Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-10-03T06:49:33Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}

{{BR}}
= ABI - Line of argument analysieren =

'''Mini-description:''' Reconstruct a writer’s '''thesis, claims, reasons, examples, evidence, counterarguments and conclusion''', turn them into an '''argument map''', and explain how their relationships shape the line of argument. You work mainly in English; German support is a last step, not the starting point.

[[Datei:Argument Map.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbpsONQlYY |500|center}}

{{BR}}
= Einleitung =

A strong analysis does more than list arguments. It shows '''how ideas depend on one another''': Which claim supports the thesis? Which reason supports a claim? What counts as evidence? Where does the writer concede an opposing view, and how is it answered?

This aiMOOC is designed for '''Englisch als fortgeführte Fremdsprache in der Kursstufe Baden-Württemberg''', for a shared '''Basisfach/Leistungsfach''' course. The working level is mainly '''B2''', with selected '''C1-oriented''' challenges. The goal is not artificial difficulty but increasingly independent analysis.

'''Media first:''' Look at the argument map above before reading definitions. Identify the central contention, supporting branches and objections. Then watch the short mapping video. Do not try to understand every word. First ask: '''What is connected to what?'''

{{BR}}
== I-can goals ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! I can …
! BF focus
! LF extension
|-
| identify the central thesis and major claims
| clear, manageable texts with structural prompts
| denser texts with competing or implicit claims
|-
| distinguish reasons, examples and evidence
| one main argumentative chain
| several linked or independent chains
|-
| reconstruct counterarguments and rebuttals
| explicit opposition
| implicit concessions, qualifications and hidden assumptions
|-
| build an argument map
| guided map with labels
| self-designed map including warrants and dependencies
|-
| analyze how structure supports purpose and effect
| focused explanation with textual evidence
| differentiated analysis linking structure, language and communicative strategies
|-
| write and speak about a line of argument
| strong paragraph or short analysis
| coherent multi-paragraph analysis with independent evaluation
|}

{{BR}}
== Prior knowledge check ==

Without looking anything up, explain in English: '''What is the difference between a claim and evidence?''' Then draw one arrow between the two.

If you cannot explain the difference yet, that is your starting point. Do not translate the whole problem. First use context, word families and an English dictionary.

{{BR}}
== Dictionary route before German help ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Step
! What you do
|-
| 1
| Read the whole sentence and infer the likely meaning from context.
|-
| 2
| Check the word family: argue → argument → argumentative; conclude → conclusion; refute → refutation.
|-
| 3
| Use a monolingual dictionary, for example [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ Cambridge Dictionary].
|-
| 4
| Re-read the sentence and test whether the meaning fits.
|-
| 5
| Only then use a short German gloss if needed.
|}

'''Minimal German help:''' thesis = zentrale Position; claim = Behauptung; reason = Begründung; evidence = Beleg; counterargument = Gegenargument; rebuttal = Entkräftung/Erwiderung; conclusion = Schlussfolgerung.

{{BR}}
== Abitur context: Baden-Württemberg 2027 ==

'''Checked for the 2027 examination cohort, status 02 October 2026.''' The official Baden-Württemberg subject decree for English names '''line of argument''' as a possible structural feature when analyzing non-literary texts in the written Leistungsfach examination. The same section also points to structural elements, language and communicative strategies such as statistics, references, quotations, examples and perspective.

For the '''Basisfach''', analysis remains part of the required course assessment profile across the four semesters. Basisfach and Leistungsfach differ especially in text complexity, abstraction, breadth, depth and differentiation. The Bildungsplan sets '''B2, in parts C1''' as the end-of-course orientation for both levels.

For the 2027 cohort, the current focus theme is '''On the Move: Migration and Cross-Cultural Encounters'''; the official decree contains the binding works and additional thematic fields. This skill course does not reproduce copyrighted compulsory texts or film scenes. Apply the method to materials provided legally by your school.

