A small group noted that MAF had possibly got its facts wrong because, while it said the spray does not harm people, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service said some people may be affected by the spray.

Responding to information on a personal level – All students used their personal responses to information to help them evaluate.All students who believed spraying was not safe noted the illnesses suffered by Shaun and his family as evidence. The students connected with his argument on a personal level, with many commenting that they felt sorry for him and his family.

All students who believed spraying was not safe noted the information Hana Blackmore presented about the illnesses she believes can be attributed to the spraying. The information prompted a very personal response from many. For example, one student commented, "I get asthma, so I know they must have been feeling pretty scared".

Most students reacted negatively to Jessie's final statement, "some people think they're sick, and they get it in their mind, and then make themselves sick". It appears they were offended on behalf of Shaun's family, for example, one student wrote, "how can she say that when Shaun's brother has been to the doctor's so much?"

Using prior knowledge – Most trial students used their knowledge about the world and their life experiences to help them evaluate. However, the extent to which they did this was variable.For example, many commented on wider health, environmental, or economic issues, using words like "long term", "ecosystem",  "exports" and "incomes".

b) What evidence did the students neglect when evaluating?

Using manipulative language

No trial students used manipulative language to help them evaluate (i.e., evaluate an argument as one they did not support).The following examples describe techniques used by the authors to manipulate their readers into agreeing with them. ^[1]

Connecting with the reader by using emotive language

No trial students noted Hana's use of personal pronouns to make a connection with her readers. For example, "we're experiencing", "but we do know", and "our forestry and bush". In contrast, MAF are referred to as "they", signalling that they are somehow apart from writer and reader. The students were unaware that the purpose of this technique is to include a particular group, in this case the reader, while excluding another, in this case MAF.

Attempting to discredit an argument by using emotive language

Although many trial students appeared to find Jessie's statement about people imagining their illnesses offensive, none were explicitly aware of its purpose of discrediting an opposing argument to the point of ridicule, and so encouraging the reader to support the writer. For example, one wrote, "Jessie was quite mean. If I was Shaun's family I'd get upset about what she said", but made no comment about why Jessie might have used that particular technique.

Making  points that appear convincing

No trial students noted Hana Blackmore's use of rhetorical questions to influence her readers. Rhetorical questions are not true questions because the author does not expect them to be answered. Instead, they are used to emphasise a point. For example, when she writes, "Benzoic acid is classified as safe to eat – but is it safe to breathe in?" and, "MAF say that PAM is a huge threat to our forestry and bush, but how do they know? What testing has been done?", Hana implies the answers, "no", "they don't", and "none in New Zealand" respectively, without actually presenting an argument. No students were aware that this is a technique used when a writer wishes to make a point but doesn't wish, or isn't able, to back it up with a reasoned argument.

Presenting one's self as an expert

No trial students noted the modal choices made by Hana to give her argument authority. For example, "have never, ever been experienced anywhere else in the world", uses exceptionally high modality through the use of two consecutive modal adverbs. No students were aware that this is a technique used when a writer wishes to present themselves as an expert but doesn't wish, or isn't able, to display their expertise through a reasoned argument.

^[1] While the student writer mentioned (Jessie) was unlikely to have been consciously manipulating her readers, she nonetheless used a manipulative technique.

Summary

While the trial students were able to use factual information and their prior knowledge to make evaluations, the trial data showed a concerning lack of student understanding that writers manipulate their readers, and of the particular tools used. This is concerning for two main reasons:

1. If students do not understand that writers manipulate their readers, they will be more likely to accept the writer's word at face value. This will result  in readers being dominated by the writer's opinions, and so being largely passive and uncritical as they read.
2. If students do not recognise the tools writers use to manipulate readers they will be likely to think they are appropriate to transactional writing, and use them in their own work. This will result in students producing texts that are not written in the measured and subtle tone expected of this form of writing.