Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Critical Thinking - e-cigarettes
Transcript of Critical Thinking - e-cigarettes
conclusion and the reasons that support the conclusion often you would see 'then', although in this paper it is just a comma All hypothetical reasons start with 'if' Think about why this sentence differs from most of the others in this document It is an instance of something that illustrates the counter reasoning.
What a bar worker/worker from Bethnal Green might find expensive might not be representative of smokers, if their salary is significantly less than the average salary. Examples of possible answers that would gain 2 marks: Question 3 If the bar worker were not a smoker, then not being willing to pay that much might not be representative of the financial priorities of smokers. This person’s disposable income might be similar to that of most smokers, making their claim representative in finding the cost too expensive. 3 marks - for an accurate statement of the assumption.
eg It is unwise for a man to look feminine. 1 mark – for the essence of an assumption expressed as a challenge.
eg It is not bad for men to look feminine. 2 marks – for a less precise statement of the assumption.
eg Men do not want to look feminine. Men looking feminine is a bad thing. 3 marks – for a reason that gives clear support to the claim against e-cigarettes in connection to quitting smoking. 1 mark – for an answer that goes beyond a reason eg an argument or for quoting from the documents. 2 marks – for a relevant reason against e-cigarettes that is not related to quitting smoking. Examples of answers that would gain 3 marks: E-cigarettes might tempt people to start smoking again. E-cigarettes still provide the addictive element of nicotine. Reminder of the answers to question 1b The conclusion is: 3.
the medical profession believes that it presents potential dangers. 2.
the price could put some people off 1.
the e-cigarette is a bit feminine for a man to use Reasons are: ‘The e-cigarette should be seen as an unwise choice.’
The first reason is relevant to the conclusion in that it may be relevant to the conclusion’s claim of being ‘unwise’, if male smokers do not wish to be considered by some as ‘a bit feminine’ by using e-cigarettes. Examples of assessment points that could be made: The conclusion’s claim of an ‘unwise’ choice may be directly supported by the third reason of the medical profession, only if what it ‘believes’ is well founded. The second reason states the ‘price could put some people off’. This might be relevant to the conclusion of an ‘unwise’ choice, if the price were so high that it caused financial difficulties for the smoker. The second reason states the ‘price could put some people off’. Whilst this might be a disadvantage, it does not give strong enough support to be able to draw the conclusion of an ‘unwise’ choice, if the price were within the smoker’s disposable income. E-Cigarettes Practice Paper 501 Section B - (Summer 2010) The resource paper Assess the document itself - NOT the sources in it! 3 marks – for a point of assessment that correctly applies a relevant credibility criterion (accept synonyms) to the document with a correct textual reference. 1 mark – for a point of assessment that demonstrates a correct understanding of the credibility criterion selected. 2 marks – for a point of assessment that correctly applies a relevant credibility criterion without any reference to the document. Bias
The authors have selected information and views to make a case that supports e-cigarettes as indicated by their title, ‘Electronic cigarettes could be the answer.’ This limits the credibility of their report. Vested Interest
The authors appear to have a vested interest to promote e-cigarettes as they are a commercial website dependent on the adoption of e-cigarettes, ‘e-cigarette-global.com’.
(Also allow the opposite – no vested interest, because they are simply a repository of ‘reviews, news and chat’.) Expertise
The document includes an assessment by the ‘CIEH’. As the advisors to the ‘regulatory authorities’ it would have the expertise to be able to comment on the issue of e-cigarettes in an informed manner, which lends credibility to the report. Reputation
The website has a ‘global’ designation, which may mean that it has a significant reputation to uphold, and as such would have a vested interest to report matters accurately to maintain this. This would strengthen the credibility of its report. Suggested responses for Question 7 This question is about plausibility!