Official sources:
[https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/schule/gymnasium/termine-und-informationen-zum-abitur Kultusministerium: Termine und Informationen zum Abitur]
[https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-km/intern/PDF/Dateien/Gymnasium/Dokumente_Abitur/Abitur_2027/Facherlass_2027_Stand_09.09.2025.pdf Facherlass Abitur 2027, Stand 09.09.2025]
[https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de Bildungspläne Baden-Württemberg]
[https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/de/schule/sekundarstufe-ii/begleitendedokumente/ IQB: Begleitende Dokumente Englisch]

The IQB operator '''analyze/examine''' from examination year 2027 requires detailed description and explanation, textual evidence, and links between content and relevant aspects of language and form. In other words: '''identify → connect → explain → support with evidence'''.

If your examination year is later than 2027, check the current Facherlass again before using examination-specific details.

{{BR}}
= Core input: reconstructing a line of argument =

{{BR}}
== The seven core elements ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Element
! English explanation
! Diagnostic question
|-
| '''Thesis'''
| the writer’s overall position or central contention
| What does the writer ultimately want the audience to accept?
|-
| '''Claim'''
| an arguable statement that develops or supports the thesis
| What is being asserted here?
|-
| '''Reason'''
| an answer to “Why should I accept this claim?”
| Why does the writer say this?
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| verifiable support such as data, research, documented facts or relevant testimony
| What support can be checked?
|-
| '''Example'''
| an illustration that makes an idea concrete; it is not automatically strong evidence
| Does this merely illustrate, or does it actually prove something?
|-
| '''Counterargument'''
| an opposing claim or reason the writer acknowledges
| What would a reasonable critic say?
|-
| '''Conclusion'''
| the endpoint that draws the argument together, often restating, qualifying or extending the thesis
| What follows from the argument?
|}

'''LF extension:''' Add the '''warrant''' — the stated or hidden assumption that connects a reason or piece of evidence to a claim. Also watch for '''qualifiers''' such as ''often'', ''in many cases'', ''likely'' or ''under these conditions''.

[[Datei:Toulmin Argumentation Example.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
== A relationship, not a shopping list ==

A line of argument is not: “There is a thesis, a statistic, an example and a counterargument.”

A useful analysis reconstructs the relationship:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:90%; text-align:center;"
|+ '''Basic argument map'''
|-
| Evidence
| →
| Reason
| →
| Claim
| →
| '''Thesis'''
|-
| Example
| ↗
|
|
|
| ↑
|-
| Counterargument
| →
| Rebuttal
| ─────────→
|
|
| Conclusion
|}

The arrows mean '''supports, challenges or responds to'''. Your map may branch. Two reasons can independently support one claim; one piece of evidence can support a reason; a rebuttal can answer only one counterargument rather than the entire thesis.

[[Datei:Objections.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
== Word formation for analysis ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Verb
! Noun
! Useful adjective/adverb
! Analysis phrase
|-
| argue
| argument
| argumentative
| The writer argues that …
|-
| claim
| claim
| —
| The claim is supported by …
|-
| reason
| reasoning
| reasonable
| The reasoning depends on …
|-
| evidence
| evidence
| evidential / evident
| The evidence strengthens …
|-
| conclude
| conclusion
| conclusive
| The conclusion follows from …
|-
| concede
| concession
| concessive
| The concession acknowledges …
|-
| refute
| refutation
| —
| The writer attempts to refute …
|-
| qualify
| qualifier
| qualified
| The writer qualifies the claim by …
|}

{{BR}}
== Rhetoric is related, but not identical ==

An argument map shows '''what supports what'''. Rhetorical analysis asks additionally '''how the writer makes the argument persuasive for a particular audience and purpose'''.

[[Datei:Rhetorical triangle.jpg|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3klMM9BkW5o |500|center}}

Use '''ethos, logos and pathos''' only when they help explain a concrete textual choice. Do not label every statistic “logos” and stop. Explain its function in the line of argument.

{{BR}}
= Listening and Viewing =

{{BR}}
== Viewing task 1: see the structure ==

Watch the argument-mapping video near the top of the course twice.

First viewing: identify the '''central contention'''.

Second viewing: note one '''supporting reason''', one '''piece of evidence''' and one possible '''weakness'''.

'''BF:''' Draw four boxes and three arrows.

