Evidence is a specific detail that a claim depends on, while a general claim is a broad statement that needs support. To test a line, ask whether it names something specific and whether your claim would weaken without it.
This lesson follows connecting governance, laws and social roles. Having made links, you now check that each one rests on evidence.
How do I test a line?
- Is it specific? Does it name an action, a person, a place or an outcome?
- Does the claim need it? If you remove the line, does the claim lose its support?
A line that passes both tests is evidence. A line that fails either is a general claim or filler.
Worked example: an adapted practice source on Melaka
Adapted practice source, written in our own words with real facts: “Melaka was a great and glorious sultanate. The Syahbandar managed the affairs of the port 5. Its ships and trade were governed by written laws, including the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka 2. Melaka became a trading centre in a strategic position on the Strait 2.”
Question: Which lines prove that Melaka’s port was well organised?
- “Melaka was a great and glorious sultanate” is a general claim and a judgement. Nothing specific.
- “The Syahbandar managed the affairs of the port” is evidence: a named office with a named action 5.
- “Ships and trade were governed by written laws, including the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka” is evidence: a named law 2.
- “Melaka became a trading centre in a strategic position on the Strait” is evidence: a named outcome 2.
A strong answer: “Melaka’s port was well organised. the Syahbandar managed the affairs of the port, and written laws, including the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka, governed ships and trade.”
The mistake that loses marks
The common slip is to quote a general claim as proof: “Melaka’s port was well organised because ‘Melaka was a great and glorious sultanate’.” The line does not say how.
| Line quoted | Specific? | Does the claim need it? | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Great and glorious sultanate” | No | No | General claim |
| “The Syahbandar managed the affairs of the port” | Yes | Yes | Evidence |
| “Governed by the Undang-Undang Laut Melaka” | Yes | Yes | Evidence |
The fix is to choose lines that contain an action, a rule or a result, and to leave out adjectives.
A routine for any passage
- Mark every adjective or opinion word, such as “great” or “glorious”. These are claims.
- Mark every action, rule or outcome. These are evidence.
- Build your answer from the marked evidence.
- Add your own claim as the final sentence.
If you record lines you quoted that did not earn marks, the mistake log and paper-error review shows the pattern.
Check yourself
Adapted practice source: “Melaka was powerful. The Temenggung was responsible for security and order. The Laksamana led the navy.” Which two lines prove that the Sultan had officials to keep order and defend the state?
Answer
“The Temenggung was responsible for security and order” 3 and “The Laksamana led the navy” 4.
The first shows an officer for order inside the state, and the second shows an officer for defence at sea. “Melaka was powerful” is a general claim and does not prove anything.
What to study next
Turn a passage into a plan in building a concept map from a historical passage. For the same habit across other topics, read using evidence in KBAT responses.
If you want a teacher to test your quotations, see online one-to-one Sejarah tuition.