Commentary That Links Evidence to a Claim: Study Guide (English Language 3.1)

The missing middle of most weak paragraphs

Look at this paragraph:

Lincoln wants to unite the country. “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” This shows that Lincoln wants to unite the country.

It has a claim and a piece of evidence. Yet it feels empty. The reason is that nothing connects the two. The last sentence only repeats the first. Readers are left to work out why those words show a wish to unite the country.

The missing piece is commentary: the writer’s own explanation of how the evidence supports the claim. The course framework says that effective use of evidence uses commentary to establish a logical relationship between the evidence and the claim it supports, and that writers also introduce source material by using commentary to integrate it into their line of reasoning. In other words, evidence does not speak for itself. The writer must speak for it.

What commentary does

Good commentary can do several jobs, and strong paragraphs usually do more than one.

Job	What the writer says	Question it answers
Explain	What the evidence means or how a word or detail works.	“What is going on in this evidence?”
Connect	How the evidence supports this specific claim.	“Why does this evidence prove my point?”
Interpret	What the choice or detail reveals about the writer, speaker or situation.	“What does it suggest?”
Evaluate	How strong, fair or effective the evidence is.	“How well does it work?”
Extend	What it implies for the larger argument or the audience.	“So what? What follows from this?”

You do not need every job in every paragraph. The minimum is explain and connect: say what the evidence shows, and say how that shows the claim.

The commentary ladder

Commentary can sit on different levels. Aim for the upper rungs.

Level	Description	Example (claim: Roosevelt’s 1910 speech values action over criticism)
1. Repeat	Restates the evidence or the claim.	“This shows that he thinks action matters.”
2. Label	Names the device without effect.	“This is a metaphor.”
3. Explain	Says what the evidence means.	“The ‘arena’ is a place where people risk themselves in public.”
4. Connect	Shows how it supports the claim.	“By casting the doer as someone in the arena, he makes risk the measure of worth, which values action over criticism.”
5. Extend	Shows the larger significance or effect on the audience.	“This turns every listener who has attempted something into a participant, and every cautious critic into a spectator.”

Levels 1 and 2 earn little. Levels 3 to 5 earn credit because they establish the logical relationship the framework describes.

Starting points for commentary

These sentence-starters are not formulas, but they help you move from evidence to explanation.

• “This detail suggests…” (explain, interpret)
• “By choosing the word X rather than Y, the writer…” (explain a choice)
• “This supports the claim because…” (connect)
• “The effect on the audience is…” (extend)
• “This matters because…” (extend)

Be careful not to reuse “this shows that” so often that your commentary becomes a habit and not a thought.

Introducing source material with commentary

Commentary comes before and after evidence. Before: a short lead-in tells the reader what the source is and why it is relevant (“In an address at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1910, Roosevelt argued…”). After: the explanation. This is the sandwich: lead-in, evidence, commentary. The lead-in is itself a kind of commentary because it frames what the reader should notice.

A good lead-in:

• names the source (author, work, or occasion);
• states the point the quotation will support;
• uses a precise verb (argues, warns, concedes) that fits.

A public-domain example: Emerson (1841)

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in “Self-Reliance”: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Suppose the claim is: Emerson argues that rigid adherence to past positions is a failure of thought, not a virtue.

Weak commentary: “This shows Emerson doesn’t like consistency.”

Strong commentary: “By calling consistency a ‘hobgoblin’, a made-up bogeyman, Emerson suggests that the fear of contradicting oneself is a kind of imaginary terror, and he reserves it for ‘little minds’ and ‘little statesmen’: the repetition of ‘little’ belittles those who prize consistency above truth. His real target is not consistency itself but the foolish kind that holds people to old statements even when they have learned better.”

The strong version does four things: it explains a word (‘hobgoblin’), connects it to the claim (fear of contradiction), notices a pattern (the repeated ‘little’), and refines the claim (the adjective ‘foolish’).

Worked example 1: repairing a paragraph with empty commentary

Weak paragraph (written by Marlbridge about Roosevelt’s 1910 “Citizenship in a Republic” speech).

Theodore Roosevelt believes that doing matters more than criticising. He says, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.” This shows he believes that doing matters more than criticising.

Diagnosis. The last sentence repeats the claim (level 1). Nothing is said about the evidence’s words.

Step 1: Find a feature worth explaining. The speaker lists what the critic does (“points out how the strong man stumbles”) in a way that makes criticism sound like watching someone else fall.

Step 2: Explain. The phrase “how the strong man stumbles” reduces the critic’s work to observation of failure. The phrase “could have done them better” makes the critic’s knowledge hypothetical.

Step 3: Connect to the claim. Because the critic’s contribution is imaginary and the doer’s is real, the speaker defines worth by effort and risk.

Step 4: Extend to the audience. An audience of listeners who are beginning their careers would hear an encouragement to try, not merely to comment.

Strong paragraph.

Theodore Roosevelt argues that doing matters more than criticising. In his 1910 speech he dismisses “the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.” The critic’s work, in this phrasing, is to watch another’s stumble and to imagine a better outcome that he never has to attempt, so his contribution is hypothetical while the doer’s is real. By setting a hypothetical against a real achievement, Roosevelt makes effort, and not judgement from the sidelines, the measure of worth, and he invites his listeners to see themselves as doers.

Check. Cover the quotation: the paragraph still makes sense, and every sentence adds. The commentary is longer than the evidence, which is typical of strong paragraphs.

Worked example 2: choosing what to comment on

Task. Roosevelt continues: “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.” Explain how the details support the claim that Roosevelt measures worth by effort and risk.

Step 1: Spot the details. “Actually in the arena”, “marred by dust and sweat and blood”.

Step 2: Explain each.

• “Actually” contrasts with the hypothetical critic: the doer’s presence is real.
• “Dust and sweat and blood” is a list in escalating order (from messy to painful) that makes effort physical and visible.

Step 3: Connect. These details turn effort into something seen and felt, so credit goes to those who bear the marks of trying, not to those who stand apart.

Step 4: Extend. The word “marred” suggests that damage is a sign of participation, not of failure. That reverses the usual idea of success as looking untouched.

Check. Each explanation points to a particular word and says what it does. A response that said only “he uses imagery” would stop at level 2.

How the exam asks about commentary

• Writing multiple choice: which sentence would best explain how the evidence supports the claim; which revision turns a summary into commentary; which sentence best introduces a quotation.
• Reading multiple choice: what a writer’s commentary adds, or how a sentence connects evidence to a claim.
• Essays: commentary is where most of the analytical credit is won. In the rhetorical analysis essay it explains how choices serve a purpose; in the synthesis and argument essays it ties sources and examples to your thesis.

Common misconceptions

• “The evidence proves the point by itself.” Readers need your explanation of why.
• “Summarising the quotation is commentary.” Summary retells; commentary explains.
• “Naming a device is analysis.” “This is a metaphor” labels. Analysis says what it does.
• “Longer commentary is always better.” Commentary should be precise and relevant. Padding does not help.
• “Commentary only comes after evidence.” A lead-in is also commentary: it frames what to notice.
• “If I say ‘this shows’ enough, it is commentary.” The phrase is empty unless followed by an explanation.

Where this leads

Topic 3.2, Synthesis and acknowledging sources, applies commentary to working with several sources at once. Practise with the practice questions and use the checklist.