'''LF:''' Add at least one hidden assumption or missing evidential link and explain why it matters.

{{BR}}
== Viewing task 2: persuasion and audience ==

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkUB-ef6Oa4 |500|center}}

After viewing, choose one appeal discussed in the video and connect it to argument structure: Does it supply evidence, build credibility, frame a claim emotionally, or change how a reason is received?

Do not copy the video’s wording. Explain the relationship in your own English.

{{BR}}
== Viewing task 3: checking evidence ==

{{#ev:youtube| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm0MpfKIs5w |500|center}}

Use the video’s source-checking ideas on one piece of evidence from a current article chosen by your teacher. Trace the claim back to an original or more authoritative source before using it in your analysis.

'''Rule:''' A polished statistic is not automatically reliable evidence.

{{BR}}
= Reading =

{{BR}}
== Practice text: fictional and copyright-safe ==

'''Fictional source for learning only. The survey and school are invented.'''

''The Northbridge Student Voice, 2026''

“Schools should reserve one quiet, phone-free study room during long breaks. Students already have social spaces, while those who need to finish work often search for somewhere calm. In a fictional survey of 240 Northbridge students, 64 percent said they would use such a room at least once a week. A quiet room would therefore serve a clear need, and the school could test the idea for one term before making it permanent. Critics may argue that phone rules are difficult to enforce. Yet the proposal does not ban phones across campus; it creates one voluntary zone. Similar to a library reading room, the space would give students a choice. For these reasons, the student council should run a one-term pilot and review attendance and feedback afterwards.”

{{BR}}
== First read: meaning before terminology ==

Read once without marking anything. State the writer’s main position in '''one sentence of your own words'''.

Read again and mark only signal language such as '''therefore, critics may argue, yet, similar to, for these reasons'''.

Only on the third read label the argumentative elements.

{{BR}}
== Build the map ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Function
! Reconstructed content
! Relationship
|-
| Thesis
| The school should create a quiet, phone-free study room.
| central position
|-
| Reason 1
| Some students need a calm place to work during breaks.
| supports thesis
|-
| Evidence
| The fictional survey reports likely student use.
| supports Reason 1
|-
| Reason 2
| A one-term pilot is reversible and can be evaluated.
| supports thesis
|-
| Counterargument
| Phone rules may be difficult to enforce.
| challenges proposal
|-
| Rebuttal
| The rule would apply only to one voluntary zone.
| answers counterargument
|-
| Example / analogy
| A library reading room offers a comparable model.
| illustrates the proposal
|-
| Conclusion
| Run a pilot and review attendance and feedback.
| turns thesis into recommendation
|}

'''LF warrant:''' The reasoning assumes that a low-risk pilot is justified when there is a demonstrated need and the outcome can be evaluated.

[[Datei:Example argument map of the free software Argüman.png|500px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
= Context vocabulary =

{{BR}}
== Signal words as clues, not proof ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Function
! Typical signals
! Warning
|-
| reason
| because, since, given that
| “because” can appear in explanations that are not arguments
|-
| result
| therefore, thus, consequently
| the conclusion may still be weak
|-
| concession
| admittedly, although, while
| often introduces nuance
|-
| contrast
| however, yet, nevertheless
| may mark rebuttal or merely contrast
|-
| example
| for example, for instance, such as
| examples are not automatically evidence
|-
| qualification
| often, largely, in many cases, to some extent
| can make a claim more precise
|}

{{BR}}
= Analysis =

{{BR}}
== The four-step method: MAPS ==

'''M — Main thesis:''' formulate the central position accurately and briefly.

'''A — Argument chain:''' reconstruct claims, reasons, evidence, examples, counterarguments and conclusion.

'''P — Purpose and progression:''' explain why the writer orders the argument this way and how the sequence addresses the audience.

'''S — Support with text:''' use short, functional references to wording or structure; do not retell the whole text.

