A strong paragraph makes one claim, supports it with evidence, states what the evidence cannot show, and links back to the question. The skill here is matching the strength of the claim to the strength of the evidence. This lesson builds a paragraph from an invented evidence set.
It draws on scope, datasets and attributed views and belongs to the United States depth-study pathway.
How do you build a supported paragraph?
Use a five-part structure.
- Claim: a direct answer to part of the question.
- Evidence: a fact, figure or attributed view, with its date and population.
- Explanation: how the evidence supports the claim.
- Limit: what the evidence does not show.
- Link: a sentence that returns to the question.
Worked example
All material below is invented for practice.
Question: How far did Prohibition change daily life in one American city between 1923 and 1927?
Evidence 1 (invented). Court records of one invented city: 300 Prohibition cases in 1923 and 450 in 1927.
Evidence 2 (invented). A newspaper columnist, 1927: “On my street the Saturday night noise has dropped.”
Check the data first. The rise is 450 − 300 = 150 cases. As a share of 1923, 150 ÷ 300 = 0.5, so cases rose by 50%. The records count cases brought to court, which depends on enforcement as well as behaviour.
Draft paragraph:
“Prohibition changed how the law dealt with drink in this city. Court records of the invented city show Prohibition cases rising from 300 in 1923 to 450 in 1927, an increase of 50%, which suggests more cases reached court. This does not show that more people were drinking, because the figures also depend on how actively the law was enforced.
The invented columnist also reported a quieter street, but this describes one place, so it cannot show a change for the whole city. Therefore the evidence supports a change in how the law was applied, but only limited evidence of a change in daily life.”
Why it works: each claim names the city and dates, the figure is stated correctly, the limit is explicit, and the last sentence answers “how far” with a measured judgement.
The mistake to watch for
A student wrote:
“Everyone in the city ignored Prohibition, as shown by the rising court cases.”
Two problems appear. “Everyone” covers far more people than any record counts.
And rising court cases show that cases were brought, which could equally reflect more enforcement. The sentence claims motive and behaviour that the data cannot reveal.
Correction: “Court records show Prohibition cases in this city rose from 300 in 1923 to 450 in 1927, which suggests either more offences or more enforcement.”
Check yourself
1. Underline the unsupported generalisation: “All Americans welcomed the radio and used it every evening.”
Show answer
“All Americans” and “every evening” are the generalisations. No dataset or source in this lesson covers all Americans, and “every evening” is an absolute. A supported version names a group and date: “In one invented town in 1930, 35% of surveyed households owned a radio.”
2. Rewrite so the claim fits the evidence: “The columnist proves the whole city became calmer.”
Show answer
“The invented columnist reported that one street became quieter, which suggests a calmer atmosphere there but does not show a change across the city.” The rewrite attributes the view, states the place and softens “proves” to “suggests”.
3. A student has the figure 450 cases in 1927 but no figure for 1923. What claim about change can be made?
Show answer
None about change. A change needs two dates. The student can state that records show 450 cases in 1927 in that city, and note that a comparison year would be needed to describe a rise or a fall.
Where this leads next
Try the full integrated practice set with your notes closed, then route each mistake back to a lesson. For help with answer building across other topics, see writing and answer development.
When your writing needs a reader who can show exactly where a claim goes too far, online one-to-one History tuition gives you that kind of feedback.