Match your wording to your evidence: quote the figures, choose a verb that does not overclaim, and name one limit. This turns a risky claim into a safe one that earns marks.
This lesson opens economic activity and environmental evidence.
What is the wording ladder?
Claims run from weak to strong. The evidence you have decides which rung you may use.
| Wording | Use when |
|---|---|
| Is consistent with | The change and the activity appear together |
| May be linked to | There is a plausible mechanism and a matching pattern |
| Is a likely contributor | More than one line of evidence agrees |
| Caused | The data or question proves it |
Unless the data or the question proves a cause, stay on the first three rungs.
Worked example: a quarry and a stream
This is an original case. A stream 200 m downstream of a quarry had 15 mg of suspended solids per litre before the quarry opened. It now has 60 mg per litre. A stream 200 m upstream stayed at 14 mg per litre both times.
The downstream rise is 60 − 15 = 45 mg per litre, which is 4 times the earlier level (60 ÷ 15 = 4). Upstream barely changed (14 mg per litre, about the same).
A cautious claim: “Suspended solids downstream rose from 15 to 60 mg per litre after the quarry opened, whereas upstream stayed near 14 mg per litre, so the quarry may be linked to the rise.”
The upstream reading is what allows the stronger wording, may be linked. Add a limit: “The data does not show whether heavy rain this year added to the rise.”
The mistake that loses marks
The weak answer is “The quarry polluted the stream”. It skips the figures and uses caused language without proof.
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| The quarry polluted the stream. | Solids downstream rose 4 times, whereas upstream stayed the same, so the quarry may be linked. |
| Quarries are harmful. | The data supports a link for this stream, not for all quarries. |
Why does the upstream reading matter? Without the upstream reading, rain could explain the rise at both points.
How do I choose the limit?
Ask what else could produce the same pattern. Weather, another activity upstream or a different measuring method are common candidates.
Choose the one most relevant to the data, and state it in one sentence. The graph evidence and fair-comparison lab helps you list other possible causes.
Check yourself
A fish farm opens in a bay. Water clarity at 1 m depth falls from 6 m to 3 m visibility in one year. A bay 5 km away with no farm stays at 6 m. Write a cautious claim.
Answer
Visibility fell by 3 m, which is 50% (3 ÷ 6), in the farm bay whereas the far bay stayed at 6 m, so the farm may be linked to the fall.
A limit: the data does not say whether currents differ between the two bays, which could also affect clarity.
What to study next
Next, read distinguishing correlation from a proven cause in a field dataset. For a teacher to sharpen your wording, see online one-to-one Geography tuition.