried the product for free? 256 people who used the product without knowing what it was ahead of time? 256 people that work for the company? 256 people who were given money if they agreed? 256 80 year-olds? 256 teenagers? We don't have any information about who the 256 people in their study were, and how they came to that conclusion. We might also wonder how they did their research and how they made sure people were not affected by the "Placebo Effect" (people sometimes imagine something is helping them even if it isn't, because they want it to work). While statistics can sound convincing, they need to be specific and trustworthy, or people will poke holes in them.
-What is that? The company made that term up, so it could mean whatever they want. I could say my shoelace is made with liquid light technology and if you argued with me, I could just say that I define "liquid light technology" as when people make shoelaces in the light, while drinking water. Another question I have, is, "How is this lotion technology based?" It sounds like it's just lotion that has shimmer in it. I think that it's not really "technology" at all, but the company calls their product "technology-based" to make potential buyers feel like the product is supported by trustworthy academic research or smart people, when it is really NOT. Very tricky...
2. "Perfects and refines"-
How so? There are no specifics there, and perfection means different things to different people. Many people would not like to have a shimmery face, and would not call that perfect. Plus, what if you have a skin problem that is not solved by shimmery lotion? It is bold to claim this one product can perfect and refine anyone's skin. Maybe if they were more specific about what problem this product solves, we could trust it more. However, the company doesn't want to do that because they are hoping anyone will buy this, and not just a group of people with one specific problem.
3. "75% of 256 agree" (this was at the bottom in small print)
-256 what? 256 scientists? 256 women who tried the product for free? 256 people who used the product without knowing what it was ahead of time? 256 people that work for the company? 256 people who were given money if they agreed? 256 80 year-olds? 256 teenagers? We don't have any information about who the 256 people in their study were, and how they came to that conclusion. We might also wonder how they did their research and how they made sure people were not affected by the "Placebo Effect" (people sometimes imagine something is helping them even if it isn't, because they want it to work). While statistics can sound convincing, they need to be specific and trustworthy, or people will poke holes in them.
The biggest Trick!
Blurring the Line between Causation and Correlation
(Even Journalists Fall for This one!)
Correlation means two things are related to each other, while causation is when one thing causes another.
You can see the difference between these two ideas with this example:
There is a very strong geographic correlation between rattlesnake bites and ice cream sales (meaning that the places that experience a lot of rattlesnake bites also sell a lot of ice cream). Does this mean snake bites cause people to buy ice cream? No. Does this mean people who buy ice cream cause snake bites? No. These two things correlate because of an underlying cause: rattlesnakes live in hot, dry climates--the kind of climates that make people want to buy ice cream.
You can see the difference between these two ideas with this example:
There is a very strong geographic correlation between rattlesnake bites and ice cream sales (meaning that the places that experience a lot of rattlesnake bites also sell a lot of ice cream). Does this mean snake bites cause people to buy ice cream? No. Does this mean people who buy ice cream cause snake bites? No. These two things correlate because of an underlying cause: rattlesnakes live in hot, dry climates--the kind of climates that make people want to buy ice cream.
Let's Discuss...
Sometimes people will present a correlation as if it is causation. For example, a tea company might find a study that demonstrates the rate of heart attacks is higher in people who drink five or more cups of coffee a day. This tea company might publicize the study and claim it shows that people who drink coffee should switch to tea. However, critical thinkers would pause and ask themselves, "Is this relationship REALLY causal? Does each cup of coffee make you more likely to have a heart attack?"
While there is a chance that this correlation is also a causal relationship, the real issue might also be that people who drink five or more cups of coffee are more likely to have other problems as well. Maybe they are drinking so much coffee because they're not getting enough sleep and they are using caffeine to make them less tired, and maybe that lack of sleep leads to heart trouble. Perhaps coffee drinkers are more likely to smoke. That can definitely cause more heart attacks. Alternatively, coffee drinkers might have higher-stress jobs, and they are drinking coffee to get through them. It could be the daily stress that affects their heart health. The main point is that there could be an underlying cause that links coffee and heart attacks, but just because those risks are related doesn't mean they demonstrate causation.
While there is a chance that this correlation is also a causal relationship, the real issue might also be that people who drink five or more cups of coffee are more likely to have other problems as well. Maybe they are drinking so much coffee because they're not getting enough sleep and they are using caffeine to make them less tired, and maybe that lack of sleep leads to heart trouble. Perhaps coffee drinkers are more likely to smoke. That can definitely cause more heart attacks. Alternatively, coffee drinkers might have higher-stress jobs, and they are drinking coffee to get through them. It could be the daily stress that affects their heart health. The main point is that there could be an underlying cause that links coffee and heart attacks, but just because those risks are related doesn't mean they demonstrate causation.
Last but not least, here is a serious one that comes up a lot:
Click to view the next lesson:
Exploring Bias Using Product Reviews and Advertisements
Exploring Bias Using Product Reviews and Advertisements