Reading data means stating what the figures show, comparing them fairly and qualifying any link to a cause. A table can show that two things changed together, but it seldom proves that one caused the other.
This lesson is part of the development and prosperity cluster. The evidence-to-explanation planner can help you turn a figure into a sentence.
What is the describe, compare, qualify method?
Describe the figure exactly: what it measures, for which place and period, and its unit. Compare it with another figure, such as an earlier year or another district. Qualify any claim about cause by naming what else could have changed.
Stopping after describe and compare is safe. Adding a cause needs support from the source or from the period details in your textbook.
Worked example: real national figures
The table below uses figures reported by the Ministry of Economy for Malaysia. 1 2
| Year | Poverty rate | Bumiputera share of equity in limited companies |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 49.3% | 2.4% |
| 1990 | 16.5% | not given |
| 2012 | not given | about 21% |
Describe. The poverty rate was 49.3% in 1970 and 16.5% in 1990. The Bumiputera share of equity was 2.4% in 1970 and about 21% in 2012.
Compare. The poverty rate fell by 32.8 percentage points (49.3 − 16.5 = 32.8) over 20 years. The equity share rose by about 18.6 percentage points (21 − 2.4 = 18.6) over 42 years.
Qualify. The fall in poverty spans 1970 to 1990, which matches the years of the New Economic Policy (1971 to 1990), but the table alone does not show that the policy caused it. The equity figures end in 2012, so they cover years long after the policy ended.
A careful sentence: “The poverty rate fell from 49.3% in 1970 to 16.5% in 1990, which coincided with the NEP years, although the figures do not show which policies, or how much general economic growth, caused the fall.”
Phrases that keep a claim honest
Use a graded vocabulary. “Coincided with” says two things happened together, and “was followed by” states an order.
“May have contributed to” allows a role without proof. “Because” claims a cause, so use it only when a source states the link.
For real tables in your textbook, add one sentence on what the table does not show. That sentence signals that you understand the limits of the evidence.
The mistake that costs marks
The common slip is to treat a rise after a policy as proof. It is easy to do, because the figures look so tidy.
| Step | Wrong | Right |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | “The NEP made poverty fall to 16.5%” | “Poverty fell to 16.5% by 1990” |
| Link word | “Because of the policy” | “Coincided with”, “may have contributed” |
| Limit | None | “The figures do not show other causes” |
A second slip is to misread the unit or period. Always note what is measured and in which years before you write a sentence.
Check yourself
The New Economic Policy set a target of 30:40:30 for the ownership of corporate equity by Bumiputera, other Malaysians and foreigners, and the Bumiputera share was 2.4% in 1970. 3 A student reads this and writes: “The NEP gave Bumiputera 30% ownership.” Say what is wrong and rewrite it.
Answer
The student treats a target as an outcome. The 30 in the 30:40:30 ratio was the goal, and the starting share was 2.4%. A careful sentence: “The NEP aimed to raise the Bumiputera share of corporate equity from 2.4% in 1970 to 30% by 1990.” It describes the target and the starting point, and it does not claim the target was reached.
What to study next
The next lesson, comparing aims, implementation and documented outcomes, uses this skill to give a fair verdict on a policy. Then test yourself with the development and prosperity practice set.
If you want a teacher to go through a data question with you, see online one-to-one Sejarah tuition.