{{BR}}
== From map to analytical paragraph ==

A useful paragraph follows this movement:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Move
! Sentence function
|-
| 1
| Make an analytical point about the argument’s structure.
|-
| 2
| Identify the relevant part of the text.
|-
| 3
| Explain the relationship between elements.
|-
| 4
| Explain the function for the writer’s purpose or audience.
|}

'''Model skeleton, not a replacement essay:''' “The writer first establishes … This claim is supported by … The evidence matters because … By addressing the objection that …, the writer … As a result, the line of argument appears …”

Fill it with your own analysis and your own textual evidence.

{{BR}}
== BF and LF differentiation ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Dimension
! Basisfach
! Leistungsfach
|-
| Material
| one manageable non-fiction text or excerpt
| longer or denser text, possibly combined with a visual or second source
|-
| Map
| thesis + 2–3 supporting elements + counterargument
| branching map with dependencies, warrants, qualifications and competing evidence
|-
| Language analysis
| selected signal words and one or two communicative strategies
| systematic connection of structure, language, register, perspective and strategy
|-
| Independence
| labels, sentence frames and partially prepared map
| self-selected categories and independent prioritization
|-
| AFB
| strong AFB I/II foundation with guided transfer
| stronger emphasis on AFB II/III, evaluation and material linkage
|}

{{BR}}
== Common mistakes and repairs ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Error
! Why it weakens analysis
! Repair
|-
| retelling the article
| structure and function disappear
| use relationship verbs: supports, qualifies, challenges, rebuts
|-
| calling every statement a claim
| hierarchy is lost
| ask what each statement does in relation to another
|-
| calling an example “evidence”
| illustration and verification are confused
| ask whether the source can be checked and whether it supports the inference
|-
| listing stylistic devices
| no connection to argument
| connect device → audience effect → argumentative function
|-
| ignoring the counterargument
| the writer’s strategy appears simpler than it is
| map objection and rebuttal as a separate branch
|-
| evaluating before analyzing
| personal opinion replaces reconstruction
| reconstruct first; assess effectiveness only when the task requires it
|-
| using invented certainty
| “proves” may overstate weak evidence
| use precise verbs: suggests, supports, indicates, strengthens
|}

{{BR}}
= Speaking =

[[Datei:Cartoon Man Speaking In Public.svg|350px|rahmenlos|center]]

{{BR}}
== 90-second argument-map talk ==

Choose a short non-fiction text. Speak from your map, not from a script.

'''BF route:''' thesis → strongest reason → evidence → counterargument → conclusion.

'''LF route:''' thesis → two argumentative branches → evidential quality → counterargument/rebuttal → hidden warrant → brief assessment of effectiveness.

Recordings are '''optional'''. Keep them private unless you explicitly choose to share them. Do not upload recordings, names, faces or voices without informed permission.

{{BR}}
= Writing =

{{BR}}
== Write a line-of-argument analysis ==

Use the fictional Northbridge text or a legally provided classroom text.

'''BF practice range:''' about 180–250 words with a clear map-to-paragraph structure.

'''LF practice range:''' about 280–400 words, adding nuance, warrants and the interaction of structure with communicative strategies.

These are '''practice ranges, not official word-count rules'''.

Your first draft must be your own. A tool may help you check language only after you have reconstructed the argument yourself.

{{BR}}
== Source and AI hygiene ==

Do not use AI output as a substitute essay. If you use an AI tool in a setting where it is permitted, document what it did, check every factual claim against reliable sources, and keep responsibility for your final analysis.

No external AI access is required for this course. Never paste private school data, names, recordings or unpublished material into an external service without permission.

When checking evidence, prefer the original source, then compare it with independent reliable coverage. A confident answer is not the same as a verified answer.

{{BR}}
= Mediation =

{{BR}}
== Optional mediation task ==

'''Fictional German input:''' „Die Schülervertretung schlägt für die große Pause einen freiwilligen, smartphonefreien Lernraum vor. In einer Probephase soll gezählt werden, wie viele Lernende den Raum nutzen. Danach werden Rückmeldungen ausgewertet. Kritiker befürchten zusätzlichen Aufsichtsaufwand.“

An English-speaking exchange student asks what the debate is about. Mediate the '''argumentative structure''', not every word.

'''BF:''' explain thesis, one reason and one concern.

'''LF:''' add the proposed evidence strategy, the implicit assumption behind the pilot and one point that still needs clarification.

