Skills

Economic Argument Construction and Defence

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Construct a structured written argument (minimum 1,000 words) on a contested economic question — a real policy debate or empirical dispute, not a textbook exercise. State your position, defend it with evidence, and acknowledge the strongest counterargument. The argument alone is not sufficient proof. Proof requires a documented adversarial exchange: an economist or economics academic poses at least three substantive challenges to your reasoning or evidence; your responses to each challenge are recorded and submitted alongside the original argument. The exchange is a required part of the proof for this outcome.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Construct a formal economic argument on a contested policy question

4 weeks

Select a real contested economic policy question — minimum wage effects on employment, immigration's impact on local wages, carbon pricing versus cap-and-trade, industrial policy versus free trade — and construct a formal economic argument. The argument must: state a specific position, ground it in economic theory (specify the model or mechanism), cite real empirical evidence (not just 'studies show'), anticipate the most important counter-argument, and explain why your position holds despite it.

Proof required

Economic argument document (700+ words) covering: a specific position, the theoretical mechanism, at least two empirical studies cited with their specific findings, the strongest counter-argument, and your response explaining why the position holds.

What gets checked

Position is specific enough to be falsified by evidence — not 'it's complex and depends on context'
Theoretical mechanism is named specifically — not 'supply and demand'
Two empirical studies are cited with their specific findings, not just title and year

Common mistakes

Selecting a question where there is empirical consensus and calling it 'contested' — the challenge is defending a position where reasonable economists genuinely disagree
Treating theory and evidence as substitutes — a pure theory argument without empirical evidence, or empirical evidence without theoretical grounding, is incomplete
Choosing a weak counter-argument — the counter-argument must be the strongest available case against the position

Powstik Guide

A 700-word economic argument on a contested question.

Steps

Take one clear position.
Explain the mechanism behind it.
Cite two or more studies.
Answer the strongest objection.

Template

Position:
Mechanism:
Evidence (2+ studies):
Strongest objection and reply:

What gets sent back

Under 700 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify the cited studies are real — request the citations and check they say what the argument claims
Review the theoretical mechanism — confirm it is named and explained specifically, not gestured at
Check the counter-argument — confirm it is the strongest available case against the position

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Engage with real empirical debate and address dissenting evidence

3 weeks

Extend the M1 argument by engaging directly with empirical dissent: identify the most important published evidence against your position, explain why it does not overturn your argument (it addresses a different time period, a different labour market context, uses a flawed identification strategy), or concede a boundary condition (your argument holds under condition X but not condition Y). The argument must become stronger by engaging with the dissent, not just dismissing it.

Proof required

Extended argument document (400+ words) identifying at least two empirical papers that support the counter-position with their specific findings, and providing a specific response to each — either methodological critique, scope limitation, or conditional concession.

What gets checked

Two dissenting papers are identified with their specific findings — not vaguely described
Each response is specific to the paper's methodology, scope, or findings — not a generic dismissal
At least one conditional concession is made where the dissenting evidence is genuinely compelling

Common mistakes

Summarising dissenting evidence without engaging with its specific claims — 'some studies find different results' is not an argument response
Methodological dismissal of every dissenting paper — genuine empirical debates have papers with strong methodology on both sides
Not making any concessions — unconditional positions in contested empirical economics debates signal unfamiliarity with the literature

Powstik Guide

Your argument, tested against the best opposing studies.

Steps

Search for strong papers against your position.
Pick the two with the best methods.
State each finding fairly in one or two sentences.
Respond with a critique, a scope limit or a concession.

Template

| Paper | Finding against me | My response type | Response |
|-------|--------------------|------------------|----------|
Response types: method critique / scope limit / conditional concession
Concession I'm making:

What gets sent back

'Some studies disagree' with no specifics.
Every opposing paper dismissed on method.
No concession at all.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check dissenting papers are real and the findings described match the papers — verify at least one citation
Review responses to dissenting evidence — confirm at least one is a conditional concession rather than a dismissal
Confirm at least one response engages with the specific methodology of the dissenting paper

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend argument under adversarial challenge from an economist

1 week

Present the full argument to an economist or economics academic for a structured adversarial debate. The reviewer must introduce novel evidence or scenarios mid-discussion — 'there's a 2023 paper by X that directly contradicts your key citation — how do you respond?', 'what if this policy were applied in a country with much lower labour mobility — does your mechanism still hold?'. Document the challenges and your real-time responses. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's economics background, at least three specific challenges to the argument (including at least one novel evidence or scenario challenge), your responses, and any position updates or concessions made.

