Constructing Arguments and Drawing Conclusions

From geographical facts to an argument

Geographical questions often involve competing priorities. A coastal defence might protect a village but increase erosion elsewhere. To decide whether it is successful, you need more than a list of its advantages and disadvantages.

An extended written argument is a connected line of reasoning that uses evidence to answer a question. ‘Extended’ does not simply mean long: each paragraph should develop your answer, and the paragraphs should work together towards a judgement.

Start by identifying exactly what needs judging. For the question ‘How effective is hard engineering at protecting a coastline?’, effectiveness could involve protection of homes and roads, cost, and effects on neighbouring stretches of coast. These criteria help you decide which evidence matters. A defence can be effective by one criterion but less successful by another.

Build paragraphs that make evidence do a job

A useful way to organise a paragraph is point, evidence, explanation and link. This is a writing aid, not a compulsory formula.

The point makes a claim relevant to the question. Evidence gives the reader a reason to accept it. Explanation shows how or why the evidence supports the claim. The link makes its significance for the overall question clear.

For example, at Mappleton on the Holderness Coast, rock groynes and rock revetments were built in 1991 as part of a £2 million scheme to protect the village and the B1242 road. Rock revetments protect the shore from wave attack, while groynes trap sediment carried along the coast by longshore drift. Retaining beach material helps protect the land behind it. These details support an argument that hard engineering can protect important infrastructure locally.

The date and cost identify the particular scheme, but they do not explain its effectiveness by themselves. The explanation of how the defences work connects the factual evidence to the argument.

Weigh competing evidence rather than listing both sides

A developed argument also considers evidence that challenges its main claim. At Mappleton, trapping sediment reduced the supply moving south along the coast, contributing to increased erosion around Great Cowden. This changes the judgement: protecting one location can transfer problems to another.

The two points are connected, not separate lists of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ features. The same process that helps retain a protective beach locally can leave neighbouring areas with less sediment.

To weigh this evidence, consider where, for whom and over what timescale the strategy is effective. Residents whose homes are protected may judge it differently from people further along the coast. Immediate protection and long-term management of the whole coastline are also different aims.

Balance does not require you to treat all evidence as equally important. Explain why a particular benefit, cost or limitation carries more weight. If the question asks whether a strategy is the best or most effective, you also need relevant evidence about alternatives; showing that one strategy has benefits does not establish that it is better than every other option.

Reach an informed conclusion

A conclusion gives your final answer to the question. It should follow from the evidence already discussed, rather than introduce a new major claim.

For the coastal example, a justified conclusion could be:

‘Hard engineering at Mappleton has been effective at protecting the village and road, but its wider success is limited by increased erosion further south. It is therefore more convincing as a local protection strategy than as a solution for the whole coastline.’

This conclusion makes a judgement, identifies the evidence behind it and states the conditions under which it applies. It is more informative than ‘There are advantages and disadvantages’ or ‘I think hard engineering is good’.

Draw conclusions from fieldwork evidence

In fieldwork, return to the enquiry aim and, where used, the hypothesis. Identify the overall pattern, cite supporting results and consider results that contradict it. Use geographical understanding to explain the pattern, but do not treat an expected theory as a substitute for your observations.

Consider an enquiry testing the hypothesis that pedestrian numbers decrease with distance from a town centre. Four sites, at 0, 200, 400 and 600 metres from the centre, record 80, 55, 62 and 25 pedestrians respectively during equal ten-minute counts.

The overall decrease from 80 to 25 pedestrians supports the hypothesis. However, the count rises from 55 to 62 between the middle sites, so the decrease is not consistent at every location. A nearby attraction might help explain this exception, but that explanation would need further evidence.

A suitable conclusion is: ‘The results broadly support the hypothesis during the sampled period, although the middle sites interrupt the general decline.’ This recognises both the pattern and the exception without claiming that the hypothesis has been proved everywhere.

Match your confidence to the evidence

An informed conclusion recognises what the investigation can reasonably establish. Four sites counted once cannot show that pedestrian numbers follow the same pattern throughout the week. The time of day, weather or an unusual event could affect the results.

Explain the consequence of a limitation: a single counting period limits confidence that the pattern represents typical conditions. Repeating the counts at different times would help test whether the conclusion holds more widely.

Limitations do not automatically make a conclusion worthless. They help you qualify it accurately: distinguish what the evidence supports strongly, what it suggests and what remains uncertain.