D4.5.9-12: Critiquing Reasoning, Sequencing and Supporting Details

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction30 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice10-15 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A detective explains a theft: 'The window was broken from outside. Muddy boot prints lead to the safe. The gardener wears boots. So the gardener did it.' Which step is strongest? Which step is weakest? What one detail would you ask for?"

   Students usually find the first two steps solid and the third a leap: many people wear boots. Name the three elements the class just used: reasoning (is the leap justified?), sequencing (does each step lead to the next?) and supporting details (is there a detail, such as the boot size, that ties the gardener to the prints?). Tell students that historians critique explanations this way, and that an explanation can be right in its main point and weak in one step.

2. Direct Instruction30 minutes

   Part 1: The question and the sources. Ancient earthen mounds and enclosures stand across the eastern United States, "built by many different American Indian groups over several thousand years", in the words of the National Park Service today (Source 5, paragraph 1). Thomas sets his explanation against a rival one, often called the Mound Builder myth, which credited the works to a lost race rather than to the ancestors of Native peoples: in Thomas's summary, the most accepted theory held that they "originated with a people long since extinct or driven from the country" (Source 1, paragraph 2). Thomas worked for the Bureau of Ethnology, part of the Smithsonian Institution, whose field workers explored mounds in North Carolina. His paper uses the period word "Indians" for Native Americans and "race" in the sense of a people; the lesson quotes his words exactly. Two terms from his sources: the Tallegwi were a people named in Lenape (Delaware) tradition, whom Thomas identifies with the Cherokees; and De Soto's expedition was a Spanish expedition through the Southeast, whose chroniclers described the peoples they met. The National Park Service sources (Sources 4 and 5) describe the Hopewell earthworks in Ohio and the effigy mounds, built in animal shapes, of the upper Midwest.

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

   Source	Maker and position	When	What it explains
   1-3: Thomas	Cyrus Thomas, Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, in a government bulletin	1889	That Indians built the mounds, and the Cherokees some of Ohio's
   4: NPS Hopewell	National Park Service, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ohio	Updated 2025	What the Hopewell earthworks were and when they were built
   5: NPS Effigy Mounds	National Park Service, Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa	Updated 2024	Who built mounds in the East and the Midwest, and how they are studied
   6 and 7	Invented critiques and an invented scenario written for this page	Invented	Practice material; two critiques in Source 6 are deliberately weak

   1No other ancient works of the United States have become so widely known or have excited so much interest as those of Ohio. This is due in part to their remarkable character but in a much greater degree to the "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," by Messrs. Squier and Davis, in which these monuments are described and figured.

   2The constantly recurring question, "Who constructed these works?" has brought before the public a number of widely different theories, though the one which has been most generally accepted is that they originated with a people long since extinct or driven from the country, who had attained a culture status much in advance of that reached by the aborigines inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery by Europeans.

   3The opinion advanced in this paper, in support of which evidence will be presented, is that the ancient works of the State are due to Indians of several different tribes, and that some at least of the typical works, were built by the ancestors of the modern Cherokees. The discussion will be limited chiefly to the latter proposition, as the limits of the paper will not permit a full presentation of all the data which might be brought forward in support of the theory, and the line of argument will be substantially as follows:

   4FIRST. A brief statement of the reasons for believing that the Indians were the authors of all the ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley and Gulf States; consequently the Ohio mounds must have been built by Indians.

   5SECOND. Evidence that the Cherokees were mound builders after reaching their historic seats in East Tennessee and western North Carolina. This and the preceding positions are strengthened by the introduction of evidence showing that the Shawnees were the authors of a certain type of stone graves, and of mounds and other works connected therewith.

   6THIRD. A tracing of the Cherokees, by the mound testimony and by tradition, back to Ohio.

   7FOURTH. Reasons for believing that the Cherokees were the Tallegwi of tradition and the authors of some of the typical works of Ohio.

   1Space will not permit any review here of the various theories in regard to the builders, or of the objections made to the theory that they were Indians, or of the historical evidence adducible in support of this theory. Simple declaration on these points must suffice.

   2The historical evidence is clear and undisputed that when the region in which the mounds appear was discovered by Europeans it was inhabited by Indians only. Of their previous history nothing is known except what is furnished by vague and uncertain traditions or inferred from the study of their languages and customs. On the other hand there is no historical or other evidence that any other race or people than the Indians ever occupied this region, or any part of it, previous to its discovery by Europeans at the close of the fifteenth century.

