← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning, Respect and Clarity. Reasoning rests on 2 conclusions, too few to hold the grade down. Average 75 / 100
Signal
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
47 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Reasoning
27 / 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.
Reasoning 54% Claims 46%
Structure · 4 steps
Claims · 0
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Reasoning · 9 words we need to respect the rights of first nations. No reason given Claims · 25 words We need to ensure that first nations have a government that will have their back and will not constantly appeal and fight them in court, No reason given Reasoning · 20 words so they can get the clean water they deeply deserve. It is about partnership and about ensuring accountability as well. Partly on point
At a glance
Lost points for Partly on point ×4 No reason given ×2 Didn't answer None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 100
0 of 6 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.
Nothing lost points.
Relevance · 47
4 of 6 deductions are Relevance
Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member, and the bill under debate.
Partly on point Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about. What the tags mean → “we need to respect the rights of first nations.” A general call to respect first nations’ rights that does not address the accountability mechanism asked about.
Partly on point Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about. What the tags mean → “We need to ensure that first nations have a government that will have their back and will not constantly appeal and fight them in court,” On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
Partly on point Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about. What the tags mean → “so they can get the clean water they deeply deserve.” Returns to the bill’s clean water aim without addressing how government would be held accountable.
Partly on point Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about. What the tags mean → “It is about partnership and about ensuring accountability as well.” States the themes of partnership and accountability without saying how accountability would be enforced in Parliament.
Reasoning · 27
2 of 6 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.
No reason given A conclusion stated with no reason given for it. What the tags mean → “we need to respect the rights of first nations.” This stands as a stated duty with no supporting ground offered anywhere in the statement.
No reason given A conclusion stated with no reason given for it. What the tags mean → “We need to ensure that first nations have a government that will have their back and will not constantly appeal and fight them in court,” The call to stop fighting first nations in court rests only on the stated need in the previous clause, which is a parallel value rather than a ground.
Conclusions found · 2
Conclusion “we need to respect the rights of first nations.”
Because No reason given
No reason given This stands as a stated duty with no supporting ground offered anywhere in the statement.
Conclusion “We need to ensure that first nations have a government that will have their back and will not constantly appeal and fight them in court,”
Because No reason given
No reason given The call to stop fighting first nations in court rests only on the stated need in the previous clause, which is a parallel value rather than a ground.
Respect · 100
0 of 6 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 6 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 · 0
This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.
No checkable claims.
