← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning and Clarity. Average 86 / 100
Signal
83 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Reasoning
75 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
–
Not scored Viewing ↓
Clarity
87 / 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.
Procedure 17% Claims 43% Reasoning 29% The ask 11%
Structure · 8 steps
Claims · 6
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 words I yield myself such time as I may consume. Procedure Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 21 words I rise in support of H.R. 2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, led by Representatives Carter and Higgins of Louisiana.1 Procedure Claims · 78 words This bill would provide the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to require importers to destroy products that pose a significant public health concern, preventing them from being shipped to another port of entry.2 These products have, in fact, included food contaminated with salmonella, listeria, 3 Unearned certainty and carcinogenic unapproved animal drugs, 4 as well as misbranded medical devices.5 It also includes illegal e-cigarette products that are flooding the market from places like China.6 These are dangerous products, Mr. Speaker. Reasoning · 53 words Providing the FDA with the authority to compel destruction and requiring the importer to pay for such destruction will provide a strong disincentive to those seeking to prioritize profits over product safety. Logical leap We need to make sure Americans are not unwittingly exposed to harmful products, and this authority is going to prevent that. Logical leap Unearned certainty Mr. Speaker, The ask · 19 words I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes’’ on H.R. 2715, and I reserve the balance of my time.
At a glance
Lost points for Procedure ×3 Unearned certainty ×2 Logical leap ×2
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 83
3 of 7 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.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I yield myself such time as I may consume.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I rise in support of H.R.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, led by Representatives Carter and Higgins of Louisiana.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 100
0 of 7 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 bill under debate.
Nothing lost points.
Reasoning · 75
2 of 7 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 → “Providing the FDA with the authority to compel destruction and requiring the importer to pay for such destruction will provide a strong disincentive to those seeking to prioritize profits over product safety.” c12 asserts deterrence from the payment requirement itself, a predicted effect with no supporting reason given.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “and this authority is going to prevent that.” c14 asserts prevention as a consequence of the authority without a supporting reason tying destruction power to prevention.
Conclusions found · 4
Conclusion “Providing the FDA with the authority to compel destruction and requiring the importer to pay for such destruction will provide a strong disincentive to those seeking to prioritize profits over product safety.”
Because No reason given
Conclusion “We need to make sure Americans are not unwittingly exposed to harmful products,”
Because “These products have, in fact, included food contaminated with salmonella, listeria,”
“and carcinogenic unapproved animal drugs,”
“as well as misbranded medical devices.”
Conclusion “and this authority is going to prevent that.”
Because No reason given
Conclusion “I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes’’ on H.R.”
Because “This bill would provide the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to require importers to destroy products that pose a significant public health concern, preventing them from being shipped to another port of entry.”
“These products have, in fact, included food contaminated with salmonella, listeria,”
“and carcinogenic unapproved animal drugs,”
“as well as misbranded medical devices.”
“Providing the FDA with the authority to compel destruction and requiring the importer to pay for such destruction will provide a strong disincentive to those seeking to prioritize profits over product safety.”
“We need to make sure Americans are not unwittingly exposed to harmful products,”
Respect · no score
Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.
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.
Clarity · 87
2 of 7 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.
Unearned certainty Something stated as certain with nothing to back it. What the tags mean → “in fact” The phrase asserts the claim as established fact without citing a source or report.
Unearned certainty Something stated as certain with nothing to back it. What the tags mean → “is going to prevent that” Certainty about future prevention is asserted with no source, measure, or condition offered.
Claims · 6
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 “2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, led by Representatives Carter and Higgins of Louisiana.” H.R. 2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act, is led by Representatives Carter and Higgins of Louisiana. search 2 “This bill would provide the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to require importers to destroy products that pose a significant public health concern, preventing them from being shipped to another port of entry” H.R. 2715 would give the FDA authority to require importers to destroy products that pose a significant public health concern, preventing them from being shipped to another port of entry. search 3 “These products have, in fact, included food contaminated with salmonella, listeria,” Products refused by the FDA have included food contaminated with salmonella and listeria. search 4 “and carcinogenic unapproved animal drugs,” Products refused by the FDA have included carcinogenic unapproved animal drugs. search 5 “as well as misbranded medical devices” Products refused by the FDA have included misbranded medical devices. search 6 “It also includes illegal e-cigarette products that are flooding the market from places like China” Products refused by the FDA also include illegal e-cigarette products from China. search
