Teach & case
Help a near-peer reason through the idea — when you explain it, you understand it best — then read the real decision it comes from.
Help Devi judge the argument
What you've shown you can teach
A real case · you decide
Devi and the op-ed that made her cry
Devi — a student newspaper editor deciding whether an op-ed actually PROVES its claim before she runs it
Devi has two op-eds arguing the same thing — that the new bus route helped students. The first opens with a devastating story about a kid who missed school for a year; it wrecked her. The second is dry: ridership numbers, attendance data, a before/after comparison. Her gut says the first is the stronger argument. Is it?
The first op-ed is PATHOS — it makes you CARE about the issue. That's real and useful, but caring that the problem matters is not the same as showing the solution WORKS. It moved her; it didn't prove anything.
The second is LOGOS — it gives reasons and evidence a claim can stand on: attendance rose after the route opened, and the numbers track the students who used it. It's less moving, but it's the part that actually supports the claim.
Devi wants to run the tear-jerker as the "strong argument" for the policy. Does that story prove the bus route worked?
The dry, data-heavy op-ed didn't move Devi at all. Is it therefore the WEAKER argument?
Devi's editorial habit is to read every piece twice: once for what it makes her feel, once for what it actually proves. The best op-ed does both — but she never lets the first stand in for the second.