I needed to miss the i-Checkpoint to go to a tutoring session for math,
Grounds:
There is a midterm on Monday and Thursday is the last day they have for tutoring before the test.
Warrants:
I need to study to get an A.
Backing:
Getting tutored helps me with any problems or misconceptions that I may have had about the information that is going to be on the test.
Qualifier:
Going to tutoring sessions will increase my grade.
I think it would have been more appropriate for your claim to be that you needed to miss the iCheckpoint to get a good grade on your math exam, since studying to get an A (in your warrant) doesn't cause you to go to a tutoring session.
ReplyDeleteYou could have also just switched your grounds and your warrant. In my opinion, that would have made more sense.
I think your claim is fine because Warrants are connections between Claims and Grounds. Indeed, studying to get an A doesn't necessarily cause you to go to a tutoring session, but you enhance this connection by statement in your Backing. One rebuttal is that going to tutoring sessions will increase your grade if you take notes and study hard during the review session.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteI agree with kao24 above me in his statement that you should have switched your grounds and your warrant.
Otherwise I don't see a lot that needs changing, which I can directly point out. If I were to re-do anything I would change the way I have written the claim and qualifier differently by making the qualifier slightly less certain, as it may not ALWAYS be that your grades improve because of tutoring.
Akbar
Brian
ReplyDeleteYour warrant is not a justification of your grounds as a basis for the claim. Your grounds should serve as a fundamental part of the claim, so the claim should be the cause of the grounds. You need to miss the checkpoint because you need to get an A.
Also, one of the rebuttals I can think of is that going to tutoring room may not necessarily improve your grades. You will have to study hard in there.
Bo