Therefore, the new SR items focus on different types of reasoning errors.
One reason for this failure is that they only gave a brief and generic response. For example, the scaffolding could help reveal whether students understand the task requirement, know how to apply effective strategies for analyzing arguments, and can then write a coherent critique of the arguments.
Is the work presented objectively or subjectively? Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.
This approach identifies which component skills in argumentation students have already mastered and which they are still learning. Their inability to do these things might still allow them have innate mathematical ideas in advance of being able to communicate them in the usual ways. So the first stage of the evaluation is to summarize your opponent's argument The essay will then focus on the ones that you think are weakest, discussing them one at a time and giving reason not to agree with them.
At score 1, student responses were often generic, for example, The letter is not accurate and the reasoning is bad. Finally, we could just attack the conclusion directly by pointing out all of Frank's good qualities. With these simple steps, you will have unraveled the puzzle of how to write a critique for an article.
So while a direct assault on the conclusion is a questionable strategy, it is powerful when paired with one or both of the other two.