Title: 6SA example assessment

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#1 Introduction
1. The introduction clearly states the topic of the argument. Can you answer: What is the argument about?
2. The introduction attracts the reader’s attention in the context of the case. Can you answer, assuming the role of the recipient in the case: Why should I read this?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled (This sentence clearly gives the topic of the argument, and also attracts the reader's attention.)
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled (This sentence clearly gives the topic of the argument, and also attracts the reader's attention. So it deserves 2, and not only one point.)
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled (correct) (This sentence clearly gives the topic of the argument, and also attracts the reader's attention.)

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#2 Position
1. The position fits the argument’s introduction (#1). Is this a position that applies to the decision situation established in the introduction (#1)?
2. The position explicitly identifies the actors and objects in the context of the case. Is it clear who is supposed to do what?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled (The position does fit the decision situation that is established in the introduction. So it deserves more than 0 points.)
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled (correct)
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled (The sentence fits the argument, but it remains unclear who exactly is supposed to do what.)
Feedback (0 to 30%): keep practising
Feedback (31 to 70%): average assessment
Feedback (71 to 100%): good job!

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#3 Reason
1. The reason explains why the position (#2) is a good choice. Do you understand why someone might take this position?
2. The reason is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept this reason? If not, why not?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled (correct)
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#4 Challenge

1. The challenge articulates one point of criticism concerning the reason (#3). Does the anticipated criticism really apply to the supportive reason?
2. The challenge identifies a central weakness of the reason that is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept this as a central point of criticism? If not, which other, more important challenge would you suggest?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled (correct)

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#5 Rebuttal
1. The rebuttal states a response that refutes or qualifies the challenge (#4). Does the rebuttal apply to the challenge?
2. The rebuttal is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept the rebuttal as sufficient to dismiss the criticism (#4)? If not, why not?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled (correct)
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled

Q: 6SA example

#1: NGOs are asking from our company to stop cooperating with Wilmar due to their unsustainable actions in Nigerian forests. #2: Terminating our contract with Wilmar will prove that our company is a global sustainability leader and will benefit us eventually. #3: History has shown (Palm Oil example) that such radical actions make NGOs side with us and favor us against competitors. #4: Opponents may support that Wilmar has already tried to change its methods and promised to end any potential deforestation. #5: However, Wilmar’s expansion in the Nigerian forests accelerates deforestation and thus proves that their words were just empty promises. #6: Therefore, it is in our best interests to stop cooperating with Wilmar and side with other more credible suppliers.

#6 Conclusion
1. Summarizes the argument on the basis of previously presented information (#1–#5). Does the conclusion avoid introducing new arguments or information?
2. The conclusion reinforces the position and emphasizes its relevance in the context of the case. Do you feel that the conclusion motivates you to follow the author’s advice?
- 0 points: I cannot answer with YES on the first question, hence the first criterion is NOT fulfilled
- 1 point: I can answer with YES on the first question, and with NO on the second question, hence only the first criterion is fulfilled
- 2 points: I can answer with YES on the first and the second question, hence both criteria are fulfilled (correct)