← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Reasoning, Respect and Clarity is 78. The grade is held to 63, 30 above Reasoning. 63 / 100, held down by Reasoning
Signal
79 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
–
Not scored Viewing ↓
Reasoning
33 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 15% Claims 78% The ask 7%
Structure · 7 steps
Claims · 3
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 11 words Conservatives will take no lessons from these Liberals on tough-on-crime policies. Positioning Claims · 15 words After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%.1 Logical leap Logical leap Positioning · 6 words What did the Liberal government do? Positioning Claims · 59 words It brought bail, not jail for repeat violent offenders. It gutted mandatory minimums.2 Canadians want to give law enforcement officers the tools they need to catch the bad guys and put them behind bars. What they do not want to see is government overreach, adding surveillance on law-abiding Canadians. Conservatives support getting part 1 of Bill C-22 passed swiftly, The ask · 8 words but we need changes to protect Canadians’ privacy. No reason given Claims · 13 words Instead of listening, these Liberals are forcing this through with no further scrutiny—3
At a glance
Lost points for Positioning ×2 Logical leap ×2 No reason given Weak reasoning Of the 3 conclusions drawn, 2 rested on reasons that did not support them.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 79
2 of 5 deductions are Signal
Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “Conservatives will take no lessons from these Liberals on tough-on-crime policies.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “What did the Liberal government do?” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · no score
Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.
Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.
Reasoning · 33
3 of 5 deductions are Reasoning
Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%.” The 55% crime rise and the bail and sentencing changes are offered as grounds, but the rise under a government is treated as proof its policies caused it, with no link stated.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%.” The bail and mandatory-minimum changes are cited as grounds, but the link from those policies to the crime increase is asserted, not stated.
No reason given A conclusion stated with no reason given for it. What the tags mean → “but we need changes to protect Canadians’ privacy.” Nothing in the statement identifies any privacy problem with the bill; the point about forcing it through without scrutiny concerns process, not privacy.
Conclusions found · 3
Conclusion “Conservatives will take no lessons from these Liberals on tough-on-crime policies.”
Because “After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%.”
“It brought bail, not jail for repeat violent offenders.”
“It gutted mandatory minimums.”
Reason flawed The 55% crime rise and the bail and sentencing changes are offered as grounds, but the rise under a government is treated as proof its policies caused it, with no link stated.
Conclusion “After 10 years of these Liberals, violent crime in this country has gone up 55%.”
Because “It brought bail, not jail for repeat violent offenders.”
“It gutted mandatory minimums.”
Reason flawed The bail and mandatory-minimum changes are cited as grounds, but the link from those policies to the crime increase is asserted, not stated.
Conclusion “but we need changes to protect Canadians’ privacy.”
Because No reason given
No reason given Nothing in the statement identifies any privacy problem with the bill; the point about forcing it through without scrutiny concerns process, not privacy.
Respect · 100
0 of 5 deductions are Respect
Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.
Nothing lost points.
Clarity · 100
0 of 5 deductions are Clarity
Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.
Nothing lost points.
Claims · 3
This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.
1 “violent crime in this country has gone up 55%” Violent crime in Canada has increased 55% during the 10 years of Liberal government since 2015. search 2 “gutted mandatory minimums” The Liberal government repealed or reduced mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code. search 3 “forcing this through with no further scrutiny” The government is advancing the bill through the House without further committee scrutiny, such as by time allocation. search
