Build a supported judgement
Move from reasons and counterarguments to a conclusion that explains their relative weight and conditions.
Original StudyForA teaching and fictional practice scenarios. Model responses illustrate reasoning; other well-supported answers are possible. These tasks do not award Cambridge marks or grades. A broad topic map is not a complete current-affairs reading programme. Full-length unseen-paper practice, an authenticated reading bank and calibrated human assessment remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read short English passages
- Distinguish a claim from its supporting reason
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a reasoned answer do?
What you will learn
- Analyse distinct parts of an argument and their implications
- Weigh competing reasons and reach a supported, qualified judgement
Analysis explains how and why
A claim states a position; analysis explains its mechanism, evidence and implication. Break a proposal into distinct dimensions such as reach, cost, reliability and rights. Avoid counting three versions of the same reason as three independent points.
Evaluation explains which reasons matter most and why. Equal paragraph length does not mean two sides are equally strong. State a criterion and explain how evidence meets it, then assess a fair counterargument.
Use qualifications precisely
A conditional conclusion can be strong: a policy may be justified if access safeguards and a sustainable budget are in place. Specify the condition and why it matters. ‘It depends’ without explaining what it depends on does not complete the judgement.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What distinguishes evaluation from a list of advantages and disadvantages?
Worked example
A fictional transport policy is cheap but unreliable. Is low cost enough to recommend it?
Show the worked solution
- Identify reliability as necessary to the service’s purpose.
- Compare cost saving with failure consequences.
- State a conditional judgement.
Answer Low cost alone is insufficient if unreliable journeys prevent people reaching work or school. Reliability may carry greater weight because it is necessary to the policy’s purpose. The policy is more defensible if reliability can be improved at an acceptable cost; otherwise a more dependable alternative may offer better value.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Explain why reliability might outweigh a small cost saving in emergency communication.
Give me a hint
Connect the criterion to the service’s purpose.
Compare my reasoning
- The service must reach people when needed.
- Failure can undermine its purpose.
- Compare savings with the likely consequences of failure.
Reliability may outweigh a small saving because emergency communication fails in its core purpose if messages do not reach people when needed. The judgement should compare the scale of savings with the risk and consequences of failure, rather than assume every cheaper option has better value.
Look for these in your work
- Explains purpose
- Weighs consequence
- Avoids an absolute rule
Independent: Strengthen ‘Both views are valid, so no conclusion is possible.’
Give me a hint
Acknowledge competing reasons and identify a criterion.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain the evidence for each view.
- Compare their relevance and strength.
- Give a conditional or context-specific conclusion.
Competing views can both contain useful points without being equally persuasive. Compare their evidence and the criteria most relevant to the question, then state which conclusion is better supported in the stated circumstances. If information is missing, specify what remains uncertain and what would change the judgement.
Look for these in your work
- Compares evidence
- Uses criteria
- Reaches a justified conclusion
Application: Write a qualified thesis for public funding of free museum entry.
Give me a hint
Combine a position with a reason and a meaningful condition.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify access as a possible benefit.
- Consider conservation and budget costs.
- Make the position conditional on a viable funding model.
Free entry is worth supporting where it removes a substantial access barrier and can be funded without undermining conservation or essential services. This thesis states a position, identifies its purpose and sets conditions that the essay can test using evidence about visitors, budgets and alternatives.
Look for these in your work
- States a position
- Explains why
- Sets testable conditions
Common mistakes
- Counting points instead of weighing them
- Claiming balance without comparing evidence
- Ending with an unexplained ‘it depends’
What can you explain now?
What distinguishes evaluation from a list of advantages and disadvantages?
Compare with the explanation
A reasoned comparison of their importance leading to a judgement
Explain why a criterion or consequence should carry more weight.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
What distinguishes evaluation from a list of advantages and disadvantages?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.