“How We Rate: The Grading Legend with Professor Reid”

Good evening, I'm Professor Reid, and this is ReFrame. Tonight, no headline. Tonight... how we grade. This is the guide to every grade on ReFrame. Watch it once... and every story video after it will make sense. We grade the reasoning, not the politics. An argument is reasons, called premises... offered for a conclusion. We find the main ones, and say who makes each. We judge only what's on the page. And a reporter who just quotes a claim isn't blamed for it. Question one. Is it valid? If the reasons are true... must the conclusion be true? All senators are elected. Ana is a senator. So, Ana is elected. That's valid. Crime fell after a new law, so the law cut crime? Invalid. Something else could explain the drop. Question two. Is it cogent? Are the reasons believable, given the evidence... and do they make the conclusion likely? A signed memo and three named officials? Cogent. One anonymous post? Weak. Question three. Is it supported? Does the article show the evidence... or just say it exists? Strong: the evidence is on the page. Partial: some is shown, some only asserted. Unsupported: you're asked to take it on faith. Question four. Is it fallacy-free? A fallacy is a reasoning trick. It looks like a reason... but it isn't one. We only name a fallacy when we can quote the line that commits it. And none found... is a perfectly good answer. Hasty generalization: too few cases, too big a conclusion. Two voters hated the plan... so the whole state does. Argument from ignorance: no proof, treated as proof. Nobody proved it's safe... so it's dangerous. Non sequitur: it just doesn't follow. She's a great speaker... so her budget numbers are right. Begging the question: assuming what you're trying to prove. The report is accurate... because the report says so. Complex question: a question with a hidden assumption. When will the mayor stop wasting money? Equivocation: one word, two meanings. A feather is light. Nothing light is dark. So no feather is dark. The truth table checks validity. P is the reasons. C is the conclusion. T means true. F means false. Four rows cover every combination. We hunt for one row: reasons true, conclusion false. Row two. That's a counterexample. One is enough. Invalid. To make it valid, add a missing link. If P... then C. Now, in every row where both premises are true, C is true. No counterexample. Valid. But is that link actually true? That's what cogent and supported check. Each argument gets a letter, and so does the whole story. A: sound and well-evidenced. B: good, with gaps. C: mixed. D: weak. F: no real argument... or seriously fallacious. Plus and minus place a grade within its letter. How does it add up? It's a judgment, not a calculator. Each letter weighs all four questions, and the overall grade weighs the arguments. The percentages show the evidence, so you can check our work. And good reasoning earns an A. Here's a sample scorecard, with two arguments. Valid and cogent: the share of arguments that pass. One of two... fifty percent. Supported: strong counts one, partial a half. Seventy-five. Fallacy-free: one hundred, minus twenty per fallacy. Eighty. Below: each argument's grade and four pills. Green, good. Amber, partial. Red, a problem. Then the final grade. Here... a B-minus. WHY gives the reason in one line. BY THE NUMBERS counts it up. From now on, my story videos go straight to the claim, the arguments, any fallacies, the scores... and the grade. If a term trips you up, come back to How We Rate. Don't just read the news. ReFrame it.