   3We enter the discussion, therefore, with at least a presumption in favor of the conclusion that these works were built by the Indians--a presumption which has not received the consideration it deserves; indeed, it is so strong that it can be overcome only by showing that those mounds, or the specimens of art found in them, which were unquestionably the work of the builders, indicate an advancement in skill and knowledge entirely beyond that reached by the Indians previous to contact with Europeans. But all the genuine discoveries so far made in the explorations of the mounds tend to disprove this view.

   4If it can be shown that tribes occupying the mound region at the time they were first visited by Europeans used mounds, and in some cases built them, it will be a fair inference that all these structures are due to the same race until the contrary is proved.

   5The objection urged by many that the Indian has always been a restless nomad, spurning the restraints of agriculture, has been effectually answered, especially by Mr. Lucien Carr. [Footnote: Mounds of the Mississippi Valley Historically Considered.] History also bears us out in the assertion that at the time of the discovery nine tenths of the tribes in the mound district had fixed seats and local habitations, depending to a great extent for sustenance upon the cultivation of the soil. So far as the southern districts, now comprising the Gulf States, are concerned, it goes further and asserts over and over again that the tribes of that section were mound-builders when first encountered by the whites. To verify this assertion it is only necessary to read the chronicles of De Soto's expedition and the writings of the pioneer travelers and French missionaries to that section. This evidence proves conclusively not only that this had been a custom, but that it was continued into the eighteenth century.

   1The ancient works of Ohio, with their "altar mounds," "sacred enclosures," and "mathematically accurate" but mysterious circles and squares, are still pointed to as impregnable to the attacks of this Indian theory. That the rays of light falling upon their origin are few and dim, is admitted; still, we are not left wholly in the dark.

   2If the proof be satisfactory that the mounds of the southern half of the United States and a portion of those of the Upper Mississippi Valley are of Indian origin, there should be very strong evidence in the opposite direction in regard to those of Ohio to lead to the belief that they are of a different race. Even should the evidence fail to indicate the tribe or tribes by whom they were built, this will not justify the assertion that they are not of Indian origin.

   3If the evidence relating to these works has nothing decidedly opposed to the theory in it, then the presumption must be in favor of the view that the authors were Indians, for the reasons heretofore given. The burden of proof is on those who deny this, and not on those who assert it.

   4It is legitimate, therefore, to assume, until evidence to the contrary is produced, that the Ohio works were made by Indians.

   [...]

   5It is hardly necessary to add that among the specimens obtained from various localities can be found every possible gradation, from the ancient Ohio type to the modern form last mentioned. There is, therefore, in this peculiar line of art and custom an unbroken chain connecting the mound-builders of Ohio with the Indians of historic times, and in the same facts is evidence, which strengthens the argument, disconnecting the makers from the Mexican and Central American artisans.

   6As this evidence appears to point to the Cherokees as the authors of some of the typical mounds of Ohio, it may be as well to introduce here a summary of the data which bear upon this question.

   [...]

   7These data, though slender, when combined with the apparent similarity between the name Tallegwi and Cherokee or Chellakee, and the character of the works and traditions of the latter, furnish some ground for assuming that the two were one and the same people. But this assumption necessitates the further inference that the pressure which drove them southward is to be attributed to some other people than the Iroquois as known to history, as this movement must have taken place previous to the time the latter attained their ascendancy. [...]

   1The present Hopewell Culture National Historical Park evolved in part from the former Mound City Group National Monument. The national monument was established by a proclamation signed by President Warren G. Harding in 1923 to preserve prehistoric mounds of "great historic and scientific interest." In 1980 Congress expanded the monument by adding a portion of the nearby Hopeton Earthworks and authorized the investigation of other regional archeological sites to determine their suitability for preservation. The National Park Service recommended four additional sites. Hopewell Culture National Historical Park was thus established in 1992 by a law that renamed Mound City Group National Monument. The law also expanded the existing boundary at Hopeton Earthworks, and it also included the grounds at High Bank Works, Hopewell Mound Group, and Seip Earthworks. Thanks to that 1992 law, the park grew to encompass five sites within the Ross County area.

