Group+8


 * Group 8**

Group Participants
 * Kwan Fook Seng
 * Dharma
 * Victor
 * Florence


 * Original Lesson Title**

Analysis and evaluation skills: Paper 2 long passage practice

SIO: To let students practice paper 2 skills on a given long passage using ICT tool on argumentative writing
 * Original Lesson Description / Plan**

__Introduction__ - Expectations & Objectives of lessons - Students are introduced to the KI wiki and put into groups.
 * __Lesson Plan__**

__Lesson Development__ - Passage for analysis will be given to the groups - Use one of the ICT tools (eg. argmentative.sourceforge.net, bubbl.us, cmap etc) to reconstruct the argument [Analysis of argument] - The different groups will give input and learn from the argument trees that the other groups have generated. - They then revise their argument tree accordingly. - From their argument trees, students then attempt to evaluate the argments and present a critical response to the passage.


 * Research**

John Butterworth (Critical thinking workshop)

ICT tool: [|argumentative.sourceforge.net] or []


 * New lesson incorporating ICT**

//Justifying Strict Liability for Athletes Who Test Postive for Performance Enhancing Drugs// In most cases, under the law, there must be some evidence of intent before a person can be found guilty of an offence. The legal term for this is mens rea (guilty mind). For example, being caught in possession of, say, a mobile phone that belongs to someone else is not sufficient to convict a person of theft: There has to be evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner of his rightful property. Otherwise a person might be convicted for a crime when he or she had come by an item innocently, or had simply borrowed it with the genuine intention of returning it. It matters how and why a person is in possession of something, not just whether he is.
 * Content**

Not so with all offences, nor all disciplinary procedures. In some cases a ‘strict liability’ obtains – and rightly so. Suppose an athlete is tested for performance enhancing drugs and found to have a banned substance in his or her body. It is no defence to provide evidence that it was unwitting – for example, that it had been prescribed by a doctor for legitimate medical reason, and swallowed in ignorance or taken by accident. Andreea Raducan was only 16 when she won a gold medal at the 2000 Olympics Games. The Romanian gymnast was stripped of her title for taking pseudo-ephedrine. The drug was part of a cold cure given to her by her team doctor. What made the punishment even harder to accept was that only three years later the rule was changed: pseudo-ephedrine was removed from the banned list by the newly created World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to which responsibility for drug-testing was devolved from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). A similar feeling of outrage no doubt affected Inger Miller, the US sprinter who was stripped of her bronze in the 1999 World Indoor Athletics Championships for taking caffeine, a drug that was rehabilitated at the same time as pseudo-ephedrine. Athletes can take these drugs now with impunity. Tough luck, you might think, but rules are rules. And these athletes fell foul of rules that were in force at the time, no matter what was decided later.

Unfair as this may seem on those who make an innocent error, the application of strict liability is entirely justified by the need to ensure that all athletes start out on level terms. It would rarely, if ever, be possible to prove that an athlete had taken a substance with intent to improve performance. Mitigating circumstances would be all too easy to invent, and all too hard to disprove. Almost every appeal against a ban would be likely to succeed, and few if any athletes would ever be justly punished for cheating. Besides, an advantage is an advantage, however it is obtained.


 * Assessment**

Critically evaluate the arguments in the passage and explain why you agree or disagree with the conclusion(s). [|argumentative.sourceforge.net]


 * Copyright**


 * Other comments**