{{BR}}
= Help ladder =

{{BR}}
== Use only as much help as you need ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Level
! Help
|-
| 1
| Circle connectors and underline repeated key nouns.
|-
| 2
| Label only thesis, reason, evidence, counterargument and conclusion.
|-
| 3
| Use the sentence frames: “The writer claims … because …”; “This is supported by …”; “The objection that … is answered by …”.
|-
| 4
| Draw arrows before writing any prose.
|-
| 5
| Check one unknown key word in a monolingual dictionary.
|-
| 6
| Use the short German gloss only if the concept is still unclear.
|}

{{BR}}
= Feedback and error analysis =

{{BR}}
== Peer-feedback protocol ==

Give feedback on the map before the language.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Check
! Feedback question
|-
| Accuracy
| Is the thesis stated in the writer’s meaning, not your own opinion?
|-
| Hierarchy
| Are claims, reasons and evidence clearly distinguished?
|-
| Relationships
| Do the arrows show support, challenge or rebuttal correctly?
|-
| Evidence
| Is the evidence actually verifiable and relevant?
|-
| Analysis
| Does the explanation show function and effect instead of summary?
|-
| Language
| Are analytical verbs precise and is the paragraph coherent?
|}

After feedback, revise '''one structural problem''' and '''one language problem'''. Do not rewrite everything at once.

{{BR}}
== Error log ==

Keep a three-column log: '''my error → why it happened → my repair rule'''. Example: “I called an analogy evidence → I focused on content, not function → next time I ask whether the source can be verified.”

{{BR}}
= Transfer =

{{BR}}
== New material, same method ==

Apply MAPS to one teacher-selected, legally accessible source from a 2027 Abitur context such as migration, cross-cultural encounters, identity, the USA or the UK.

'''BF:''' map the clearest argumentative chain.

'''LF:''' compare two sources or connect a text with a visual and explain where their reasoning converges, diverges or depends on different assumptions.

Do not copy full compulsory texts into the MOOC. Work with school-licensed copies, short quotations within legal limits, public-domain material or open educational resources.

{{BR}}
= Abi-Check =

{{BR}}
== Can you do this under exam conditions? ==

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:95%;"
! Checkpoint
! Yes / Not yet
|-
| I can formulate the thesis without copying a sentence.
|
|-
| I can distinguish a reason from evidence.
|
|-
| I can explain why an example is not automatically evidence.
|
|-
| I can map a counterargument and its rebuttal.
|
|-
| I can describe the progression of an argument, not just its parts.
|
|-
| I can connect structure with audience, purpose and communicative strategy.
|
|-
| I can support my analysis with short, relevant textual references.
|
|-
| I can use the 2027 operator analyze/examine appropriately.
|
|}

'''LF checkpoint:''' In the 2027 written English Abitur, '''line of argument''' is explicitly listed among possible structural aspects for non-literary text analysis.

'''BF checkpoint:''' Across the course, analysis is one of the required task types. Train the same method with clearer scope and stronger scaffolding, then transfer it to oral examination contexts.

{{BR}}
= Follow-up course =

Continue with [[ABI - Rhetorical strategies analysieren]], [[ABI - Non-fictional text analysis]], [[ABI - Comment schreiben]], [[ABI - Cartoon analysis]] and [[ABI - Mediation]].

