Select, deploy and explain specific, accurate and relevant examples so that evidence supports reasoning rather than substituting for it

What this dot point is asking

Evidence is what turns a reasoned claim into a persuasive one. This skill is about choosing examples that are specific, accurate and relevant, and then explaining how each one supports your argument. The central insight is that an example never argues by itself: it illustrates a mechanism you have already reasoned out, and the marks come from the explicit link you draw between the example and the point, not from the act of naming it.

The answer

What makes evidence strong

Four qualities separate strong evidence from filler:

• Specific. A named policy, company, figure, event or study, not a vague "research shows" or "in many countries".
• Accurate. You can defend the detail. A confidently wrong example does more damage than no example.
• Relevant. It illustrates the exact claim in the paragraph, not a neighbouring idea.
• Current. Recent examples signal that you read widely; relying only on decades-old cases suggests a stale example bank.

Explain, do not just name

The single most common evidence error is the dropped example: naming a case and moving on, as though its relevance were self-evident. It is not. After stating an example, add an explanatory sentence, usually beginning "this shows", "this illustrates" or "this matters because", that connects the detail back to the claim and the thesis. The example is the evidence; the explanation is the argument.

Range: local and global

General Paper especially rewards a candidate who can move between contexts. A Singaporean or Asian example shows engagement with your own society; an international one shows breadth. The strongest essays pair them, for instance illustrating a point with a Singapore policy and then testing it against a contrasting Western case. Range guards against a narrow, parochial answer and demonstrates the wide reading the subject is built on.

Bank and adapt your examples

Because the question is unpredictable, you cannot prepare an example per question. Instead, build a bank of versatile examples, each of which can serve several arguments. A single case, such as a major technology company's content-moderation decisions, can illustrate points about free speech, corporate power, misinformation and regulation. Learn a smaller set of flexible examples deeply rather than a long list shallowly, and practise reframing each one to fit the specific claim.

Examples in context

Example 1. The same case, two arguments. A single example, the rapid global rollout of a generative artificial-intelligence tool and the debates it triggered, can serve opposite claims. In an essay on innovation it evidences technology's capacity to spread benefits fast; in an essay on misinformation it evidences how quickly an unregulated tool can scale harm. The skill is reframing the example so the explanation fits the specific point, which is why a deeply known, flexible example beats a long shallow list.

Example 2. Range that strengthens a judgement. Arguing that environmental progress requires both state action and market incentives, a candidate pairs Singapore's water-recycling and pricing approach with a contrasting international carbon-pricing scheme. The two examples from different contexts do more than illustrate; their comparison becomes evidence that the same principle holds across very different societies, lifting the answer toward the evaluative top band.

Try this

Q1. Identify why "research shows social media is harmful" is weak evidence. [2 marks]

• Cue. It is vague and unverifiable; it names no specific study, mechanism or finding, so it asserts rather than evidences and cannot be defended or explained.

Q2. Add an explanatory link to: "Singapore invests heavily in public housing." for an argument about social cohesion. [2 marks]

• Cue. Something like: this shows how deliberate policy can mix communities across income and ethnicity, which sustains everyday contact between groups and so strengthens social cohesion.

Q3. Explain why pairing a local and an international example can strengthen a judgement. [3 marks]

• Cue. The contrast tests whether a principle holds across different contexts; when both cases support the claim, the comparison itself becomes evidence and demonstrates the range of reading the top bands reward.