   2The park protects the magnificent earthworks of a dynamic social and ceremonial phenomenon that flourished in the woodlands of eastern North America from 1 to 400 CE. The term Hopewell describes a broad network of economic, political, and spiritual beliefs and practices among different Native American groups. The culture is characterized by the construction of enclosures made of earthen walls and ditches, often built in geometric patterns and mounds of various shapes. The culture is known for a network of contacts with other groups, which stretched from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky Mountains. This network of contacts allowed these Native Americans to amass a collection of materials such as mica, shark's teeth, obsidian, copper, and marine shells.

   1The eastern half of the United States has a wide variety of ancient and historic earthen mounds, ranging from simple conical mounds to large platform mounds and complex concentric circles. These earthen architecture structures were built by many different American Indian groups over several thousand years. In the Midwest, effigy mounds built in the shapes of bears, birds, panthers, snakes and water spirits were particularly prevalent. These mounds are primarily found in southern Wisconsin, northern Illinois, eastern Iowa, and southeastern Minnesota. They date to about AD 650-1200, and were probably built by the ancestors of the Ho-Chunk and other Midwestern tribes (Goldstein 2009).

   2The mounds are commonly located on flat high areas overlooking rivers and streams, especially where they intersect wetlands and lakes. These areas afforded good views, and the mounds would probably have been visible from long distances, especially if nearby trees were removed. Excavations of mounds have uncovered human remains; besides burial sites, the mounds probably also functioned as territory markers and as multi-purpose ceremonial places.

   3The lakes and marshes associated with the effigy mounds were productive sources of food, especially in winter. The people who built and used the mounds lived in small nearby villages. They hunted, fished, and gathered wild plant products, but also had small gardens where domesticated plants such as sunflower and squashes were grown.

   Part 2: Model the audit. Work through the examples aloud with Diagram 1. Example 1 audits reasoning, Example 2 sequencing, Example 3 supporting details, and Example 4 a reasoning move that depends on details. Point out that Thomas's paper is itself an explanation built against a rival one, so students can ask of both: what reasoning, what order, what details?

   • Reasoning: a presumption and the burden of proof (Source 3)

     Thomas argues that "the presumption must be in favor of the view that the authors were Indians" and that "The burden of proof is on those who deny this" (Source 3, paragraph 3). Critique this reasoning.

     Result: A presumption is a starting conclusion that holds until evidence overturns it. Thomas earns it with an earlier step: Europeans found the region "inhabited by Indians only" (Source 2, paragraph 2). The move is reasonable, and it shifts the debate to the rival theory, which must now show its evidence. Its limit: a presumption is not proof, and Thomas admits the evidence on Ohio's builders is "few and dim" (Source 3, paragraph 1), so the reasoning settles who must prove what, not who built each work.

   • Sequencing: a chain of dependent steps (Source 1)

     Thomas announces a four-step "line of argument" (Source 1, paragraph 3) and lists the steps in paragraphs 4-7. Critique the sequence: which steps depend on which?

     Result: Step FIRST (Indians built the mounds of the Mississippi Valley and Gulf States, so the Ohio mounds "must have been built by Indians") rests on its own evidence. SECOND (the Cherokees built mounds in their historic lands) supports THIRD (tracing the Cherokees back to Ohio), and FOURTH (the Cherokees were the Tallegwi of tradition and built some Ohio works) needs THIRD. The order is clear and announced in advance, a strength. The weakness is dependence: if THIRD fails, FOURTH fails, while FIRST can stand alone. A critic should judge the steps separately rather than accept or reject the chain as a whole.

   • Supporting details: relevant to which region? (Source 2)

     To support the claim that tribes built mounds, Thomas says it is "only necessary to read the chronicles of De Soto's expedition and the writings of the pioneer travelers and French missionaries to that section" (Source 2, paragraph 5). Critique this use of supporting details.

     Result: The details are strong in kind: early accounts by Europeans who saw mound-building peoples. But "that section" is the South, "now comprising the Gulf States", and the explanation is about Ohio. The details support step FIRST for the South; to carry them to Ohio, Thomas needs his presumption that the same kind of builders made all the mounds. Credible use names the region each detail actually covers.

   • Reasoning from a series of similar objects (Source 3)

     Thomas concludes from a series of pipe shapes that there is "an unbroken chain connecting the mound-builders of Ohio with the Indians of historic times" (Source 3, paragraph 5). Critique the reasoning.