{{BR}}
= Interaktive Aufgaben =

{{BR}}
== Quiz: Teste Dein Wissen ==

{{MC}}

'''What is the thesis in an argumentative text?'''
(The writer’s overall central position)
(!A single illustrative example)
(!Any quotation in the text)
(!The title of the text)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which question best identifies a reason?'''
(Why should I accept this claim?)
(!Who published the text?)
(!How many paragraphs are there?)
(!Which word is longest?)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What normally distinguishes evidence from an example?'''
(Evidence can provide verifiable support for a claim or reason)
(!Evidence is always emotional)
(!An example always proves the thesis)
(!Evidence must appear in the conclusion)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does a counterargument do?'''
(It presents an opposing claim or reason)
(!It automatically proves the thesis)
(!It replaces all evidence)
(!It summarizes the title)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is a rebuttal?'''
(A response that answers or limits a counterargument)
(!A list of vocabulary)
(!A neutral heading)
(!A quotation without explanation)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does an arrow usually show in an argument map?'''
(A relationship such as support challenge or response)
(!The number of words in a paragraph)
(!The chronological age of the author)
(!The difficulty of vocabulary)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why can a qualifier strengthen analysis?'''
(It shows the scope or limits of a claim)
(!It turns an example into data)
(!It removes the need for evidence)
(!It makes every claim certain)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which verb is most useful for precise analysis of weak evidence?'''
(Suggests)
(!Proves)
(!Destroys)
(!Guarantees)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What should come before evaluating an argument?'''
(Reconstructing its structure accurately)
(!Giving your personal opinion)
(!Translating every word into German)
(!Counting all adjectives)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is the main purpose of analyzing a line of argument?'''
(To explain how argumentative elements are connected and function)
(!To retell every paragraph)
(!To collect as many stylistic devices as possible)
(!To replace the original text with a summary)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Thesis || Central position
|-
| Claim || Arguable statement
|-
| Reason || Support answering why
|-
| Evidence || Verifiable support
|-
| Counterargument || Opposing position
|-
| Rebuttal || Response to opposition
|-
| Conclusion || Final argumentative outcome
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Drag and Drop ==

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Ordne die richtigen Begriffe zu.
! Thema
|-
| '''Thesis'''
| overall position
|-
| '''Reason'''
| explains why a claim should be accepted
|-
| '''Evidence'''
| provides checkable support
|-
| '''Example'''
| illustrates an idea
|-
| '''Counterargument'''
| challenges the writer’s position
|-
| '''Rebuttal'''
| responds to an opposing point
|-
| '''Conclusion'''
| draws the argumentative chain together

|}
{{E}}

<br>
<br />

{{BR}}
== Kreuzworträtsel ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Thesis || What word names the overall central position?
|-
| Warrant || What word names the assumption linking support to a claim?
|-
| Evidence || What word names verifiable support?
|-
| Rebuttal || What word names a response to an opposing argument?
|-
| Qualifier || What word limits the scope or certainty of a claim?
|-
| Conclusion || What word names the argumentative endpoint?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=ABI+-+Line+of+argument+analysieren </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Lückentext ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Vervollständige den Text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
The writer’s overall position is the { thesis }.
A statement that develops the position can function as a { claim }.
A reason answers the question why a claim should be { accepted }.
Checkable support for a reason or claim is called { evidence }.
An opposing point is a { counterargument }.
A response to that opposing point is a { rebuttal }.
An implicit link between evidence and a claim can be a { warrant }.
The final argumentative outcome is the { conclusion }.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Offene Aufgaben =

{{BR}}
=== Leicht ===

# [[Argument Map|Five-box map]]: Turn the fictional Northbridge text into five boxes and connect them with arrows. Use only thesis, reason, evidence, counterargument and conclusion.
# [[Signalwörter|Connector hunt]]: Find five argumentative signal words in a legally accessible article and explain their function in English.
# [[Wortbildung|Word-family cards]]: Create cards for argue, conclude, concede and refute with verb, noun and one useful analysis sentence.
# [[Sprechen|One-minute explanation]]: Explain your map to a partner without reading a full script.

{{BR}}
=== Standard ===

# [[Textanalyse|Map and paragraph]]: Build an argument map for a new non-fiction text and turn one branch into an analytical paragraph.
# [[Quellenkritik|Evidence check]]: Choose one factual claim from a current article, trace it to a more authoritative source and record what changed in your evaluation.
# [[Gegenargument|Counterargument lab]]: Rewrite a one-sided argument so that it includes a fair counterargument and a reasoned rebuttal.
# [[Mediation|Structure mediation]]: Explain the argumentative structure of a short German source to an English-speaking audience without translating sentence by sentence.

