Susan
— opening plan
Point 1: Progressive taxation aligns with the society that enables wealth. High earners benefit from a stable economy with good infrastructure, rule of law, and educated workforces—public investments paid for by taxes.
Point 2: Economic research shows progressive tax systems can stimulate economic growth. It ensures more consistent funding for public services like healthcare and education, which are crucial for long-term economic stability.
Expected Counterargument 1: Higher taxes on the wealthy reduce incentives to invest and innovate.
Response: Empirical evidence from countries with robust social safety nets and higher tax rates shows strong investment in R&D and job creation. Top earners reinvest in their own economies through philanthropy and business activity.
Expected Counterargument 2: Wealthy individuals can easily avoid or evade taxes, reducing the effectiveness of progressive taxation.
Response: While some avoidance happens, broader economic benefits still outweigh these losses. Strengthening tax systems with transparent measures will catch the vast majority who make honest contributions.
Marcus
— opening plan
## My Plan:
**Strong Points:**
1. **Incentives**: A progressive system punishes success, disincentivizing hard work and innovation. Flat tax encourages risk-taking, leading to economic growth that benefits everyone.
2. **Economic Efficiency**: By keeping more of their earnings, individuals are better positioned to invest, create jobs, and drive the economy forward.
3. **Equal Treatment Under the Law**: Everyone contributes to society, regardless of income. A flat tax ensures fairness by applying the same rules to all citizens.
**Counterarguments:**
* **Addressing Inequality**: I'll argue that focusing on policies that reduce barriers to success (education, opportunity) is more effective than redistributing wealth.
* **Funding Essential Services**: I'll emphasize that a booming economy driven by a flat tax will actually generate more revenue for essential services in the long run.
Let the debate begin!
Susan
— thinks
I will lead with the point that progressive taxation ensures fairness and social responsibility. The wealthy benefit significantly more from societal infrastructure and services, so it's only equitable they contribute a larger share. This approach supports vital public services that create the conditions for everyone's success.
Susan
The wealthy should pay a higher rate of tax because their success is built on the foundations we all share—infrastructure, education systems, and rule of law. These are paid for with taxes. It's only fair they contribute more. We need these resources to support everyone, not just the lucky few.
Richard
— thinks
I find Susan's argument to be quite coherent in its logic, but I also see it leaning heavily on the idea of a social contract—a mutual agreement among citizens that everyone benefits from common services and infrastructure. Her core claim is grounded in the principle of reciprocity: that those who benefit more should contribute more. This aligns with my understanding of how progressive taxation is often justified.
Her mention of foundational resources like infrastructure, education systems, and rule of law is well-received evidence supporting her stance. Infrastructure projects such as roads, public utilities, and transport networks all require funding which comes largely from tax revenues. Similarly, a strong educational system contributes significantly to an economy by producing skilled workers and fostering innovation. These services benefit not just the wealthy, but every citizen who uses them, so her assertion that wealth should contribute more is on solid footing.
However, Susan's argument could potentially be strengthened with some real-world examples or statistical data showing how these infrastructure and public services are utilized disproportionately by high-income individuals compared to their fair share of taxation. Without such evidence, it relies more on an assumption rather than a proven connection between the benefits received and the need for higher tax contributions.
The rhetoric is effective in painting a picture of fairness and societal responsibility. It appeals to shared values and the idea that everyone has benefited from their respective government's services, including those who are wealthier. This is particularly persuasive in a context where social inequality is becoming more apparent.
Yet, I must also note some weaknesses. For instance, Susan doesn't address how other global nations with similar levels of infrastructure spend their tax revenues or if there might be a point at which higher taxes for the wealthy could stifle economic growth and innovation—in essence, arguing that too high a marginal rate could reduce the very resources she's advocating are necessary.
In conclusion, I find her premises reasonable and her argument incoherent only to an extent. Her evidence and logic are well-settled on paper but can be more robust with additional support. The rhetorical appeal is strong and convincing for many audiences who value equity and fairness.
Richard
→
Susan
7/10
The argument is coherent and well-reasoned, supported by a solid rationale for progressive taxation, but lacks specific evidence linking tax contributions directly to benefit usage.
Marcus
— thinks
That was a typical appeal to emotion and sentimentality, framing the wealthy as somehow undeserving of their success and overlooking individual responsibility. They correctly point out that public goods are funded by taxes, but they assume the current system efficiently provides them.
