Weigh the Evidence

Criteria first, or you are not comparing

You have read the booklet, you know who wants what, and three options are on the table. The obvious next move is to list the advantages and disadvantages of each, and it is a trap. A list of pros and cons is not a weighing, because nothing in it says which consideration outranks which, so the conclusion at the bottom can be anything you like. Weighing needs criteria stated in advance: the standards you are judging against, chosen before you look at the options rather than after. Cost. How many people benefit and how soon. How long the benefit lasts. What happens to the environment. Who carries the loss. Write those down first and the comparison largely does itself, because you then apply every criterion to every option instead of judging each option on whatever suits it. That last point deserves its own warning, because it is the commonest failure on this section. The cherry-pick: praising one option for being cheap, criticising another for being disruptive, and never asking what the cheap one disrupts or what the disruptive one costs. It guarantees the conclusion you already had, and an examiner spots it instantly. The practice issue throughout this module is a proposed reservoir in an upland valley to supply a growing city, with the water gained set against farmland, a hamlet and a stretch of river. Its numbers were written for teaching and the ones you meet in the exam will be real.

Six terms, and the second explains every argument in the booklet

The second is the one to hold on to, because it explains why people who agree about the facts still disagree about what to do.

Appraise three options properly

Six steps turn three options into a defensible comparison. Put them in order.

• Choose the criteria you will judge against, before you look closely at any option
• Decide which of them matters most for this issue, and say why
• Apply every criterion to every option, using the booklet figures rather than impressions
• For each disadvantage, ask whether it is permanent, who carries it, and whether it can be made good
• Match each stakeholder to the criterion they are actually using, which explains their position
• Rank the options against your weighting, leaving the final choice to the last question

Why do the stakeholders disagree?

A farmer and a water engineer quoted in the booklet both accept the same figures and reach opposite conclusions. What is the most useful way to explain that?

• They are applying different criteria rather than disputing the evidence. The engineer is weighing cost per litre delivered and how quickly supply arrives, while the farmer is weighing the permanent loss of land that cannot be replaced. Identifying the standard behind each position explains the disagreement and lets you judge which standard should carry more weight for this issue.
• One of them must be mistaken about the facts.
• The farmer is protecting a personal interest and the engineer is being objective.
• It is simply a matter of opinion, so neither can be judged.

One set of criteria, three options

This is the shape of a proper appraisal: the same standards applied to every option, so the rows can be read across. The scheme and its numbers were written for teaching.

Match each viewpoint to the criterion behind it

Same rulers, every option

If you take one habit from this module, take this: apply all of your criteria to all of the options. The cherry-pick, praising one option for its low cost and condemning another for its disruption without ever asking what the cheap one disrupts, is the commonest way to lose marks on the appraisal questions, and it is obvious from outside even when it feels reasonable from inside. Then weigh the disadvantages rather than counting them. Three tests do almost all of the work. Is it permanent? A drowned valley cannot be undone; a higher bill can. Who carries it? A cost spread across a city is not the same as the same total landing on thirty households. Can it be made good? Cash for a farm is not an equivalent farm, and some losses cannot be replaced in any form. A single drawback that is permanent, concentrated and uncompensable outweighs a longer list of temporary, shared and fixable ones, and saying so explicitly is the difference between weighing and adding up. On the viewpoints, look for the criterion, not the mood. Somebody objecting strongly is not thereby wrong, and somebody sounding technical is not thereby neutral. Every person in the booklet is optimising for something, and naming that something is the analysis. One caution about scale. The option that delivers most is not automatically best, because delivering most usually means costing most, taking longest, and falling hardest on somebody. Say which criterion your ranking rests on and the reader can follow you even if they disagree.

