Evidence

What is evidence?

Writers often think of the word “evidence” in terms of supporting a claim, but evidence is simply the"details" or “particulars” that you, the writer, need to show your readers to help them understand whatever you’re trying to communicate.

For example, exclamation points can be evidence of an enthusiastic tone, WORDS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS can be evidence of a character screaming, and scientific word choice can be evidence of a writer trying to develop a formal voice.

Key point: Evidence is just the particulars, the examples, or the details of the main idea(s) you’re presenting. And those details can come in all shapes and sizes: quotes from professionals, observations done in a laboratory, surveys sent over social media, rationale and common sense, philosophical theories, the testimony of witnesses, “truths” from your great aunt or uncle, mathematical proofs, personal experiences, etc.

Part of the challenge of using evidence appropriately is making sure that your evidence is “good.” If you’re trying to show a loved one that you love them, is giving them chocolates the best proof? If writing an argument for a class, is quoting a certain politician or your favorite author effective? In a court of law, how useful is a character testimonial–a friend or family member testifying that the person on trial could not have committed the crime because they’re such a “good person”?

Effective Evidence: STAR

Here is an easy-to-remember acronym to help you test your evidence, whether your evidence is the scholarly research of a professor or the testimony of an eyewitness. It’s the acronym STAR, which stands for Sufficient, Typical, Accurate, and Relevant.

• Sufficient: in general terms, evidence is more effective if it’s sufficient, meaning that you have enough evidence to prove the point you’re trying to make.

Statisticians often talk about sample size, noting that the larger and more diverse the sample size, the better the data. Sufficiency, however, doesn’t only relate to how much evidence you have, or how many people you have taking your survey or how many eyewitnesses you have testifying in court; it also relates to the depth of your evidence. For example, what’s more sufficient if you want to research what it’s like to be the President of the United States: 1000 Americans taking a survey about what they think the President does, or an interview with the actual president?

So remember, sufficient is about what’s “enough” evidence, which differs from context to context. A good place to start is sample size, but don’t end there.

• Typical: typical refers to the type of evidence you’re using, i.e., are you talking to an economist about economic issues, or are you asking a fiction writer for advice on inflation?

If you want to know what it’s like to grow up in urban America, you should probably talk to somebody who has spent a significant amount of time in an urban neighborhood. If you want to know how to solve a medical issue, you should probably talk to a health professional. If you want to know what a political candidate stands for, you should probably listen to what that candidate is saying about their own platform.

In any field, there are certain types of typical resources–historians work with historical documents, literary critics work with literature, scientists work with lab research, and social scientists perform observations (among other things).

So is your evidence typical, i.e. does it come from the right place?

• Accurate: in this context, accurate just means that you, the writer, are interpreting your evidence fairly.

Your evidence might come from the right place and be sufficient enough for the job at hand, but if you’re deriving incomplete or inaccurate conclusions, your evidence is no longer “good.”

A great example of inaccurate evidence is evidence that commits the correlation fallacy: just because all the members of the women’s soccer team 1). play sports and 2). are averaging a 4.0 GPA doesn’t mean that their playing soccer is the cause of their high grades (or vice versa). Maybe your data says that both things are true, but it might be inaccurate to connect them together.

Do you best to reason out what your evidence means, and try not to draw hasty, overly general, absolute, or unconnected conclusions. For more info on correlation fallacies, check out this website.

• Relevant: just as it sounds, relevant evidence is evidence that actually matters to the case at hand.

Relevancy is probably the most straightforward and easy to understand principle of good evidence, but it’s as important as the rest; as a writer, make sure your evidence speaks to the subject at hand. More often than not, evidence that comes across as irrelevant typically just needs to be connected more clearly to the main idea, or the point that this evidence is trying to prove.

For example, in trying to prove that being a lawyer is difficult, I might point out that lawyers go to three years of graduate school. Some readers might see the additional requirements of three years in graduate school as an educational opportunity more than a difficult challenge, and so my evidence might seem less relevant than information regarding how many hours a lawyer works each week, or how often a lawyer faces difficult problems and difficult clients. To make that evidence more relevant, I may simply need to define graduate school as challenging.

Incorporating Evidence

Many college writing assignments, especially research papers, require you to use source-based evidence. This will require some research–finding or using primary or secondary sources.

When working with sources, it’s important to remember your own role as a writer. You should always avoid plagiarism and cite your sources, and you should also understand that your sources need to be packaged in a way that binds them to your argument. Simply quoting or paraphrasing a source is not enough. You should also let your reader know why and how this source connects to your argument.

Personal observations and experiences can also be used as evidence, but you should make sure to adhere to your audience’s expectations and consider how each piece of evidence applies to the reasoning you are developing. Sharing personal anecdotes will feel out of place in an academic analysis, and citing from a scientific journal in the middle of a personal narrative may be jarring to your reader. Know when to use which types of evidence, and guide your reader by couching your allusions to evidence by taking time to introduce sources. What does your reader need to know about your evidence before you bring it in?

Main point: Properly incorporated evidence will add credibility to your claims and fortify your purpose.