Rochborough Health Answer
Critical questions
What is the main line of
reasoning (the main argument?)
Is the line of reasoning clear both
in the introduction and in the
conclusion?
What is the key evidence used to
support the main argument? Is
the evidence presented in a way
that develops the argument and
leads clearly to the conclusion?
When was the evidence
produced? Is it up to date? Is it
still relevant?
Is there sufficient evidence to
prove the case? Is the evidence
relevant? What
might be missing?
Analysis of text
Outdoor play is good for children’s health, so Rochborough
needs to provide better facilities for it
Yes
Statistics from clinical trials carried out by Rochborough’s
Health Council Advisory Body.
Survey of 30 local families
Anecdotal evidence (from one person)
Statistic that only 18% of Rochborough homes have gardens.
Yes they develop the main argument and do lead to the
conclusion provided (from the writer’s perspective NOT from
a critically analytical reader’s point of view).
n.b. There are major gaps and a lack of source information
regarding the above.
Trials carried out ‘September this year’ so at most this
newsletter is reporting 4 months later. Therefore likely to be
up to date and relevant.
No time frame for survey so not relevant
No source or time frame for statistic so not relevant.
Writer makes a reasonable case with supporting evidence
especially that from official sources as are ‘authorities’.
HOWEVER there is insufficient evidence to support the
conclusion, and not given sufficient reasons to prove this the
only conclusion that could be drawn.
We don’t know what it is about playing outside that led to
health improvements, maybe children ran more outdoors so
running indoors would have the same effect.
We are not provided with information regarding existing
supervised play areas so don’t know if more are needed.
Sources used don’t mention a need for more supervised play
areas.
We don’t know the percentage of children already playing
outside.
We do not know how representative of all Rochborough
children those in the survey are.
No source is given for ‘18% of homes have gardens’ so is it
reliable.
No evidence on two mentions of effects of outdoor play on
social interaction. If had, could be linked better to main
argument (mental health?)
Writer generalises from only one set of health factors (lungs).
Children who play outside could have other health problems.
Alternatively, children who play indoors may be more prone
to sickness already. Sickness may be the CAUSE of playing
indoors rather than the EFFECT
www.brad.ac.uk/academic-skills
What (if any) would have been a
better order in which to present
the evidence so as to strengthen
the line of reasoning?
The logical progression would be:
Local evidence supports the health argument
Parents attitudes support this argument
A lack of facilities prevents outdoor play
More outdoor play facilities are needed
Are there any examples of flawed Reference to the isolated incident of a fox is not very relevant
reasoning? Attempts to persuade to the argument about health.
the reader through an appeal to
The reference to the expense of supervised paly areas is
the emotions? Is evidence
relevant to the argument BUT it weakens the argument
interpreted and used correctly?
rather than contributing to it because we are not told how the
expense could be met.
The article published by the Play Council is suspect as it has a
vested interest in arguing for more supervised play areas.
The description within the anecdotal evidence regarding the
‘tearful’ child is emotive and meant to persuade and
unacceptable in academic writing
Has the writer given sufficient
No, there is no consideration of alternative viewpoints
consideration to alternative
points of view? Give examples
In addition:
‘Outdoor play improves levels of social interaction’ is a proposition. Also there is no plausible
evidence provided for this statement, and also it is not relevant to main argument.
A comparison is drawn between children who play indoors and those who play outdoors.
However, it may have been that the children who played outdoors were already healthier, and
those who played indoors did so because of poor health which might get worse if they played
outdoors (conditions such as pollen allergies or asthma).
Underlying assumptions –
Playing out is better for ALL children’s health which may not be the case.
The health of children who play outdoors at present would improve by playing outdoors. This may
not be true.
Playing outdoors decreases the incidence of asthma and bronchial conditions.
Beneficial effects are only available from outdoor play. There could be other factors about outdoor
play, such as having the space to run or apparatus to climb, that led to improved health
indicators.
www.brad.ac.uk/academic-skills