A What is Jesse claiming about gases?

1. I was learning about gases yesterday.
2. Gases fill the whole space they are in.
3. You can tell that from Fact #1.
4. None of the above.

Argumentation Level 0b: Identifying a claim

Learn more about these images

Answer key for A

Level	Description	Student Responses
1	Student selects option 2 – “Gases fill the whole space they are in.”
0	Student selects any option besides 2

B What was Jesse's reason?

1. I was learning about gases yesterday.
2. Gases fill the whole space they are in.
3. You can tell that from Fact #1.
4. None of the above

Argumentation Level 1b: Identifying reasoning

Learn more about these images

Answer key for B

Level	Description	Student Responses
1	Student selects option 3 – “You can tell that from Fact #1.”
0	Student selects any option besides 3

C and D Whose argument makes more sense? Why?

Jesse's Argument: Jesse appeals to Fact #1 (i.e., gases are made of lots of tiny particles). Jesse argues that, “Fact #1 explains it because if the gas particles are tiny, they will float up and fill the whole space.”

Casey's Argument: Casey appeals to Fact #3 (i.e., The particles move around rapidly in all directions – up, down, and sideways). Casey argues that, “Fact #3 explains it because if gas particles move in all directions, then they will move around into the whole space.”

Acceptable reasons for why Jesse’s argument is better:

NOTE: Jesse’s argument is scientifically incorrect, so what follows are possible misconceptions.

• Sure, the motion is random, but just because it is random doesn’t mean that the random motion will quickly disperse throughout the container the gas occupies. Maybe the random motion is confined to a smaller region of the container? (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)
• Gases are made of particles, and when particles are pressed next to each other, there still may be empty space between them. Hence gas particles cannot occupy all the space in which the gas is contained. (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)
• Just because particles are small doesn’t mean they will disperse throughout the container that holds them. After all, solids are made out of tiny particles too, but solids do not necessarily occupy the entire space of the container that holds them. (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)

Acceptable reasons for why Casey’s argument is better:

NOTE: This is actually the scientifically correct position

• Gases do not just float in one direction (e.g., up)
• Gases do not “float” in the first place – even very small objects experience gravity insofar as they have mass
• If gases “float” opposite of gravity, eventually the gas particles would only occupy the top of the container

Argumentation Level 2b: Constructing a one-sided comparative argument

Learn more about these images

Answer key for C and D

Level	Description	Student Responses
3	Student constructs a one-sided comparative argument by identifying: Who has the better argument AND Explaining why it is the better argument. In order to completely satisfy (2), the student answer could perhaps refer to the quality of evidence, the strength of connection between claim and evidence, or perhaps the consistency with outside world/their own experiences. Appealing to all of these criteria is not necessary, but to get a Level of 3 the student needs to provide an acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is better. Please see above for examples of what counts as acceptable.	Student selects Casey: Casey’s make more sense because particles don’t just float up, they float around. While similar to repeating Casey’s argument, this answer actually critiques Jesse’s argument by correctly noting that gas particles move in all directions, not just up Student selects Jesse: Fact number 3 doesn’t mention particle size so if the particles were big there would be empty voids that can’t be filled in since this argument mentions that they are small they can fill the space States a good objection to Fact 3, namely that particle size is not addressed and that large particles would have gaps, thereby not filling the space Student selects Casey: The argument makes more sense because Jesse says that if they float up it will take up all the space. But that would only be in a single direction. While if you move in all directions you’d take up all the space.
2	Student attempts to argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the better argument BUT Student provides an only partially acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is better. Please see above for examples of what counts as acceptable.	Student selects Casey: Casey made more sense because it’s like smoke when you see them move around This appeal to everyday experience is not a complete justification, but still an attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem. Student selects Casey: If the atoms did not move it would be a solid Not scientifically correct, but still an attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem.
1	Student makes an authentic attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem and argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the better argument BUT Student provides an incoherent explanation and/or the student appears to misunderstand the problem.	Student selects Casey: They can explain or spread due to their mass and form Explain or spread due to mass and form" is incoherent – a lot would have to be inferred from this statement to give the student a higher Level Student selects Jesse: Atoms move, and not all gases are made of a lot of atom Attempted explanation is authentic, but not coherent Student selects Jesse: If it took up a whole space it wouldn’t have enogh room to move up, down, and sideways This an example of the student misunderstanding the problem, as the student chooses Jesse but then argues against the gas particles taking up the entire space of their container, which is precisely Jesse’s position Student selects Casey: Because gases do move around it will move Attempted explanation is authentic, but not coherent
0	Student does not explain why an argument is better. This includes a student claiming that one argument is better, but providing no justification at all as to why it is superior (e.g., “Jesse’s/Casey’s argument is better because it’s right”) This also includes a student merely repeating information already provided to them (e.g., simply repeating the arguments advanced by Jesse and/or Casey).	Student selects Casey: Because there moving all over Repeats Casey’s argument Student selects Casey: Fact 3 makes more sense because as particles move around they fill up the spaces Student selects Jesse: Because they explaining No real reason provided