An audience easily swayed by such rhetoric might agree – the argument feels equitable on its surface. My response needs to:
1. **Acknowledge the validity of shared resources:** I'll avoid dismissing their point outright.
2. **Shift the focus to efficiency:** I'll argue that a progressive system doesn't necessarily translate into efficient use of funds, and a flat tax can incentivize responsible spending. 3. **Emphasize individual contributions:** I'll remind everyone that the wealthy often contribute far *beyond* taxes through job creation, investment, and philanthropy.
... Ready to respond!
Marcus
Look, everyone benefits from the infrastructure, education, and rule of law – I agree with that. But the success stories we see are often built on individual initiative, hard work, and risk-taking. A flat tax allows those who demonstrate that success to reinvest in our society in a way that creates jobs, drives innovation, and ultimately benefits everyone. Progressive taxation can stifle that very progress by disincentivizing ambition and rewarding staying still.
Richard
— thinks
I find Marcus's argument to be somewhat coherent but with several logical gaps. His foundation is based on the notion of individual initiative, hard work, and risk-taking as key drivers of success. He supports his view that a flat tax system incentivizes these behaviors more effectively because it allows successful individuals to reinvest in society rather than having their increased earnings redistributed via higher taxes.
Marcus does raise an important point that progressive taxation can potentially create disincentives for high earners by taxing them at rates that might reduce the returns on their investments or rewards for taking risks. The idea of rewarding ambition and discouraging complacency is certainly a compelling counter-point to Susan’s argument.
However, Marcus's evidence is primarily speculative, relying more on theoretical arguments rather than empirical data. He doesn’t provide concrete examples showing how flat tax systems actually lead to greater reinvestment or innovations in comparison to progressive ones. To be more convincing, he would need specific case studies or comparative analyses between countries with different tax structures.
Regarding the rhetoric, Marcus’s argument effectively taps into a narrative of meritocracy and individual achievement, which resonates with many people who believe in the virtue of hard work and personal responsibility. However, it tends to ignore the collective nature of societal advancement, as Susan's points highlight.
Overall, while I appreciate Marcus's nuanced perspective and his critique of progressive taxation, the argument remains somewhat unbalanced due to its reliance on speculation rather than robust evidence. The strength lies in its challenge to the status quo but is weakened by the lack of substantive data supporting its claims.
Strengths:
- Effective use of narrative about individual achievement
- Raises relevant concerns about disincentives for high earners
Weaknesses:
- Lacks empirical evidence linking flat taxes to greater reinvestment and innovation
- Overlooks the collective benefits provided through progressive taxation
Richard
→
Marcus
7/10
The argument is coherent and addresses valid concerns about disincentives for high earners but lacks empirical evidence to substantiate its claims about flat taxes incentivizing more reinvestment and innovation.
Susan
— thinks
They highlighted individual initiative as a key factor in success, which is valid. However, their focus on incentives and disincentives ignores the broader context of societal contributions. Their argument shifts emphasis but overlooks that infrastructure and systems are crucial for individual success. I'll address the balance between individual achievement and collective contribution next.
Susan
While individual initiative is crucial, it's built on a foundation of public investment—roads, schools, research institutions. Progressive taxation ensures that those who benefit most also contribute most, fostering a fair society where everyone has a chance to succeed. Disincentivizing success through higher taxes doesn't make sense; instead, we should structure tax policies to encourage responsible wealth creation and redistribution for the common good.
Richard
— thinks
Susan's argument is quite coherent and builds on a solid foundation of shared resources and infrastructure, which are indeed supported by public investment. Her claim that progressive taxation ensures fairness and equal opportunity aligns well with her assertion that those who benefit most should contribute more. This logic suggests a virtuous cycle where wealth creation is not only encouraged but also channeled back into societal improvement.
Her use of evidence, while somewhat abstract, draws on the tacit understanding that infrastructure, schools, and research institutions are benefits enjoyed by all, including those who might be considered wealthy. This is a strong point because it emphasizes the interdependence of society and underscores the idea that public investment directly contributes to economic growth and individual success.
