Delineate a speaker's argument and claims, and evaluate the soundness of the reasoning and the relevance, accuracy and sufficiency of the evidence

Learning goal: This lesson teaches Ohio's 2026 standard SL.7.3, first implemented in 2027-28. You will delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating the soundness of the reasoning and the relevance, accuracy and sufficiency of the evidence. The 2026 standard adds accuracy to the list, so besides asking whether evidence is on topic and whether there is enough of it, you will check whether it is true and correctly reported. Reading the speech as a printed transcript, you will also learn to recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced into an argument (RI.7.8d).

Delineate means to outline precisely. When you delineate a speaker's argument, you separate its parts and set them out so you can see how they fit. The argument is the speaker's overall position: what the speaker wants the audience to believe or do. The specific claims are the smaller statements offered in support. Under each claim sits the evidence: facts, numbers, examples, observations or quotations. Linking evidence to claims and claims to the position is the reasoning. A listener who cannot say what the position is, or which evidence supports which claim, cannot evaluate the speech. Delineating comes first.

Listening for the structure. Speakers signal structure with their voices and words. The position often comes early and again at the end. Claims are often introduced with signal phrases: "My first point is," "Another reason," "Some people say." Evidence is introduced with phrases such as "according to," "I timed," "last month," or a number. Take notes in a two-level outline while you listen: claims at the left margin, evidence indented under each. If the speech is recorded or a transcript is available, check your outline against it.

Soundness of reasoning. Reasoning is sound when the evidence, if true, really does lead to the claim. Unsound reasoning has recognizable patterns. Overgeneralization draws a conclusion about everyone from a few cases. False cause assumes that because one thing happened before another, it caused it. Confusing counts treats a number of events as a number of people, for example treating 240 late arrivals as 240 late students. Leaping skips a necessary step, such as assuming that because students are late, a longer passing period is the only fix. Sound reasoning is not the same as a correct conclusion: a conclusion can be true even when the speaker's reasoning for it is weak, and your evaluation is about the reasoning offered.

Relevance. Evidence is relevant when it bears on the specific claim it is offered to support. A true fact can be irrelevant. If a speaker arguing about passing periods mentions peeling paint in the hallway, the fact may be true, but it has nothing to do with whether students have enough time to get to class. Irrelevant evidence can still work on listeners by creating a mood, which is why you must name it.

Reading the transcript: recognizing irrelevant evidence when it is introduced. A speech is also a text. When it is printed as a transcript, as "Six Minutes, Not Four" is below, you can read it as you would any written argument and mark the exact sentence where each piece of evidence enters. Irrelevant evidence is easiest to recognize at that moment of entry, because it usually arrives with a signal. Watch for three: an add-on word such as also, besides or and another thing that attaches a new fact to a paragraph about something else; a change of subject, where the sentence is about a different topic from the claim it sits under; and a fact chosen for the feeling it creates rather than for what it proves. Then test the sentence where it enters: if this fact were false, would the claim it sits under be any weaker? If not, the evidence is irrelevant, and the place to say so is that sentence. In a written letter, article or editorial the method is the same: trace each claim, then name any irrelevant evidence at the sentence that introduces it.

Accuracy. Evidence is accurate when it is correct and correctly reported. Check four things. Does the number match its source? Is the arithmetic right? Is the evidence described correctly (a count of events versus a count of people, a sample versus everyone)? Is it current? Accuracy often can be checked only if you have the source, so when a speaker cites a handout, report or data display, compare the spoken number with the written one. A speaker can be honest and still inaccurate, by misremembering or misreading a table.

Sufficiency. Evidence is sufficient when there is enough of it, and of the right kind, to support the claim. One timed walk by one person on one day is relevant to the claim that the walk takes too long, but it is not sufficient: a different day, route or walker could produce a different time. An anecdote from one person is rarely sufficient for a claim about many people.

A misconception to avoid. Listeners often judge a speech by how confident the speaker sounds. Confidence is delivery, not evidence. A calm speaker can give inaccurate numbers, and a nervous speaker can give sound reasoning. Evaluate what is said.

Original speech transcript — Six Minutes, Not Four (an invented student-council speech; all names and numbers are invented)

Good afternoon. I'm Maya Ellison, and I'm asking the student council to support a six-minute passing period between classes instead of the four minutes we have now.

My first point is simple: four minutes is not enough. According to the attendance office handout you all have, there were 240 tardies last month. That means almost every student in our school of 600 was late at some point. And half of those tardies, 120 of them, happened when students had to cross between the east wing and the west wing.

Second, the walk is just too long. Yesterday I timed myself walking from the science lab in the east wing to the music room in the west wing, with one stop at my locker. It took four minutes and twenty-five seconds. That is longer than the whole passing period.