E Explain why the other argument makes less sense.

Jesse's Argument: Jesse appeals to Fact #1 (i.e., gases are made of lots of tiny particles). Jesse argues that, “Fact #1 explains it because if the gas particles are tiny, they will float up and fill the whole space.”

Casey's Argument: Casey appeals to Fact #3 (i.e., The particles move around rapidly in all directions – up, down, and sideways). Casey argues that, “Fact #3 explains it because if gas particles move in all directions, then they will move around into the whole space.”

Acceptable reasons for why Casey’s argument is worse:

NOTE: Jesse’s argument is scientifically incorrect, so what follows are possible misconceptions.

• Sure, the motion is random, but just because it is random doesn’t mean that the random motion will quickly disperse throughout the container the gas occupies. Maybe the random motion is confined to a smaller region of the container? (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)
• Gases are made of particles, and when particles are pressed next to each other, there still may be empty space between them. Hence gas particles cannot occupy all the space in which the gas is contained. (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)
• Just because particles are small doesn’t mean they will disperse throughout the container that holds them. After all, solids are made out of tiny particles too, but solids do not necessarily occupy the entire space of the container that holds them. (Note: this would be a critique of Casey)

Acceptable reasons for why Jesse’s argument is worse:

NOTE: This is actually the scientifically correct position.

• Gases do not just float in one direction (e.g., up)
• Gases do not “float” in the first place – even very small objects experience gravity insofar as they have mass
• If gases “float” opposite of gravity, eventually the gas particles would only occupy the top of the container

Argumentation Level 2a: Providing a counter-critique

Learn more about these images

Answer key for E

Level	Description	Student Responses
3	Student constructs a one-sided comparative argument by identifying: Who has the worse argument AND Explaining why it is a worse argument In order to completely satisfy (2), the student answer could perhaps refer to the quality of evidence, the quantity of evidence, the strength of connection between claim and evidence, or perhaps the consistency with outside world/their own experiences. Appealing to all of these criteria is not necessary, but to get a Level of 3 the student needs to provide an acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is worse. Please see above for examples of what counts as acceptable.	Student selects Jesse: If it floats up it won’t fill the whole space. Only the top. Student selects Jesse: If the gas particles are tiny, they would FLOAT UP. If they’re just going to float up, there will be none left on the bottom. How will it fill up the whole space if there are none left at the bottom? Student selects Casey: If they’re always moving, there will always be a gap due to movement Student selects Casey: The other argument makes less sense because if you only float up, you only fill a part of the space.
2	Student attempts to argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the WORSE argument BUT Student provides an only partially acceptable reason for why the argument they selected is worse. Please see above for examples of what counts as acceptable.	Student selects Jesse: If it just floats, it won’t move unless something does. Student begins to make an argument against Jesse’s “floating” scenario, but the argument is incomplete
1	Student makes an authentic attempt to go beyond the givens of the problem and argue for whether Jesse or Casey has the WORSE argument BUT Student provides an incoherent explanation and/or the student appears to misunderstand the problem.	Student selects Jesse: Jesse doesn’t make much sense because gas particles just don’t float and fill the whole space Student misunderstands the question, because both Jesse and Casey agree that gas particles fill the entire space that encloses the gas Student selects Jesse: Gas doesn’t stick together so why would it go all into one space Student misunderstands the question, because both Jesse and Casey agree that gas particles fill the entire space that encloses the gas. Because only some of it goes in the thing
0	Student does not explain why an argument is worse. This includes a student claiming that one argument is worse, but providing no justification at all as to why it is inferior (e.g., “Jesse’s/Casey’s argument is worse because it’s wring”) This also includes a student merely repeating information already provided to them (e.g., simply repeating the arguments advanced by Jesse and/or Casey).	They are gases are they It sounds confusing because its basically saying it it make’s no sense!