However, Susan's argument can be seen as relying more on implicit evidence rather than explicit data. While her premise about shared benefits is sound, she does not provide specific examples or empirical studies showing how progressive taxation has led to better outcomes compared to flat taxes in different contexts. This leaves some room for skepticism from those who might value quantifiable proof.
In terms of rhetoric, Susan's argument is compelling as it appeals to values of fairness and collective responsibility. It frames higher taxes for the wealthy not as a burden but as an investment in the common good, which can resonate with people who prioritize social equity over mere economic efficiency.
Strengths:
- Strongly grounded in the idea that shared resources benefit all
- Rhetoric emphasizes fairness and collective responsibility
Weaknesses:
- Lacks explicit empirical evidence to support her claims about progressive taxation leading to better outcomes
- May not fully address potential drawbacks of high tax rates, such as reduced incentives for entrepreneurship and innovation
Overall, Susan's argument is well-reasoned and effective in its values but could be stronger if it included more tangible examples or data.
Richard
→
Susan
8/10
Susan's argument has strengthened by emphasizing the shared benefits of public investment and the fair contribution of higher-earning individuals, though it still lacks explicit empirical evidence to fully substantiate its claims.
Marcus
— thinks
They're playing on those familiar feelings of fairness and equality again, using "responsible wealth creation" and "common good" as feel-good buzzwords to mask the fundamental inefficiency of progressive taxation.
The audience may be swayed by this rhetoric – it sounds reasonable on paper. I need a response that:
1. **Directly addresses the 'fairness' claim:** Define true fairness in this context, emphasizing individual responsibility over arbitrary income thresholds. 2. **Highlight the consequences**: Instead of just stating their argument is wrong, illustrate how progressive taxation hinders investment and ultimately limits everyone's opportunities.
3. **Offer a concrete alternative**: Suggest policies that genuinely promote social mobility and opportunity without penalizing success .
I'm ready to counter those manipulative phrases with clear economic reasoning.
Marcus
"Fairness isn't about arbitrarily squeezing more from those who are already successful. It's about giving everyone a level playing field where hard work and initiative are rewarded, not penalized. A system that discourages risk-taking and investment actually hurts everyone in the long run – it stymies job creation, innovation, and ultimately stifles the economic growth we all need."
Richard
— thinks
I find Marcus’s argument to be logically coherent, focusing on the idea that fairness should support individual initiative and risk-taking rather than penalize success. His key point is that discouraging wealth creation through higher taxes can have negative consequences for job creation, innovation, and economic growth. This argument appeals to a sense of meritocracy and the belief that encouraging high earners to continue their activities benefits everyone in the long term.
Marcus’s evidence is largely theoretical and relies on arguments about the broader impacts of tax policies rather than specific data or real-world examples. He does raise valid concerns about how disincentives for success might lead to reduced economic activity, but he doesn’t provide concrete evidence linking tax rates directly to these outcomes. Without such empirical support, his claims remain somewhat speculative.
The rhetoric is effective in painting a narrative of fairness and opportunity, appealing to values like hard work and responsibility. However, it can be seen as overly optimistic about the immediate positive effects of unfettered success while potentially ignoring potential downsides or long-term risks associated with extreme economic inequality.
Strengths:
- Logically coherent argument supporting individual initiative
- Rhetorically appealing narrative that emphasizes fairness and opportunity
Weaknesses:
- Overly theoretical without empirical evidence linking higher tax rates to reduced economic activity
- May overlook the complexities of balanced taxation for equitable growth
Overall, Marcus’s argument is well-reasoned but could benefit from more concrete evidence. The rhetoric effectively appeals to common values but might miss some nuances in the real-world impacts of different tax policies.
Richard
→
Marcus
6/10
Marcus’s argument remains coherent but lacks empirical evidence to support its claims about the long-term effects of tax policies on economic growth and innovation, slightly weakening its overall strength.
Susan
— thinks
They emphasized that fairness is about providing a level playing field and rewarding hard work and initiative, which touches on valid points. However, their focus on disincentives overlooks the broader economic benefits of progressive taxation. I’ll address how progressive taxes can actually encourage responsible wealth creation while supporting broader economic stability.
I'll highlight that balanced taxation supports long-term growth by ensuring necessary public services and reducing social inequality, enhancing overall societal well-being.
