Claims and evidence are essentially two different things; however, they are very inter-related. In order to have convincing claims, you must have convincing evidence. Without sufficient evidence, how can you prove to someone that the way you view something is the right way? Honestly, you can't. Not without sufficient, reliable, and accurate evidence that the reader can understand. On the other end, stating a bunch of evidence, but not using it to come to some abstract claim, is irrelivant. You don't want to go in depth about some obvious answer to the question at hand. Thus we have the relationship between claims and evidence, where you can't really have one without the other.
This relationship is important because often times in writing we are trying to convince someone that our view is best. We can't convince someone of this without supporting evidence that is bold enough to swipe a readers attention, and pull them in. Also, if we just make some open ended claim, we might be walking the line between 'claims' and 'unsubstantiated claims', two very different things. Unsubstantiated claims lack that convincing/bold evidence that sets the two apart.
Applying these concepts to academic writing will be a crucial step in my writing this year. In regards to our secondary source analysis, painting the picture between evidence and claims will play a huge role. Thus far, I've come to conclude that we are supposed to "pick a side"(although there are countless sides) during this analysis, and make some claim. If I just stated a claim based on just my primary source analysis, things might not look so convincing. Evidence is the key, but not just any evidence. I need to write more about less, and convince these readers that my claim is the best possible claim. Sufficient evidence will drive this force, and put my plan into action.
No comments:
Post a Comment