What gets checked

Reviewer is an economist or economics academic with familiarity with the policy area
At least one challenge introduces novel evidence or a novel scenario not in the original argument
At least one position update or concession is documented — not zero changes from a genuine adversarial debate

Common mistakes

Choosing a reviewer who confirms the argument without introducing a challenge — the debate must include genuine pushback, not validation
Not making any updates after the Q&A — in a genuinely contested economic policy debate, a good-faith adversarial challenge almost always requires some response
Not being able to engage with novel evidence in real time — this is what shows the work is your own

Powstik Guide

A live debate with an economist, including new evidence.

Steps

Summarise your argument in one paragraph.
Ask the reviewer to bring evidence you haven't seen.
Answer, then say what it would take to change your view.
Log the session and any concession made.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (new evidence or a scenario):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who only confirms your view.
No new-evidence challenge.
No update or concession after the debate.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm the reviewer is an economist or economics academic with familiarity with the policy area
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least one challenge introduces novel evidence or a scenario not in the original argument
Check that at least one position update or concession is documented

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Economics Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Construct a formal economic argument on a contested policy question

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Position is specific enough to be falsified by evidence — not 'it's complex and depends on context'
Theoretical mechanism is named specifically — not 'supply and demand'
Two empirical studies are cited with their specific findings, not just title and year

Common mistakes

Selecting a question where there is empirical consensus and calling it 'contested' — the challenge is defending a position where reasonable economists genuinely disagree
Treating theory and evidence as substitutes — a pure theory argument without empirical evidence, or empirical evidence without theoretical grounding, is incomplete
Choosing a weak counter-argument — the counter-argument must be the strongest available case against the position

Powstik Guide

A 700-word economic argument on a contested question.

Steps

Take one clear position.
Explain the mechanism behind it.
Cite two or more studies.
Answer the strongest objection.

Template

Position:
Mechanism:
Evidence (2+ studies):
Strongest objection and reply:

What gets sent back

Under 700 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify the cited studies are real — request the citations and check they say what the argument claims
Review the theoretical mechanism — confirm it is named and explained specifically, not gestured at
Check the counter-argument — confirm it is the strongest available case against the position

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Engage with real empirical debate and address dissenting evidence

3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Two dissenting papers are identified with their specific findings — not vaguely described
Each response is specific to the paper's methodology, scope, or findings — not a generic dismissal
At least one conditional concession is made where the dissenting evidence is genuinely compelling

Common mistakes

Summarising dissenting evidence without engaging with its specific claims — 'some studies find different results' is not an argument response
Methodological dismissal of every dissenting paper — genuine empirical debates have papers with strong methodology on both sides
Not making any concessions — unconditional positions in contested empirical economics debates signal unfamiliarity with the literature

Powstik Guide

Your argument, tested against the best opposing studies.

Steps

Search for strong papers against your position.
Pick the two with the best methods.
State each finding fairly in one or two sentences.
Respond with a critique, a scope limit or a concession.

Template

| Paper | Finding against me | My response type | Response |
|-------|--------------------|------------------|----------|
Response types: method critique / scope limit / conditional concession
Concession I'm making:

What gets sent back

'Some studies disagree' with no specifics.
Every opposing paper dismissed on method.
No concession at all.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check dissenting papers are real and the findings described match the papers — verify at least one citation
Review responses to dissenting evidence — confirm at least one is a conditional concession rather than a dismissal
Confirm at least one response engages with the specific methodology of the dissenting paper

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend argument under adversarial challenge from an economist

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer is an economist or economics academic with familiarity with the policy area
At least one challenge introduces novel evidence or a novel scenario not in the original argument
At least one position update or concession is documented — not zero changes from a genuine adversarial debate

Common mistakes

Choosing a reviewer who confirms the argument without introducing a challenge — the debate must include genuine pushback, not validation
Not making any updates after the Q&A — in a genuinely contested economic policy debate, a good-faith adversarial challenge almost always requires some response
Not being able to engage with novel evidence in real time — this is what shows the work is your own

Powstik Guide

A live debate with an economist, including new evidence.

Steps

Summarise your argument in one paragraph.
Ask the reviewer to bring evidence you haven't seen.
Answer, then say what it would take to change your view.
Log the session and any concession made.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (new evidence or a scenario):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who only confirms your view.
No new-evidence challenge.
No update or concession after the debate.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm the reviewer is an economist or economics academic with familiarity with the policy area
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least one challenge introduces novel evidence or a scenario not in the original argument
Check that at least one position update or concession is documented

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.