Question

evaluate and revise your argument

1. sep critique share your written argument so that it can be critiqued by one or more classmates. listen closely and record their feedback. what flaws or weaknesses did your peers identify in your argument? if a counter - argument was proposed, do you agree or disagree with the reasoning?
2. sep evaluate evidence and reasoning based on the feedback you have received, write an improved draft of your argument

revise the claim write only the claim. while revising your claim, consider the following

• was the original claim flawed?
• how might you modify it in response to criticism?

reassess the evidence provide at least 2 pieces of evidence for your new claim. consider:

• any previous evidence that is applicable,
• new or previously missed evidence that is relevant that can strengthen your claim, and
• any existing evidence that can be interpreted differently

reinforce the reasoning as before, use your evidence, definitions, and scientific knowledge to justify your claim. consider:

• ways to strengthen your reasoning,
• providing very detailed explanations, and
• if applicable, add reasoning to refute alternative explanations

Explanation:

The task involves sharing an argument for critique, listening to feedback, and then using that feedback to improve the argument by revising the claim, reassessing evidence, and reinforcing reasoning. This is a common practice in developing well - structured arguments, often seen in education where students learn to construct and refine their arguments.

Answer:

There is no single specific answer as it requires individual - level work based on one's own written argument and the feedback received. However, the steps to follow are:

1. Share the argument and record feedback.
2. Analyze the feedback to identify flaws in the claim.
3. Revise the claim as needed.
4. Reassess evidence by considering applicable previous evidence, new relevant evidence, and re - interpreting existing evidence.
5. Reinforce reasoning by strengthening it, providing detailed explanations, and refuting alternative explanations if applicable.