     Result: The reasoning is that objects changing by small steps from an old form to a modern one were made by one people over time. That is a fair inference, and it is checkable against the pipes. Its limit: similar objects can also spread by trade or copying between different peoples, so a series shows contact or continuity of a craft, not by itself one tribe's descent. Thomas moves from this chain to the claim that the evidence "appears to point to the Cherokees" (paragraph 6), a larger step than the pipes alone carry.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 6, four invented critiques. Tell students that two of them are deliberately weak. For each, pairs name the element it critiques (reasoning, sequencing or supporting details), judge whether it is fair, and rewrite the weak ones.

   1These four critiques were written for this page by invented students who read Sources 1-5. Two of them are deliberately weak, so that the class can find what is wrong with them. They are not models.

   2Owen: "Thomas's explanation must be wrong, because he wrote it in the 1800s."

   3Lucia: "Thomas's sequence is a chain. If his third step, tracing the Cherokees back to Ohio, fails, his fourth step fails with it. His first step, that Indians built the mounds, can still stand on its own evidence."

   4Marcus: "Thomas gives a great many details, so his explanation must be well supported."

   5Hana: "The National Park Service pages give dates that Thomas does not, such as 1 to 400 CE for the Hopewell culture. Those dates add a sequence in time to an explanation that Thomas built mostly from places and customs."

   Teacher key (discussion points). Owen's critique is weak: the date of an explanation is not a reason it is wrong; the critique must name a step. Lucia's critique is strong: it audits the sequence and separates the independent step from the dependent ones. Marcus's critique is weak: the number of details says nothing about whether they are relevant or shown. Hana's critique is strong: it uses a modern source to add what the old explanation lacks, a sequence in time, rather than only to declare a winner.

4. Independent Practice10-15 minutes

   Each student writes one paragraph auditing Thomas's explanation: one strength and one weakness in each of the three elements, with citations from Sources 1-3, and one sentence on what Sources 4 and 5 support or do not address.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name the strongest step and the weakest step in Thomas's explanation, and say which element, reasoning, sequencing or details, makes each one strong or weak."

   Teacher note on the sources: Thomas's paper argues that Native Americans built the mounds, against the rival theory he summarizes (Source 1, paragraph 2), and it argues against the stereotype that "the Indian has always been a restless nomad" (Source 2, paragraph 5). His own wording is of its time ("Indians", "aborigines", "race", "the whites"); point this out without changing the quotations. The Park Service pages show how Native nations are part of the story today: the Effigy Mounds page says those mounds "were probably built by the ancestors of the Ho-Chunk and other Midwestern tribes" (Source 5, paragraph 1). The lesson critiques the explanations; it does not ask students to decide questions of tribal history.

   Quiz passage. Questions 11-14, 19 and 20 use Source 7, an invented economics scenario.

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

   2The invented Lakeside Ferry Company raised its one-way fare from $4.00 to $5.00 in April. Its manager posted this explanation for riders, in five numbered steps.

   3Step 1: "Our fuel cost rose from $2.80 a gallon in January to $3.50 a gallon in March."

   4Step 2: "In May, we added a second evening boat because riders asked for one."

   5Step 3: "Because our costs went up, we had to raise fares by 25% in April."

   6Step 4: "Fuel is about one-fifth of our total costs. Wages, insurance and repairs did not change this year."

   7Step 5: "Other ferry companies in the state have also raised their fares, so our fare increase was fair."

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas opens by saying that the Ohio works are famous "in part to their remarkable character but in a much greater degree" because of Squier and Davis's book (Source 1, paragraph 1). What job does this paragraph do in the sequence of his explanation?

   AIt shows why Ohio is the key case to explain BIt proves Squier and Davis found the builders CIt gives the dates when the works were built DIt states his Cherokee conclusion early

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas claims that "some at least of the typical works" were built by the ancestors of the Cherokees (Source 1, paragraph 3). What does "some at least" do to the claim?

   AIt makes the claim cover every Ohio mound BIt shows the claim has already been proved CIt limits how many works the claim covers DIt hides who built the remaining works

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas writes, "The discussion will be limited chiefly to the latter proposition" (Source 1, paragraph 3). Which proposition will get most of his space?