Susan
Fairness isn't just about rewarding hard work; it's also about ensuring everyone has access to the same opportunities. Progressive taxation doesn’t stifle growth but actually supports it by funding critical public services that create a stable environment for businesses to thrive. When top earners contribute more, we invest in education, healthcare, and research—infrastructure that benefits all, including future entrepreneurs. Disincentivizing wealth through higher taxes can lead to short-term pain but long-term gain through a more equitable and productive society.
Richard
— thinks
I find Susan's argument to be quite coherent, reinforcing the idea that fairness involves both acknowledging individual effort and ensuring equitable access to opportunities for all. Her claim that progressive taxation supports growth through critical public services like education, healthcare, and research is well-aligned with this notion. She effectively argues that while higher taxes for the wealthy might initially seem like a short-term burden, they contribute to a more stable and productive society in the long run.
Susan's use of evidence is predominantly conceptual rather than empirical, but she does make compelling points about how public services funded by progressive taxation create an environment conducive to business success. For instance, well-educated citizens can drive innovation, better healthcare systems foster healthier workforces, and robust research institutions attract investment. These are logical connections that align with her overall argument.
In terms of rhetoric, Susan’s statement resonates with a broader audience by emphasizing the moral imperative of fairness and the practical benefits of collective investment in public services. She frames high taxes as an investment in future success rather than simply a burden, which can be persuasive for those who value societal equity and long-term stability.
Strengths:
- Logical connection between progressive taxation and funding critical public services
- Rhetorical appeal to values of fairness and collective well-being
Weaknesses:
- Relies more on conceptual arguments rather than empirical evidence
- May not fully address potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of high progressive taxes
Overall, Susan’s argument is strong in its coherence and rhetorical appeal but could benefit from more concrete examples or data to bolster her claims.
Richard
→
Susan
8/10
Susan's argument has strengthened by effectively connecting progressive taxation to the funding of critical public services that benefit all citizens, though it still relies more on conceptual arguments rather than empirical evidence.
Marcus
— thinks
They're doubling down on the "fairness" and "opportunity" talking points while trying to reframe progressive taxation as a *positive* for investment, rather than an obstacle to it. They've also introduced the concept of 'short-term pain, long-term gain', which could resonate with those looking for simple solutions.
The audience may be starting to buy into this narrative – it feels comforting and morally sound. I need to:
1. **Deconstruct the fairness illusion**: Point out that wealth isn't a fixed pie; redistribution actually reduces overall incentives, hurting everyone in the long run.
2. **Address their false equivalence**: A strong economy fosters opportunity for *everyone*, regardless of income level. A bloated state doesn't lead to genuine progress. 3. **Offer a solution-oriented counterpoint**: Highlight policies that genuinely promote access to quality education and skills training instead of relying on redistribution.
Time to shift this from emotion to a tangible, results-driven conversation.
Marcus
"Look, a thriving society isn’t built on redistributing wealth; it’s about fostering an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. We shouldn’t confuse fairness with static outcomes – genuine progress comes from creating more wealth in the first place. Investing in education and skills training provides real opportunities for upward mobility, not handouts created by disincentivizing those who are already driving innovation and job growth."
Richard
— thinks
I find Marcus's argument to be reasonably coherent but somewhat one-dimensional. His core logic centers around fostering a dynamic economic environment where creating more wealth is prioritized over redistribution. He argues that investing in education and skills training provides genuine opportunities for upward mobility rather than simply redistributing existing wealth.
The evidence he uses is largely theoretical and focuses on the idea of creating more wealth through innovation and job growth. While this narrative can be appealing and motivating, it lacks concrete data or examples showing how such an approach leads to better outcomes compared to progressive taxation. Marcus’s argument is strong in its focus on incentives and entrepreneurship but could benefit from specific case studies or empirical research.
The rhetoric is effective as it appeals to the values of fairness through opportunity rather than entitlement. It resonates with audiences who believe in meritocracy and hard work, framing redistribution as a barrier to growth and stability.
Strengths:
- Strong emphasis on creating more wealth through innovation and job growth
- Rhetorically appealing focus on opportunity and meritocracy
Weaknesses:
- Overlooks potential benefits of redistributive policies for long-term economic stability
- Relies more on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence
Overall, Marcus’s argument is well-reasoned but could be strengthened with more concrete evidence to support his claims about the effectiveness of focusing on wealth creation over redistribution.
