A balanced conclusion gives a judgement, backs it with the strongest figures from both sides, weighs them, and states what the evidence cannot show. This lesson builds one from an original case.
It closes the cluster on economic activity and environmental evidence. To separate benefits from costs first, see comparing a benefit and a cost without cancelling out missing evidence.
What are the five parts?
- A judgement that answers the question.
- The strongest benefit evidence, with a figure.
- The strongest cost evidence, with a figure.
- A weighing sentence.
- A stated limitation.
Students often leave out the weighing sentence. It uses words such as because, whereas or although to show which side carries more weight and why.
Worked example: a factory beside a bay
The numbers here are made up for illustration. A fictional dyeing factory stands beside a river that runs into a bay. The data supplied are:
- The factory employs 120 local workers and pays RM4 200 000 in wages a year.
- The bay’s fish catch fell from 62 tonnes to 49 tonnes over five years.
- Fish-catch records begin five years ago. The factory opened seven years ago, and no water tests are supplied.
Start with the figures. Average wage per worker is RM4 200 000 ÷ 120 = RM35 000. The fall in catch is 62 − 49 = 13 tonnes, which is 13 ÷ 62 = 21% of the earlier catch, to the nearest whole number.
A balanced conclusion reads: “On this evidence the factory brings a clear local benefit, because it pays RM4 200 000 a year to 120 workers. The bay catch fell by 13 tonnes, or 21%, which may be a cost, although the records begin two years after the factory opened and no water tests are given. The benefit is therefore better supported than the cost, but the cost cannot be dismissed without water data.”
The mistake that loses marks
A weak conclusion repeats the body: “The factory gives jobs. The fish catch fell. Some people are happy and some are not.” Every sentence is true, and none of it is a judgement.
| Repeating | Weighing |
|---|---|
| The factory gives 120 jobs. | The factory pays RM4 200 000 to 120 workers, a benefit the data confirm. |
| The catch fell 13 tonnes. | The catch fell 13 tonnes, but the records start after the factory opened, so the cause is uncertain. |
| There are pros and cons. | The benefit is better supported than the cost on the data supplied. |
The weighing version never claims the factory caused the fall. That link is covered in correlation is not a proven cause.
How long should it be?
Four to six sentences. Put the judgement first so the marker sees your answer at once, and end with the limitation so the last thing read is your critical thinking.
Test your draft with a question: could a reader who had not seen the data still learn the judgement, the two key figures and the gap in the evidence? If yes, the conclusion is complete. The graph evidence and fair-comparison lab helps you pull out those two figures.
Check yourself
An original case: a fictional sand-washing plant employs 45 workers with total yearly wages of RM1 350 000. A nearby paddy area reports that yields fell from 5.0 to 4.6 tonnes per hectare after the plant opened, but no record shows the water the paddy uses. Write a two-sentence balanced conclusion with figures.
Answer
Average wage is RM1 350 000 ÷ 45 = RM30 000. The yield fell 0.4 tonnes per hectare, which is 0.4 ÷ 5.0 = 8%.
A model answer: “The plant gives a confirmed benefit, paying RM1 350 000 a year to 45 workers, whereas paddy yield fell 8% from 5.0 to 4.6 tonnes per hectare. Because no water record is supplied, the fall cannot be tied to the plant, so the benefit is better supported than the cost.”
What to study next
Test the whole cluster with the economic activity and environmental evidence practice set.
To have a teacher read your conclusions and tighten the weighing sentence, see online one-to-one Geography tuition.