Students were asked to find a science question, answer the question, and then write an argument where the answer to the question is the conclusion to the argument. This was in preparation to write an argumentative paper. Here are some examples where students often have the right idea, but don't formulate the argument properly. The biggest problem is that they haven't made the answer to the question the conclusion of the argument. Notice how the correct formulation of the argument will require the student to understand scientific principles. The main argument, however, is as simple as possible and the scientific principles will be used as support when actually writing the paper.
Another very important thing to notice is that the arguments should move from observational premises to premises based on scientific principles. In the first example, for instance, the student proposed a premise: "There is a lightning strike", while I proposed "Lightning causes compression waves." The student premise is an observation, mine is a concept or scientific principle that can be further supported. Arguments based on observational premises are often a good starting point, but when writing papers the arguments should be based on premises that are scientifically significant. This usually means that the premises should be based on scientific data or scientific principles.
Another way of looking at it is to remember that we, acting like scientists, are trying to explain the world around us. That means that the observation about the world around us should be the conclusion to the argument and that scientific data from experiments and scientific principles should be used to understand that observation.
P1 If there is a lightning storm then thunder will also be created.
P2 There is a lightning storm.
C Therefore, thunder will also be created.
It looks like the answer to your question is "Lightning storms cause thunder." That should be the conclusion to the argument. I, however, am wondering what it is about lightning storms that cause thunder. It is that more fundamental idea that you should be using in the argument. This is just an example, but an argument could be:
P1 If lightning creates compression waves, then lightning storms cause thunder.
P2 Lightning causes compression waves.
C Therefore, lightning storms cause thunder.
You would then need to connect compression waves with thunder (support the first premise) and support the statement that lightning causes compression waves (support P2).
P1 If the sun shines directly on the center of earth’s surface and the equator is the center of earth’s surface, then the temperature on the equator is higher than north or south of the equator.
P2 The sun shines directly on the center of earth’s surface and the equator is in the center of earth’s surface.
C Therefore, the temperature on the equator is higher than north or south of the equator.
The question and answer seem to be the same statement. The conclusion should be the answer to the question. Your conclusion suggests that the question is something like "Where is it the warmest on earth?" For that question, your argument might be something like:
P1 If the sun shines most directly on the equator, then the equator is the warmest part of the earth.
P2 The sun shines most directly at the equator.
C Therefore, the equator is the warmest part of the earth.
Now your task is to support the idea that shining directly on something makes it the warmest (support the first premise) and to support the statement that the sun shines most directly at the equator (support the second premise).
P1 If on average every 250,000 years Earth’s magnetic poles reverse, then 250,000 years from the last time the poles reversed they will reverse again.
P2 It has been 780,000 years since the last reversal.
C Therefore Earth’s poles are going to reverse.
Your second premise doesn't affirm "A" in the first premise. Also note that there are some logical problems. For example, an occurance doesn't always take place right on the average time. But, to move on, the answer to your question seems to be "We are in for another reversal of the Earth's poles." That should be the conclusion to your paper. Your argument could be:
P1 If, on average, every 250,000 years the Earth's magnetic poles reverse, then we are in for another reversal of the Earth's poles.
P2 On average, every 250,000 years the Earth's magnetic poles reverse.
C Therefore, we are in for another reversal of the Earth's poles.
You would then need to support P1 (we are over that time) and P2 (support that they have, on average, changed every 250,000 years). Support for both of these premises should be found in articles by experts in the field.
P1 If clouds appear different colors later in the day then the sunlight has to travel through more atmosphere to reach the earth.
P2 Clouds appear different colors later in the day.
C Therefore, the sunlight has to travel through more atmosphere to reach the earth.
It looks like the answer to your question is "Light traveling through more atmosphere changes the color of clouds later in the day." That should be the conclusion to the argument. The argument could be:
P1 If the amount of atmosphere light travels through can change the color of clouds, then light traveling through more atmosphere changes the color of clouds later in the day.
P2 The amount of atmosphere light travels through can change the color of clouds.
C Therefore, light traveling through more atmosphere changes the color of clouds later in the day.
You would then need to support the first premise showing the connection between the amount of atmosphere light travels through and the time of day. You would also need to support the second premise by explaining how more atmosphere changes the color of clouds.