Construct evidence-based scientific arguments — AC9S9I07

• Construct claim–evidence–reasoning arguments using more than one relevant source where appropriate.
• Weight evidence by quality, relevance and consistency.
• Address limitations or conflicting evidence rather than hiding it.
• Access, use and cite secondary data ethically, including relevant cultural permissions/protocols.

Recall data analysis, source evaluation, validity, uncertainty and the difference between a claim and evidence.

A scientific argument is not a debate opinion. It includes a specific claim, relevant evidence and reasoning that explains why that evidence supports the claim. Strong arguments also acknowledge uncertainty and evidence that does not fit perfectly.

Secondary data must be traceable. Cite the original source where possible and check who collected the data, how, when and for what purpose. Ethical use includes permissions, privacy, attribution and—where culturally governed knowledge or data are involved—appropriate community protocols. Publicly visible does not always mean ethically unrestricted.

• An argument is just a confident claim. It requires evidence and reasoning.
• More sources always mean stronger evidence. Relevance and quality matter.
• Conflicting evidence should be omitted. It should be examined and weighed.
• Anything online can be reused freely. Attribution, permissions, privacy and cultural protocols may apply.

1. Label claim, evidence and reasoning in a short paragraph.
2. Replace an irrelevant piece of evidence with a relevant one.
3. Add one limitation to an overconfident argument.
4. Trace a secondary graph to an original source and list citation details needed.

1. Write a claim supported by a supplied dataset.
2. Select the two strongest evidence items from four and justify.
3. Add reasoning that links evidence to the science concept.
4. Address one piece of conflicting evidence.
5. Explain why source provenance matters.
6. Describe an ethical/cultural protocol that could affect whether secondary data may be reused.

Three sources address the same claim: a large government dataset, a small school investigation and a social-media infographic with no source. Build an evidence hierarchy, explain how each can or cannot contribute, and state the strongest claim justified by the combined evidence.

1. What makes a scientific argument? A claim supported by relevant evidence and scientific reasoning.
2. How should evidence be weighted? By relevance, quality, method, consistency and uncertainty—not source count alone.
3. Why cite secondary data? To preserve provenance, allow checking and acknowledge the work/data source.
4. Why consider cultural protocols? Some knowledge/data are governed by permissions and responsibilities beyond ordinary citation.

1. Construct a claim–evidence–reasoning response from a supplied dataset.
   The reasoning must explain the scientific connection, not repeat the numbers.
2. Evaluate three sources and decide which should carry most weight.
   Use method/provenance/relevance rather than authority labels alone.
3. Revise an argument to incorporate conflicting evidence and ethical secondary-data use.
   Acknowledge uncertainty and cite/permission requirements explicitly.

• I can build CER arguments.
• I weight evidence quality.
• I address conflicts/limits.
• I use secondary data responsibly.

Exit ticket: What is missing from “The graph rises, therefore my hypothesis is correct”?

Australian Curriculum v9.0 — AC9S9I07: evidence-based arguments plus ethical/cultural considerations for secondary data.

Victoria Levels 9–10 — VC2S10I07: Exact.

NSW Stage 5 — SC5-WS-08 + SC5-DA2-01: Exact/Partial scientific arguments/evidence and legitimacy of claims strongly align; AC cultural-protocol detail remains explicit in this lesson rather than being falsely attributed to an identical NSW outcome.

• AC9S9I06 evidence quality
• AC9S9I08 communication

• Australian Curriculum v9.0
• Victorian Curriculum F–10 Version 2.0
• NSW Science 7–10 Syllabus (2023)

Curriculum equivalents for Construct arguments based on analysis of a variety of evidence...

Mapped skill: construct arguments based on analysis of a variety of evidence to support conclusions or evaluate claims, and consider any ethical issues and cultural protocols associated with accessing, using or citing secondary data or information

These references identify matching or closely related learning. Curriculum sequence, terminology and depth vary, so teachers should use the mapped skill and lesson difficulty to confirm suitability.

Australian Curriculum v9.0 is the canonical source for this SkillrHub lesson. Victoria and NSW entries name the closest published state codes or outcomes; international entries are planning references rather than claims of identical curricula.