{{BR}}
=== Schwer ===

# [[Toulmin-Schema|Hidden warrant]]: Identify one implicit warrant in a complex text and explain what would happen to the argument if the warrant were rejected.
# [[Materialvergleich|Two-source map]]: Combine two legally accessible sources in one map and mark agreements, conflicts and different evidence bases.
# [[Rhetorik|Structure and strategy]]: Analyze how line of argument, register and rhetorical appeals work together for a specific audience.
# [[Transfer|Abitur transfer]]: Use a teacher-provided source from a current 2027 thematic field and complete an AFB-II/III analysis with independent prioritization.

{{:Offene Aufgabe - MOOC erstellen}}

{{BR}}
= Lernkontrolle =

# [[Argumentationsanalyse|Reconstruction]]: You receive a new short article. Reconstruct its argument in a map and justify every arrow with a reference to the text.
# [[Belege|Evidence quality]]: Compare two pieces of support for the same claim and explain which is more relevant and verifiable without simply calling one “better”.
# [[Perspektive|Counterargument]]: Explain how including or omitting an opposing view changes the credibility and balance of an argument.
# [[Struktur|Progression]]: Reorder five argument elements into two plausible sequences and explain how the change affects audience perception.
# [[Warrant|Hidden assumption]]: Identify an unstated assumption and formulate a reasonable condition under which it would no longer hold.
# [[Transfer|Material linkage]]: Connect a written argument with a visual source and explain whether the visual supports, complicates or challenges the written line of argument.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= Lernnachweis =

For a successful learning record, you should show that you can:
# identify thesis, claims, reasons, evidence, examples, counterarguments, rebuttals and conclusion accurately
# visualize argumentative relationships in an argument map
# distinguish illustration from verifiable support
# explain progression, audience orientation and purpose
# connect structure with selected language and communicative strategies
# use short, functional textual evidence instead of retelling
# adapt depth and independence appropriately for BF or LF
# document source checking and any permitted AI assistance transparently
# revise your work after feedback and explain one structural improvement

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs zum Thema =

<iframe> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulmin-Schema </iframe>

Useful open or freely accessible reference points:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Argument_maps Wikimedia Commons: Argument maps]
[https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/toulmin_argument.html Purdue OWL: Toulmin Argument]
[https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/sharpen-your-thinking/critical-thinking/analyse-sources-and-arguments/analyse-arguments Monash University: Analyse arguments]

{{BR}}
== Mediennachweise und Nutzung ==

The diagrams used in this course come from '''Wikimedia Commons''' and are available under the licences stated on their file pages, including Creative Commons licences or CC0:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Argument_Map.png Argument Map.png]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toulmin_Argumentation_Example.png Toulmin Argumentation Example.png]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Objections.png Objections.png]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhetorical_triangle.jpg Rhetorical triangle.jpg]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example_argument_map_of_the_free_software_Arg%C3%BCman.png Example argument map of the free software Argüman.png]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cartoon_Man_Speaking_In_Public.svg Cartoon Man Speaking In Public.svg]

The embedded YouTube resources are educational videos hosted by their respective channels. No film sequence from a compulsory copyrighted work is reproduced in this aiMOOC.

{{BR}}
= Verknüpfte Lernbereiche =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[ABI - Line of argument analysieren]]'''
# [[Englisch]]
# [[Textanalyse]]
# [[Argumentation]]
# [[Argument Map]]
# [[Toulmin-Schema]]
# [[Rhetorik]]
# [[Kritisches Denken]]
# [[Quellenkritik]]
# [[Mediation]]
# [[Abitur]]
|}

[[Kategorie:Englisch]]
[[Kategorie:Englisch als Fremdsprache]]
[[Kategorie:Abitur]]
[[Kategorie:Kursstufe]]
[[Kategorie:Baden-Württemberg]]
[[Kategorie:Basisfach]]
[[Kategorie:Leistungsfach]]
[[Kategorie:Argumentation]]
[[Kategorie:Rhetorik]]
[[Kategorie:Textanalyse]]
[[Kategorie:Medienbildung]]
[[Kategorie:Klasse 11-13]]

{{BR}}
= aiMOOC-Projekte =
[[Kategorie:AI_MOOC]] [[Kategorie:GPT aiMOOC]]
{{MT}}

ABI - Line of argument analysieren - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt