D3.4.9-12: Refining Claims and Counterclaims

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction25-30 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A friend says, 'Electric cars are better.' Ask three questions that would force the claim to become more exact. Then say what a better version would teach a listener that the first version does not."

   Collect questions such as "Better at what?", "For whom?", "Compared with what?" and "How sure are you?" Sort them into three columns on the board, which become the lesson's three tests: precision (what exactly, how much, how certain), significance (who is affected, why it matters) and knowledge conveyed (what cause, mechanism or condition the claim explains). Tell students that historians and economists refine claims this way before they argue them, and that the same tests apply to the counterclaim.

2. Direct Instruction25-30 minutes

   Part 1: The question and the sources. The compelling question is "Should the United States have made the metric system compulsory around 1900?" The debate is a vehicle for the skill. In 1904 Stevens described a bill by J. F. Shafroth of Colorado that would make the metric system "compulsory in all departments of the government" after January 1, 1905 (Source 3, paragraph 1). Source 4 reports that metric use had been legal in the United States "since 1866" and became "the preferred system" for trade and commerce in 1988 (paragraph 6). Read the sources in order; each answers or tests the one before.

   Source Information: who made each source, when, and from what position (from the sources, their bylines and their source notes)

   Source	Maker and position	When	Position on the question
   1: Spencer	Herbert Spencer, writer of letters to the London Times during a debate over proposed legislation in Parliament (Mendenhall's opening paragraph)	1896	Against adopting the metric system
   2: Mendenhall	T. C. Mendenhall, President of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, replying directly to Spencer	1896	For the metric system, while admitting the change would be slow
   3: Stevens	W. Le Conte Stevens, Washington and Lee University	1904	For the metric bill, with predictions about the transition
   4: NIST	Elizabeth Benham, NIST Metric Coordinator, who works "to support voluntary conversion" (author box)	Updated 2020	Describes U.S. metric law and corrects a common claim
   5 and 6	Invented drafts and an invented scenario written for this page	Invented	Practice material; some drafts in Source 5 are deliberately weak

   1ADVOCATES of the metric system allege that all opposition to it results from "ignorant prejudice." This is far from being the fact. There are strong grounds for rational opposition, special and general; some already assigned and others which remain to be assigned. I may fitly put first a carefully-reasoned expression of dissent from a late man of science of high authority.

   [...]

   2It is now more than a century since, in the midst of the French Revolution, the metric system was established. Adoption of it has been in the main compulsory. As French citizens have been obliged to use francs and centimes, so must they have been obliged to use the State-authorized weights and measures. But the implication of the above statement is that the old customs have survived where survival was possible; the people can still talk in sous and ask for fourths, and they do so. Doubtless "ignorant prejudice" will be assigned as the cause for this. But one might have thought that after three generations, daily use of the new system would have entailed entire disappearance of the old, had it been in all respects better.

   [...]

   3Hence I contend that adoption of the metric system, while it would entail a long period of trouble and confusion, would increase the obstacles to the adoption of a perfect system—perhaps even rendering them insuperable—and that, therefore, it will be far better to submit for a time to the evils which our present mixed system entails.

   [...]

   4See, then, the strange position. The vast majority of our population consists of working people, people of narrow incomes, and the minor shopkeepers who minister to their wants. And these wants daily lead to myriads of purchases of small quantities for small sums, involving fractional divisions of measures and money—measuring transactions probably fifty times as numerous as those of the men of science and the wholesale traders put together. These two small classes, however, unfamiliar with retail measuring transactions, have decided that they will be better carried on by the metric system than by the existing system. Those who have no experimental knowledge of the matter propose to regulate those who have! The methods followed by the experienced are to be rearranged by the inexperienced!

   1As Mr. Spencer begins by declaring that the "advocates of the metric system allege that all opposition to it results from ignorant prejudice," which he very properly declares is far from true, it may be well to say that, in the opinion of the writer, there is relatively little of that sort of thing to contend with in the United States. What is far more dangerous as an obstacle to human progress, and often far more common, is what may be called "intelligent prejudice," meaning thereby an obstinate conservatism which makes people cling to what is or has been, merely because it is or has been, not being willing to take the trouble to do better, because already doing well, all the while knowing that doing better is not only the easier, but is more in harmony with existing conditions. Such conservatism is highly developed among English-speaking people on both sides of the Atlantic, and is likely to turn up in the most unexpected places. It is often a phase of ancestral or national pride, and finds its expression in the feeling that whatever pertains to one's own race or country is, on the whole, better than anything else of its kind. Those who are under its influence are adepts in finding ingenious reasons and excuses in defense of an attitude toward reform which they must know to be founded on neither logic nor fact. These people are numerous among opponents of reform in coinage, weights, and measures, and, as already noted, it is with this class that the most serious difficulty is encountered. "Ignorant prejudice" generally disappears when ignorance disappears, and fortunately in the present instance the system which it is proposed to substitute for that already in use is so extremely simple that it can be learned and understood in a few minutes, while certainly no one man has ever, in an entire lifetime, completely mastered the "customary weights and measures" in use in England and America.

   [...]

   2Finally, it ought to be understood that the advocates of the metric system do not assume that it can come into use immediately or without considerable hardship. It took nearly a century to fairly establish our decimal money system, which no one would now think of giving up. During all this time old units and denominations continued to be used in a lessening degree, although not authorized by law. Something of the kind must occur in the transfer from our illogical, brain-destroying, time-consuming system of weights and measures for the more perfect system for which it is sure to make way. Furthermore, they heartily welcome and desire the presentation of all arguments against or objections to the metric system, believing that the more widely it is known and discussed the more supporters it will have. They expect to meet occasionally such "intelligent prejudice" as is exhibited by Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose contribution to the discussion of the subject is sure to be considered in the years to come as altogether the most remarkable to be found in any time or tongue.

   1Hon. J. F. Shafroth, of Colorado, has recently introduced a bill providing that after January 1, 1905, the metric system shall be made compulsory in all departments of the government in the transaction of business requiring the use of weight and measurement, except in completing the survey of the public lands, and that after January 1, 1906, it shall be the legal standard of weights and measures of the United States.

   2Should Mr. Shafroth's bill become a law, it is practically certain that a similar act will be passed by the British parliament soon afterward. Experience in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and other European countries within the last thirty years affords the assurance that, while temporary inconvenience may be expected, the transition will be soon accomplished in all important commercial centers; that persons of middle age and advanced years who have had no previous familiarity with the metric system will continue to use that to which they are accustomed; that the younger generation will everywhere appropriate and appreciate it; and that the agricultural population will be the last to become adapted to the change. Concerted opposition to the metric system by many whose capital would suffer depreciation by change is to be expected. The powerful influence of conservatism will be hard to overcome, however strong may be the arguments of those having commercial interests with Europe and South America. The passage of the metric bill may be again delayed. [...]

   [...]

   3In conclusion, those who advocate the introduction of the metric system will need to be patient and considerate. Those who oppose it must look to the future as well as the present. The well-worn query, 'What has posterity done for me?' is good enough for the local politician but unworthy of the statesman.

   1This year will be the 45th anniversary of the Metric Conversion Act, which was signed on December 23, 1975, by President Gerald R. Ford. Normally, we celebrate by sharing metric education resources, but this year I want to use the occasion to dispel some common misconceptions about the U.S. relationship with the metric system.

   2You’ve probably heard that the United States, Liberia, and Burma (aka Myanmar) are the only countries that don’t use the metric system (International System of Units or SI). You may have even seen a map that has been incriminatingly illustrated to show how they are out of step with the rest of the world.

   3It’s a compelling story and often repeated, but you might be surprised to learn that it’s simply untrue!

   4While it’s true that metric use is mandatory in some countries and voluntary in others, all countries have recognized and adopted the SI, including the United States.

   5Russ Rowlett, retired University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor of education and mathematics, emphasizes on his website that becoming metric is not a one-time event but a process that happens over time. Every international economy is positioned somewhere along a continuum moving toward increased SI use. There are still countries that are amending their national laws to adopt a mandatory metric policy and others pursuing voluntary metrication.

   6The United States was one of the original countries to sign the Treaty of the Meter in 1875, which is now celebrated annually on May 20, World Metrology Day. It’s been legal to use the metric system since 1866, and metric became the preferred system of weights and measures for U.S. trade and commerce in 1988.

   [...]

   7It’s impossible to avoid using the metric system in the United States. All our measurement units, including U.S. customary units you’re familiar with (feet, pounds, gallons, Fahrenheit, etc.), are defined in terms of the SI—and mass, length, and volume have been defined in metric units since 1893! The SI’s influence is pervasive and felt even if most people don’t know it. I envision U.S. metric practice like a huge iceberg. Above the water’s surface, U.S. customary units appear to still be in full effect. In actuality, below the water’s surface, we find that all measurements are dependent on the SI, linked through an unbroken chain of traceable measurements.

   Part 2: Model the three tests. Work through the examples aloud. In each one, start from a rough draft, apply one test, and then name a strength and a limitation of the refined claim's evidence. Point out that the sources themselves need refining: Spencer gives an estimate without a count, Mendenhall promises the system can be learned "in a few minutes", and Stevens calls a prediction "practically certain".

   • Precision: fixing the key term (Source 1)

     Draft claim: "The metric system failed in France." Refine it for precision using Source 1, paragraph 2.

     Result: Refined: "More than a century after France established the metric system, and although adoption was 'in the main compulsory', old units still survived in everyday speech: people could 'still talk in sous and ask for fourths' (Source 1, paragraph 2)." The word "failed" is replaced by what exactly happened: legal adoption, but incomplete everyday use. (Precision check: Stevens's full article, in a part left out of Source 3, says France made the system obligatory in 1801, found "compromise" necessary, and fully enforced the law only from 1840.) Strength: the claim now matches Spencer's evidence. Limitation: his evidence rests on a French correspondent's report that our excerpt leaves out, so we cannot check how widespread the old units were.

   • Precision: degree of certainty in a counterclaim (Source 2)

     Mendenhall says the metric system "can be learned and understood in a few minutes" (paragraph 1). Refine this into a counterclaim a careful writer could defend.

     Result: Refined: "The rules of the metric system, units related by tens, are quick to learn; changing tools, habits and records takes far longer, as Mendenhall himself admits when he says advocates do not expect it 'without considerable hardship' (paragraph 2)." Strength: the counterclaim now uses the advocate's own admission. Limitation: "quick to learn" is still Mendenhall's judgment, not a measured result.

   • Significance: who bears the cost (Source 1)

     Refine Spencer's claim about ordinary buyers and sellers so that its significance is clear and its numbers are not overstated.

     Result: Refined: "A compulsory change would fall hardest on working people and small shopkeepers, whose small purchases Spencer estimates are 'probably fifty times as numerous' as the transactions of scientists and wholesale traders (paragraph 4)." Significance: the claim names who is affected and why that matters. Limitation: "probably fifty times" is Spencer's guess with no count behind it, and the shopkeepers' own words are missing from every source here.

   • Knowledge conveyed: from verdict to mechanism (Sources 1 and 2)

     Draft: "Switching systems is hard." Refine it so that it conveys knowledge about how such changes happen.

     Result: Refined: "Even a system that most people later accept spreads over generations, while old units fade 'in a lessening degree': Mendenhall says the decimal money system took 'nearly a century' to establish (Source 2, paragraph 2)." The refined claim explains a pattern and gives a comparison. Counterclaim: Spencer reads the same slowness as evidence against the new system, arguing that after three generations old units would have disappeared "had it been in all respects better" (Source 1, paragraph 2). Limitation of the counterclaim: slow adoption can have many causes besides the system's quality.

   • Precision with modern evidence (Source 4)

     Common claim: "Only three countries don't use the metric system." Refine it using Source 4.

     Result: Refined: "All countries, including the United States, have 'recognized and adopted the SI', although metric use is 'mandatory in some countries and voluntary in others' (paragraph 4)." The refined claim separates legal recognition from everyday use. Strength: a federal measurement agency, with dates for each law. Limitation: the author promotes voluntary conversion, so a reader should check how much everyday use the post actually measures; the excerpt gives no figures for everyday use.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Groups of three read Source 5, four invented drafts. Tell students that some drafts are deliberately weak. For each draft, groups apply the three rungs of the Refinement Ladder (Diagram 1), write a refined version, and name one strength and one limitation of its evidence.

   1These four drafts were written for this page by invented students who read Sources 1-4 and answered the compelling question. Some are deliberately weak, so that the class can refine them. They are not models.

   2Aisha: "The metric system is just better, so the United States should have switched."

   3Ben: "Spencer showed that the French never accepted the metric system."

   4Carla: "Mandatory metric laws work. Stevens says that in Germany, Switzerland and Austria the transition was soon accomplished."

   5Dev: "The 1904 bill would have made metric compulsory only for government business at first, so it was a smaller change than critics like Spencer described."

   Teacher key (discussion points). Aisha's draft is weak on all three tests: "better" has no measure, "should have switched" names no one affected, and no reason is given. A refined version names the advantage and its users. Ben's draft overstates Source 1: Spencer reports that old units survived, not that the French "never accepted" the system; precision means matching the claim to the evidence. Carla's draft drops Stevens's qualifiers: he speaks of "temporary inconvenience", of "important commercial centers" and of older people who "will continue to use" old units, so her refined claim needs that scope. Dev's draft is the strongest, because it is precise about the bill's scope (Source 3, paragraph 1); its limitation is that the bill also set a second date for the metric system to become "the legal standard" for the whole country.

4. Independent Practice15 minutes

   Each student answers the compelling question in one paragraph with a refined claim and a refined counterclaim. Each must pass all three tests, cite at least two sources by paragraph, and end with one strength and one limitation for each side. Students then trade paragraphs with a partner, who marks the single word or phrase that most needs to become more precise.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Copy your first draft claim from today and your final one. Underline what you changed, and label each change P (precision), S (significance) or K (knowledge conveyed)."

   Teacher note on the sources: Spencer and Mendenhall wrote sharply about each other, and Mendenhall describes "English-speaking people" in sweeping terms (Source 2, paragraph 1). Ask students to treat these generalizations as claims that need refining too. Stevens's article contains remarks on the politics of 1904 that are left out of the excerpt. The same article (also left out) dates France's change more exactly than Spencer does: adopted in 1795, "made obligatory in 1801", with "compromise" found necessary, and "full enforcement of the law dates from 1840". By 1896 the compulsory rule had been fully enforced for about 56 years, so Spencer's "more than a century" and "three generations" measure from the system's founding, not from full enforcement. The question asks about a historical decision; students may defend either side, and the rubric scores the refinement and the evidence.

   Quiz passage. Questions 11-14, 19 and 20 use Source 6, an invented school scenario.

   1This scenario is invented for this page. The school, the people and all the numbers are invented.

   2The science department at the invented Westbrook High School proposes that, starting next fall, every lab measurement and lab report must use SI (metric) units only. The school board will vote on the proposal.

   3Source 6A, the department head's memo: "Students will make far fewer mistakes if we drop customary units. Every scientist in the world uses SI."

   4Source 6B, a department survey of 120 students taken last spring: 46 said they had made at least one unit-conversion mistake in a lab during the year. The survey did not ask what kind of conversion it was.

   5Source 6C, the engineering and shop teacher: "Our lathe, drill bits and lumber are all sold and marked in inches. If lab reports must be SI only, my students will convert twice."

   6Source 6D, a parent at the board meeting: "My daughter's college chemistry lab used only SI units, and she said the switch from high school was hard."

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which revision of the draft claim "The metric system is better" is the most precise?

   AThe metric system is much better than any system ever used BNearly all educated people in the world agree that the metric system is better CMetric units convert by tens, so changing units takes less arithmetic DThe metric system is better in every possible way for everybody

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Mendenhall writes that "no one man has ever, in an entire lifetime, completely mastered" the customary weights and measures (Source 2, paragraph 1). What is the main limitation of this statement as evidence?

   AIt is a sweeping claim that no record could test BIt comes from an opponent of the metric system CIt is about money, not weights and measures DIt was written after the 1904 bill was introduced

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Stevens writes that if the bill passed, "it is practically certain that a similar act will be passed by the British parliament soon afterward" (Source 3, paragraph 2). Which version states his point at a level of certainty the evidence supports?

   AStevens proved that Britain would pass a law BStevens showed Britain had already decided CStevens knew Britain would never follow DStevens expected Britain to follow the U.S.

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In the same paragraph, Stevens adds: "The passage of the metric bill may be again delayed" (Source 3, paragraph 2). How does this sentence affect his argument?

   AIt shows he had given up on the bill BIt proves the bill had already failed CIt admits his side may not win soon DIt shows he opposed the bill in 1904

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Mendenhall says advocates "heartily welcome" objections, "believing that the more widely it is known and discussed the more supporters it will have" (Source 2, paragraph 2). Which detail in the same paragraph is a limitation of this picture of open debate?

   AHis promise that the old units will fade away BHis comparison with decimal money CHis mocking praise of Spencer at the end DHis admission that the change is slow

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which claim about the Metric Conversion Act is accurate and precise according to Source 4?

   AIt was signed in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford BIt forced every business in the country to stop using inches CIt was the first law to make metric use legal DIt was passed in 1988 after a long national vote

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 4 says the familiar map of non-metric countries has been "incriminatingly illustrated" (paragraph 2). What weakness of the map is the author pointing out?

   AIt leaves out the year that the 1866 law was passed BIts design pushes a verdict the facts lack CIt was drawn by a foreign government DIt shows too many countries as metric

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The 1904 bill made metric compulsory in government business "except in completing the survey of the public lands" (Source 3, paragraph 1). What does this exception show about the bill?

   AIt let the public land survey keep its old units BIt made land surveys use metric before anything else CIt ended all government land surveys in 1905 DIt applied only to land sold to foreign buyers

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Stevens ends with "The well-worn query, 'What has posterity done for me?' is good enough for the local politician but unworthy of the statesman" (Source 3, paragraph 3). What does the sentence add to the significance of his claim?

   AIt shows the costs fall on future people BIt shows that only politicians oppose it CIt shows the change would be very quick DIt shows the benefits come mostly later

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Spencer says metric adoption "would increase the obstacles to the adoption of a perfect system", and then adds "perhaps even rendering them insuperable" (Source 1, paragraph 3). What does the word "perhaps" show about his claim?

    AHe is sure that the metric system is the perfect one BHe is less sure of this effect than the rest CHe is quoting someone who disagrees DHe has changed his mind about the system

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which refinement of the memo's claim in Source 6A is the most precise?

    AStudents make far too many mistakes in every lab BEvery student has trouble with customary units CSI-only rules will end all lab mistakes for good D46 of 120 students surveyed reported a mistake

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What is a limitation of Source 6B as evidence that SI-only labs would reduce mistakes?

    AIt does not say which conversions failed BIt surveyed too few students to count at all CIt was written by the engineering teacher DIt reports results from another school

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 6C most improves which part of a counterclaim to the proposal?

    AIts precision about the student survey BIts knowledge of college labs CIts certainty about the vote DIts significance for shop students

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What is a limitation of Source 6D as evidence for the proposal?

    AIt contradicts the department memo BIt is one student's account, retold CIt comes from a source with no date DIt is about a high school, not college

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a refined claim that answers the compelling question, "Should the United States have made the metric system compulsory around 1900?" It must be precise, state its significance and convey knowledge. Cite two sources by paragraph.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write the refined counterclaim to your answer for Question 15, and name one strength and one limitation of the evidence for both your claim and the counterclaim.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Mendenhall says "the more widely it is known and discussed the more supporters it will have" (Source 2, paragraph 2). Refine this into a claim that could be tested, and name one limitation of the original wording.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Explain the difference between making a claim more precise and simply making it longer. Use one example from Sources 1-4.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Refine the memo's claim in Source 6A, "Students will make far fewer mistakes if we drop customary units. Every scientist in the world uses SI." Use Sources 6B and 6C. Make it precise, state its significance, and name one strength and one limitation of the evidence.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Develop and refine a counterclaim to the Westbrook proposal, and name one strength and one limitation of the evidence for both the proposal and the counterclaim.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D3.4.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.