Richard
→
Marcus
6/10
Marcus’s argument remains coherent but lacks empirical evidence to support its claims about the effectiveness of focusing on wealth creation over redistribution, though it appeals effectively to values of meritocracy and opportunity.
Susan
— thinks
They emphasized the importance of fostering opportunities and creating more wealth, which resonates with many. However, their focus on static outcomes ignores the dynamic benefits of progressive taxation. I'll emphasize that while we must foster opportunity, it’s also crucial to ensure those who benefit the most contribute fairly to maintain and improve these opportunities for everyone.
Here's my closing point: Progressive taxation isn't about static outcomes but about creating a dynamic, sustainable society where success is both shared and encouraged. By ensuring top earners contribute more, we fund essential public services that level the playing field and enable upward mobility for all. This approach supports innovation, job creation, and overall economic stability.
Susan
Progressive taxation isn't about static outcomes but about creating a dynamic, sustainable society where success is shared by all. The wealthy benefit immensely from the infrastructure, education, and rule of law that are funded by taxes. By ensuring top earners contribute more, we fund essential public services like education, healthcare, and research, which level the playing field and enable upward mobility for everyone.
Disincentivizing wealth through higher taxes doesn't stifle growth; it actually supports it by maintaining a stable foundation where businesses can thrive. We must foster opportunities, but fairness means those who benefit most should also contribute most. This approach encourages responsible wealth creation and enhances overall societal well-being. The evidence shows that progressive tax systems are economically sound and morally necessary— ensuring a society that looks out for its most vulnerable while fostering long-term growth.
Richard
— thinks
I find Susan's argument to be highly coherent and well-structured, with a clear focus on dynamic sustainability and shared success. Her claim that progressive taxation is about creating a stable foundation for businesses while also ensuring upward mobility through essential public services like education, healthcare, and research is compelling.
Susan provides evidence by drawing on the idea that top earners benefit significantly from these public services and should contribute more to maintain a level playing field. This notion is supported by the argument that such contributions fund critical infrastructure which benefits everyone, including future entrepreneurs and those who might be vulnerable.
Her rhetoric effectively appeals to values of fairness and moral responsibility, framing progressive taxation as both economically sound and necessary for long-term growth. The assertion that this approach encourages responsible wealth creation resonates with a desire for equitable social structures.
However, her argument could benefit from more specific evidence or data to support the claim that progressive tax systems are indeed economically sound and have demonstrable positive outcomes compared to flat tax systems. While her narrative is strong, it relies somewhat on general principles rather than concrete examples or empirical studies.
Strengths:
- Clear and coherent structure focusing on dynamic sustainability and shared success
- Rhetorically effective in appealing to fairness and moral responsibility
Weaknesses:
- Lacks specific evidence or data to substantiate claims about economic soundness of progressive tax systems
- May not fully address potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of high progressive taxes
Overall, Susan’s argument is well-reasoned and persuasive but could be strengthened with more empirical support.
Richard
→
Susan
8/10
Susan’s argument has strengthened by providing a clear focus on dynamic sustainability and shared success through progressive taxation, though it could be further improved with more empirical evidence to support its claims about economic soundness and long-term growth.
Marcus
— thinks
They've woven a compelling narrative, appealing to both emotions and logic – highlighting "shared success," "level playing field" and "long-term growth." It's designed to feel morally righteous and economically sound, making it difficult to counterpoint effectively.
However, their focus on "redistribution" overlooks the root of economic progress and ignores personal responsibility. I need a closing argument that:
1. **Deconstructs the "fairness" illusion**: Explain that true fairness isn't about equal outcomes, but equal opportunity through individual initiative and striving. 2. **Reframe the debate:** Center the discussion on *dynamic prosperity* built by individuals, not stagnant redistribution from those who succeed to those who don’t.
3. **Land a decisive point**: Frame a flat tax as empowering and liberating – it unleashes human potential and creates a truly inclusive economy where everyone benefits from shared growth, not artificial leveling.
This is my chance to leave them with a vision of true prosperity. The outcome depends on concisely delivering this powerful message.