Source - The inventors ”it looks, tastes and smokes like a conventional cigarette.” Source – a smoker/58 year old/from Herne Bay “The barman did initially ask me to stop” or or Source – CIEH “Our main concern was that officers wouldn’t be able to tell the difference” Source – a smoker/58 years old/from Herne Bay
“(but) I showed him the product and he was fine with it.” Source – The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
“if you are close to them it’s clear they’re not normal cigarettes.” This question is about credibility! Reported claim:
“warned that they are concerned that little, if any, testing has been done on the products to prove that they deliver a safe amount of nicotine.” Examples of Claims that would score the mark. “Indeed, as far as WHO is aware, no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have been conducted showing that the electronic cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement therapy." "WHO knows of no evidentiary basis for the marketers' claim that the electronic cigarette helps people quit smoking.” Example of assessments
that would each gain 3 marks: Reputation/ Vested Interest
As an organisation in the worldwide public eye it would have a vested interest to accurately reflect the safety status of the device, in order to protect the professionalism of its organisation. This would strengthen the credibility of its claim. Neutrality
As an advisory body it would have no motive to distort its findings/no bias in presenting its findings. This neutrality would strengthen the credibility of its claim. Expertise/ (Ability to Observe would be allowed)
As an organisation making decisions about issues that affect world health, it is likely to have at its disposal experts who would know which tests had been carried out on this device. This would strengthen the credibility of its claim. 3 marks – for a well-explained assessment, that applies a relevant credibility criterion (accept synonyms) indicating how this strengthens or weakens the claim. “They say it looks, tastes and smokes like a conventional cigarette, but has no detrimental effects upon others and doesn’t cause cancer.” (b) The inventors The claim Ability to Observe
As the inventors, they would have had ability to observe its effects first hand. This would strengthen the credibility of their claim. Vested Interest
As the inventors, they would have a vested interest to interpret or even exaggerate the benefits of their invention in order to boost its popularity and sales. This would weaken the credibility of their claim. Expertise
As the inventors, they would have the expertise of being involved in the design to be able to comment accurately on its use and effects. This would strengthen the credibility of their claim. Example of assessments
that would each gain 3 marks: 3 marks – for a well-explained assessment, that applies a relevant credibility criterion (accept synonyms) indicating how this strengthens or weakens the claim. Write a reasoned case coming to a judgement as to whether smokers are likely to widely convert to e-cigarettes. You should assess: Your answer should include sustained comparisons within each of these tasks and must refer to the material within the documents. the relative plausibility (likelihood) of smokers widely converting to e-cigarettes. the relative credibility of the sides promoting and warning against converting to the device. Question 10 - The big marks (16)
(Credibility AND Plausibility) Side A Plausibility Outcome A Outcome B Strong/weak/not covered Credibility Strong/weak/not covered Strong/weak/not covered Side B Strong/weak/not covered In this question there are four areas Promoting e-cigarettes Warning about e-cigarettes Widely convert Pay no attention
The side that warns smokers to be wary of the product because of the gadget not having been ‘tested adequately’ includes WHO and ASH who would have nothing to gain from misrepresenting facts. However the side supporting the device include the inventors and a Soho club co-founder who have a vested interest to promote its positive aspects, as they stand to gain financially if the device is accepted and used. This consequently makes the side warning against the device more credible, as it appears to have less of a motive to be selective with the facts, which might influence smokers not to convert to the device. The Credibility bit of the response The relative credibility of the sides promoting and warning against converting to the device The e-cigarette would have to overcome several difficulties for it to become widely used. The ‘price’ putting ‘some people off’ would need to drop for there to be a financial incentive for smokers to switch to it. In addition not knowing ‘enough about this product’ is likely to put many smokers off. Also many who want to quit smoking may feel that the device is too similar to a cigarette to help them break the habit. The Plausibility bit of the response The relative plausibility (likelihood) of smokers widely converting to e-cigarettes It is plausible that smokers may choose to use the e-cigarette because it does not produce smoke so they might be able to use it indoors and there is no tar to damage the lungs. Overall it thus seems unlikely that smokers will widely convert to e-cigarettes. However it seems implausible that there will be sufficient smokers changing to the e-cigarette for it to be widely used, unless future tests demonstrate that it is not harmful to the user and its price drops. How are the marks allocated? 10-16 marks Level 3
Strong, relative and sustained assessment
All 4 areas are covered and at least 3 are strong. 11 marks
3 areas are covered and 2 are strong. 10 marks
Plus credit 1 mark each for any of the following:
Direct points of comparison are made.
Clear and explicit judgement drawn from their assessment of both credibility and plausibility.
Effective reference is made to the material in the documents.
Effective use is made of specialist terms and argument indicator words.
Grammar, spelling and punctuation are accurate. 5-9 marks Level 2
Partial or weak assessment
3 areas are covered and at least 1 is strong. 6 marks
OR 2 areas covered and 2 are strong 6 marks
2 areas covered and 1 strong. 5 marks
Plus credit 1 mark each for any of the following:
An explicit judgement is made linked to their assessment.
Limited use is made of the material in the documents.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation are adequate with correct use of specialist terms. 1-4 marks Level 1
Some areas covered but none strong OR only one area covered and is strong.
The points are connected. 2 marks
The points are disjointed or one area is covered weakly. 1 mark
Plus credit 1 mark each for any of the following:
Reference to the names of the sources or to the claims is made.
Grammar, spelling and punctuation do not impede understanding. Example 2 marks for each Update