Complete the appraisal method

A comparison is only defensible once you have stated the _____ you are judging against, chosen before the options are examined rather than afterwards. Each one is then applied to _____ option, which prevents the cherry-pick of praising one for its low cost while condemning another for its disruption. Disadvantages are weighed rather than counted, using three tests: whether the cost is _____ or temporary, how widely it is spread, and whether it can be made good. Stakeholders in the booklet usually disagree about _____ rather than about the evidence, so the useful move is to name the standard behind each viewpoint. The final choice belongs to the _____ question, not to this stage.

Spot the three sound appraisal statements

Select the THREE statements that could stand as they are in an answer.

• Judging every option against the same stated standards is what makes a comparison checkable, since a reader can then disagree with the standards rather than merely with the conclusion.
• One drawback that is permanent, falls on a few households and cannot be replaced in kind outweighs a longer list of temporary, widely shared and fixable ones.
• Two people accepting identical figures can still reach opposite conclusions, because they are applying different standards rather than reading different evidence.
• The best option is the one with the most advantages and the fewest disadvantages listed against it.
• The option that delivers the most water is necessarily the strongest, since supply is what the issue is about.
• Technical experts in a booklet can be treated as neutral, unlike residents who are personally affected.

A 6-mark appraisal, marked

Using the resources, assess the advantages and disadvantages of Option A compared with Option C. [6 marks] I am judging both against four standards: how much water each provides, how soon, at what cost, and who carries the loss. Taking them in that order keeps the comparison honest, because each standard is applied to both proposals rather than to whichever it flatters. On volume, Option A is clearly stronger. Resource 3 shows the full reservoir covering the city's forecast demand for decades, where Option C does not close the gap at all in a dry year, so on supply alone there is no contest. On speed the ranking reverses. Option C needs no inquiry and no construction, so meters and pipe repairs begin saving water within months, while Resource 4 puts the dam at years to build and longer again to fill, which means the city is no better off through every one of those summers. On cost the two answers pull apart: Option A costs most to build and least per litre once running, and Option C costs least in total while its repair programme never ends. The fourth standard is where the difference really lies. Option A takes thirty households and the farmland of a whole valley, permanently, and Resource 6 makes clear that cash compensation is offered because no equivalent land is available nearby. That cost is concentrated, irreversible and cannot be made good in kind. Option C takes nobody's home and instead leaves the city exposed to restrictions in a dry summer, a cost that is shared, temporary and reversible, though it would fall hardest on whoever can least manage the disruption. What earned the marks: four standards stated before any comparison was made; each one applied to both options instead of one each; figures attributed to numbered resources; and disadvantages weighed by permanence, concentration and compensability rather than counted. No decision is offered, because the question asked for an assessment and the choice belongs to the final answer. Every number quoted above was written for practice; the booklet on your desk will carry measured ones.

Find the two that would cost marks

Five sentences from appraisal answers. Two would lose credit for how they argue rather than for being factually wrong. Tap those TWO.

• Option A is the cheapest per litre and Option B would disturb a lot of people, so Option A is better.
• Judging both against the same four standards keeps the comparison honest, since neither is measured on whatever flatters it.
• Option B has four advantages and only two disadvantages, so it comes out ahead of the others.
• The loss of the valley cannot be reversed or replaced in kind, which weighs more heavily than a temporary rise in bills.
• The engineer and the farmer differ over which standard matters, not over the figures they were both given.

Build the appraisal sentence

Assemble a sentence that weighs two drawbacks instead of counting them.

Four moments in the appraisal

Each happens while you are weighing the options, before any decision is due.

• You have three options in front of you and twenty minutes for the appraisal questions.
• Your draft praises one option for low cost and criticises another for disruption, and says nothing about the cost of the second or the disruption of the first.
• A resident quoted in the booklet objects in very strong terms to the scheme.
• One option has four advantages and two disadvantages listed, and another has three and three.

Appraise the options

Weigh the options set out in the booklet against each other, using the resources to support your appraisal. [9 marks]

• The same standards for every option, not a different one for each
• This paper credits argument from the material rather than recall
• Disadvantages weighed by permanence, who carries them and whether they can be made good
• Stakeholder disagreement explained as a difference of standards