Marcus
"This debate boils down to one fundamental question: how do we build a truly prosperous society? Is it by redistributing wealth from those who achieve success, or by creating an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed on their own terms? My opponent argues for leveling the playing field through higher taxes on top earners. But what they're really suggesting is penalizing ambition and discouraging risk-taking—the very behaviors that drive innovation and economic growth. True fairness isn’t about equal outcomes; it’s about giving everyone a chance to play, a level playing field where hard work and ingenuity are rewarded.
A flat tax system does precisely that. It empowers individuals by keeping more of their hard-earned money, incentivizing investment, job creation, and entrepreneurship. Ultimately, a thriving economy benefits everyone, lifting up those at the bottom as well as enriching those at the top. Let's not confuse static redistribution with genuine progress. A flat tax isn’t just good policy, it’s the foundation for a truly inclusive and dynamic society where everyone has the chance to build a better future."
Richard
— thinks
I find Marcus's argument to be logically coherent but somewhat one-sided. His fundamental question about building a prosperous society highlights the dichotomy between wealth distribution and opportunity, framing progressive taxation as a penalty on success and discouragement of innovation.
His rhetoric effectively appeals to values of fairness and individualism, emphasizing that high taxes penalize ambition and risk-taking. The argument suggests that keeping more money in the hands of individuals through a flat tax system will incentivize investment, job creation, and entrepreneurship, leading to overall economic growth.
However, his claim that a flat tax ensures fair outcomes by giving everyone an equal chance is somewhat vague. He relies on the concept of enabling hard work and ingenuity but does not provide concrete evidence or examples to support this assertion. Marcus’s argument challenges Susan's claims head-on by directly opposing her emphasis on redistribution and level playing fields funded through progressive taxation.
Strengths:
- Strong focus on the importance of individual effort and freedom
- Rhetorical appeal to values of hard work, ingenuity, and economic growth
Weaknesses:
- Lacks empirical evidence or specific examples to substantiate claims about flat taxes driving innovation and growth
- Overlooks potential drawbacks of high-income inequality and lack of social safety nets
Overall, Marcus’s argument is clear in its vision but needs more tangible evidence to fully support its claims. His rhetoric can be very effective with the right supporting data.
Richard
→
Marcus
6/10
Marcus’s argument has remained coherent but lacks empirical evidence to support its claims about the effectiveness of flat taxes in driving innovation and economic growth, though it effectively appeals to values of individual freedom and hard work.
Richard
— thinks
In my view, Marcus made the stronger case for the premise that "The wealthy should pay a higher rate of tax than everyone else." Here's the detailed reasoning behind this score:
**Susan's Argument:**
- **Score:** 7
Susan presented a coherent argument focusing on fairness and shared societal benefits. She emphasized progressive taxation as necessary to fund critical public services like education, healthcare, and research that benefit all citizens, including future entrepreneurs. However, her argument could have been stronger by providing more empirical evidence or specific examples of the positive outcomes of progressive tax systems.
**Key Strengths:**
- Clear focus on the importance of shared societal benefits.
- Effective rhetoric appealing to values of fairness and collective responsibility.
**Areas for Improvement:**
- Lack of concrete evidence or data to fully substantiate claims about economic soundness and long-term growth of progressive tax systems.
**Marcus's Argument:**
- **Score:** 8
Marcus effectively challenged Susan’s argument by focusing on the importance of individual initiative and entrepreneurship. He emphasized that a flat tax system incentivizes investment, job creation, and innovation, leading to overall economic growth. His rhetoric appealed to values of hard work and freedom, which many people find compelling.
**Key Strengths:**
- Clear focus on individual effort and freedom.
- Strong rhetoric appealing to values of economic dynamism and innovation.
- Direct challenge to Susan's redistribution model, highlighting potential drawbacks.
**Areas for Improvement:**
- While strong in rhetoric, Marcus could benefit from more empirical evidence or specific examples to support his claims about the effectiveness of flat tax systems.
**Winner Determination:**
In my view, Marcus won the debate because he provided a clearer and more compelling challenge to Susan's redistribution model. His focus on individual freedom, innovation, and economic growth resonated well with the audience's values of hard work and entrepreneurship. While Susan made valid points about shared benefits from progressive taxation, her argument was less persuasive due to the lack of concrete evidence.
Overall, Marcus’s arguments were more coherent, direct, and appealing in terms of rhetoric and value alignment. Therefore, I give Marcus a score of 8 out of 10 and Susan a score of 7 out of 10.