Judge an issue using multiple sources
Combine credible, relevant evidence into a qualified judgement rather than merely summarising sources.
Original StudyForA scenarios and formative model answers; no Cambridge marks, predicted grades or certified mastery. Alternative reasoned answers may be valid. Full-length unseen papers, a wider mixed-problem bank and calibrated specialist teacher marking remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read an English passage closely
- Distinguish a statement from its supporting reason
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Before evaluating support, what should you identify?
What you will learn
- Evaluate and compare implications of several sources
- Justify a judgement with explicit criteria and remaining uncertainty
Evaluate before combining
List each source’s claim, credibility, significance and limits. Do not decide by counting sources for and against: several derivative claims can be outweighed by one strong direct measurement. Check whether apparently conflicting findings use different groups, periods or definitions.
Fictional evening library proposal: A records 60 users in each of four trial evenings; B estimates staff costs at 120 credits per evening; C is an app-only poll with 80% support; D reports residents’ noise concerns without measurements. Usage and staffing evidence address benefits and cost; the poll has selection limits and noise remains uncertain.
Make the reasoning lead to a judgement
Set criteria such as access, affordability and disturbance. Explain how evaluated findings affect these criteria, then choose a conclusion whose confidence matches the evidence. A conditional trial can be justified where benefits are observed but long-term demand or impacts remain uncertain.
A judgement can differ from the model answer if it uses the sources accurately, evaluates their limits and explains the criteria. Listing one paragraph per source without synthesising their implications does not establish a conclusion.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Should a judgement be decided by whichever side has more sources?
Worked example
Use the four sources to judge whether evening opening should be permanent immediately.
Show the worked solution
- The recorded usage supports demand during the trial.
- The 120-credit cost needs a sustainable funding check.
- App selection and unmeasured noise limit immediate universal claims.
Answer The evidence supports a monitored extension of the trial more strongly than immediate permanent opening. Continued usage, affordable staffing and measured noise should inform the final decision; neither the poll nor the noise concern alone settles it.
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: Identify the strongest direct evidence of trial usage and one limit.
Give me a hint
Distinguish observations from preferences.
Compare my reasoning
- A records actual evening users.
- Four evenings is a short period.
- Longer-term usage may differ.
A provides direct evidence of sixty users per trial evening, stronger for observed demand than a preference poll. Its short four-evening period limits inference about permanent long-term demand.
Look for these in your work
- Selects relevant evidence
- Explains its strength
- States its temporal limit
Independent: A room trial serves 40 people nightly at a staffing cost of 100 credits. A biased poll says it is popular. Give a qualified recommendation using cost and use.
Give me a hint
A recommendation needs a criterion, not popularity alone.
Compare my reasoning
- Actual use supports a benefit.
- Cost per observed user is 100/40=2.5 credits.
- Affordability needs a budget and alternatives comparison.
A continued trial may be reasonable if 2.5 credits per observed user is affordable relative to alternatives. The measured use supports demand, but the poll and absent budget do not justify a claim that permanent opening is already proven best.
Look for these in your work
- Uses measured use
- Interprets cost
- States decision conditions
Application: Write a judgement on the original library proposal and specify two further evidence needs.
Give me a hint
Connect each requested measurement to a remaining uncertainty.
Compare my reasoning
- Use the observed usage and staffing cost.
- Request longer-term attendance and comparable access data.
- Request measured evening noise and funding feasibility.
Extend the trial conditionally, tracking attendance beyond four evenings and measuring nearby noise while confirming staffing funding. This preserves the observed access benefit while addressing duration, affordability and disturbance before deciding on permanence. Other conclusions are defensible if the same evidence and criteria are reasoned through.
Look for these in your work
- Makes a clear judgement
- Synthesises sources
- Targets remaining uncertainties
Common mistakes
- Counting sources instead of evaluating them
- Summarising without a judgement
- Ignoring conflicting definitions or conditions
What can you explain now?
Should a judgement be decided by whichever side has more sources?
Compare with the explanation
No, credibility and significance matter more than a count
Several weak or derivative reports can add less than one strong relevant source.
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
Should a judgement be decided by whichever side has more sources?
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.