Third, longer passing periods mean less stress. My cousin goes to a school with six-minute passing periods, and she says nobody there is stressed about getting to class.

Some people say we would lose learning time. We would not. We have six passing periods a day. Two extra minutes times six is twelve minutes, and we can take those twelve minutes from lunch, which is thirty-five minutes now. We would barely notice. Also, the paint in the main hallway has been peeling for two years, which shows how little attention anyone pays to our hallways.

Six minutes, not four. Please vote yes.

The attendance office handout (invented), which listeners received. Tardies last month: 240. Students with at least one tardy: 90 of 600. Tardies after an east-west wing transfer: 72. All other tardies: 168. School day: 7 class periods, 6 passing periods, lunch 35 minutes.

Worked example 1 — Delineating the argument. Position: the student council should support a six-minute passing period. Claim 1: four minutes is not enough (evidence: 240 tardies; "almost every student" late; "half," 120, after wing transfers). Claim 2: the walk is too long (evidence: one timed walk, 4 minutes 25 seconds). Claim 3: longer passing periods reduce stress (evidence: cousin's report). Counterclaim and answer: learning time would not be lost (evidence: 6 × 2 = 12 minutes, taken from a 35-minute lunch; peeling paint).

Worked example 2 — Checking accuracy against the handout. Maya says half the tardies, 120, followed wing transfers. The handout says 72. 72 ÷ 240 = 0.30, so the accurate figure is 30%, not half. This evidence is inaccurate. Her "240 tardies" matches the handout and is accurate. Her arithmetic in the counterclaim is accurate: 6 × 2 = 12, and 35 − 12 = 23 minutes of lunch would remain.

Worked example 3 — Evaluating soundness of reasoning. "240 tardies means almost every student was late" confuses events with people. The handout shows 90 of 600 students, 15%, had at least one tardy; many of the 240 came from repeat tardies. The reasoning is unsound even though the 240 is accurate. The claim that twelve minutes from lunch "would barely notice" is a leap: cutting lunch from 35 to 23 minutes is about a third of lunch, and she offers no evidence about how students would experience it.

Worked example 4 — Relevance and sufficiency. The timed walk is relevant to Claim 2 but insufficient: one walk, one route, one person, one day, including a locker stop not every student makes. The cousin's report is weakly relevant (another school) and insufficient (one person's impression). The peeling paint is irrelevant: it says nothing about whether four minutes is enough time. Overall evaluation: Maya's position may be worth studying, since 72 tardies after wing transfers is a real pattern, but her speech does not prove it because one key figure is inaccurate, one inference is unsound, and two claims rest on insufficient or irrelevant evidence.

Worked example 5 — Recognizing irrelevant evidence where it is introduced. In the printed transcript, the paragraph that begins "Some people say we would lose learning time" answers a counterclaim with arithmetic. Its last sentence begins with "Also," which attaches a new fact, the paint that "has been peeling for two years," to a paragraph about lunch minutes. Test: if the paint were fresh, would twelve minutes be any easier or harder to take from lunch? No. Would four minutes be any more or less enough? No. The evidence is irrelevant to the counterclaim it sits under and to Maya's position, and a reader marks it at that sentence: the add-on word "Also" and the change of subject, from lunch time to paint, are the signals. Compare the cousin's report: it is introduced as evidence for the stress claim and is weakly relevant to it, so it is judged on sufficiency rather than dismissed as irrelevant.

Representation task — argument map with four checks. Listen to "Six Minutes, Not Four" read aloud by a partner, taking two-level notes. Then build a table with columns Claim, Evidence, Relevant?, Accurate?, Sufficient? and Reasoning sound? Fill a row for each piece of evidence, compare the spoken figures with the handout, and write a one-sentence reason in every cell marked "no" or "partly."

Revision task. Rewrite one of Maya's claims so that its evidence is accurate and its reasoning is sound, using only the handout. For example, restate the wing-transfer figure correctly and say what it does and does not show.

Independent performance. Listen to a persuasive speech, a recorded public-comment statement or a debate segment approved by your teacher, ideally one that cites numbers you can check against a printed or online source. Write a 400-word evaluation.

Success criteria: You delineate the speaker's argument by stating the position and each specific claim, with the evidence placed under the claim it supports. For at least four pieces of evidence you judge relevance, accuracy and sufficiency, and for accuracy you check at least one figure against its source or its arithmetic. You name at least one strength and one weakness in the soundness of the reasoning, using a named pattern such as overgeneralization, false cause or confusing counts. You separate delivery from evidence. Your conclusion states how well the evidence and reasoning support the position, not whether you agree with it.