   AThat Indians built all the Ohio works BThat the Cherokee ancestors built some CThat Europeans first reached Ohio in 1500 DThat the Shawnees built every stone grave

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 1, Thomas writes, "Simple declaration on these points must suffice." What does this mean for the supporting details of this chapter?

   ASome points will be stated, not shown BEvery point will be proved with documents CThe chapter will avoid all historical evidence DThe reader must already agree with Thomas

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas writes that "there is no historical or other evidence that any other race or people than the Indians ever occupied this region" before Europeans arrived (Source 2, paragraph 2). What kind of reasoning is this?

   AReasoning from a long series of carved objects BReasoning from the lack of rival evidence CReasoning from a tribe's own traditions DReasoning from the shapes of earthworks

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas says his presumption "can be overcome only by showing that those mounds, or the specimens of art found in them [...] indicate an advancement in skill and knowledge entirely beyond that reached by the Indians" (Source 2, paragraph 3). What does this sentence add to his reasoning?

   AIt proves that the rival theory is true BIt admits that he has no evidence at all CIt names what would overturn his view DIt changes the question to Mexico

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas writes that if some tribes "used mounds, and in some cases built them, it will be a fair inference that all these structures are due to the same race until the contrary is proved" (Source 2, paragraph 4). What is the main risk in this reasoning?

   AIt moves from some known cases to all BIt ignores the tribes that used mounds CIt relies only on modern archaeology DIt assumes the mounds were never used

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Thomas says that "nine tenths of the tribes in the mound district had fixed seats" at the time of discovery (Source 2, paragraph 5). What is the main weakness of this detail as it appears here?

   AIt is a figure with no source shown for it BIt is about the wrong part of the country entirely CIt contradicts Thomas's own conclusion DIt comes from a Park Service web page

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Besides linking the Ohio builders to historic Indians, what second conclusion does Thomas draw from the series of pipes (Source 3, paragraph 5)?

   AThat the pipes were made in Europe BThat every single mound held at least one pipe CThat the Shawnees made the oldest pipes DThat the Ohio makers were not tied to Mexico

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Late in the chapter Thomas writes, "These data, though slender [...] furnish some ground for assuming that the two were one and the same people" (Source 3, paragraph 7). How does this sentence compare with his FOURTH step in Source 1?

    AIt is far more certain than the FOURTH step BIt drops the Cherokee claim altogether CIt shows the claim rests on thin evidence DIt proves the Tallegwi lived in Mexico

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 7, Step 2, says a second evening boat was added in May. What is the main sequencing problem with using it to explain the April fare increase?

    AIt comes after the event it is meant to explain BIt gives the wrong ticket price for the evening boat CIt is the same as the fuel cost in Step 1 DIt shows that riders wanted lower fares

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Fuel rose from $2.80 to $3.50 a gallon, a 25% increase, and Step 4 says fuel is "about one-fifth of our total costs." About how much did total costs rise, if nothing else changed?

    AAbout 25% BAbout 20% CAbout 10% DAbout 5%

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Step 5 says other companies also raised fares, "so our fare increase was fair." What is wrong with this step in an explanation of why fares rose?

    AIt gives numbers that do not add up BIt changes from a cause to a defense CIt puts the steps in the wrong order DIt repeats the fuel figures of Step 1

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which added detail would most strengthen the supporting details of Steps 1 and 3?

    AThe color of the new evening boat BFares charged by the other ferry companies CA quote from a rider about the fares DFuel prices for the months after March

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Thomas uses two reasoning moves in Source 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Name both, and judge which one is better justified.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare the sequence Thomas announces in Source 1 with the order of the evidence in Source 3. Does Source 3 follow the announced sequence? Cite paragraphs.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Use Sources 4 and 5 to judge Thomas's explanation. Which of his claims do the Park Service pages support, and which do they not address?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Answer the compelling question in one paragraph: "Who built the ancient earthworks of Ohio?" Audit Thomas's reasoning, sequencing and supporting details, giving one strength and one weakness for each.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Rewrite the Lakeside explanation (Source 7) so that its sequence and reasoning hold up. Use the figures in Steps 1 and 4 to state how much fuel alone raised total costs, as a percentage.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    The council asks the ferry manager for better supporting details. Name two details the manager should add, and explain which step each would support.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D4.5.9-12: 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.