Evaluating Viewpoint, Argument and Bias: Question 9
Syllabus R3, R4
Read the following opinion piece, then answer the questions that follow.
Anyone who still insists that under-9s football matches need a scoreboard is, whether they realise it or not, arguing that eight-year-olds should learn to see their friends purely as obstacles between them and a trophy.
That is not what youth sport should be for. The whole point of introducing children to team games is to build confidence, cooperation and a lifelong love of moving their bodies, not to manufacture tiny professionals who cry in the car park because their team lost 3–1 on a Saturday morning.
Parents who want scores kept say they are "just teaching kids that effort has consequences." But strip away the polite phrasing and what they are really demanding is a system where a nine-year-old's worth on the pitch is measured purely by a number on a board, and where losing is treated as a personal failure rather than a normal part of learning any new skill.
Coaches who have removed scoring report calmer sidelines, fewer tears, and, most tellingly, children who genuinely cannot tell you afterwards who "won." Isn't that exactly the carefree childhood we claim we want to protect?
Scrap the scoreboard. Let children play like children, at least until they are old enough to choose competition for themselves.
(a) Explain how the writer misrepresents the view of parents who want scores kept, and why this technique makes the writer's own argument seem stronger than it might otherwise be. [3] (b) Identify one example of emotive language in the passage and explain the effect it has on the reader. [2] (c) Give one piece of evidence the writer uses that could, in principle, be checked, and explain why it may not be as reliable as it first appears. [2]
Show worked solution Hide worked solution
Worked solution
Assessment focus
This question tests recognition of the straw man technique: distorting or oversimplifying an opposing view into a more extreme version that is easier to dismiss, rather than engaging with what the other side actually argues. It also tests recognition of emotive language and the evaluation of unsupported evidence.
Part (a): The straw man
The parents’ actual position, quoted directly, is measured: “effort has consequences.” The writer does not challenge this claim on its own terms. Instead, the writer replaces it with something much more extreme and unflattering, that a child’s “worth on the pitch” should be “measured purely by a number on a board”, and argues against that instead. This is easier to knock down than the real argument, and it makes the writer’s own position (removing the scoreboard) look like the obviously kind, reasonable choice by comparison. Strong answers explain this two-step process: distort, then dismiss the distortion.
Part (b): Emotive language
Phrases such as “tiny professionals” and “cry in the car park” work by making competitive youth sport sound both absurd and upsetting, so the reader reacts emotionally against scorekeeping before any evidence is weighed. The imagery of a crying child in a car park is especially calculated to trigger protective sympathy.
Part (c): Evaluating unsupported evidence
The claim about coaches reporting “calmer sidelines, fewer tears” and children not knowing who won reads persuasively because it is specific in its details (three distinct outcomes are listed). But specificity is not the same as verifiability in practice: no coach is named, no club or number of respondents is given, and no source is cited. A careful reader treats this as a claim that could theoretically be checked, but currently is not. Its confident phrasing should not be mistaken for evidence.
Common pitfalls specific to this text
- Some candidates identify the opening sentence as simply “biased” or “unfair” without naming the straw man mechanism specifically. The question is looking for an explanation of how the misrepresentation works, not just that it exists.
- Candidates sometimes select “who genuinely cannot tell you afterwards who ‘won’” for part (b), missing that this is presented as reported evidence rather than as a loaded emotional description.