Separate Evidence From Your Interpretation

You can now credit a source and reword it honestly. There’s one trap left, and it’s subtle: blurring what the evidence actually says with what you make of it. Slide your own opinion in as if the sources proved it, and a reader who checks will stop trusting everything else you wrote. This chapter keeps the two apart. You’ll learn the line between evidence and interpretation, the phrasings that signal each, and how to say what you’re unsure about without sounding weak.

Tell Evidence Apart From Interpretation

Start with the two words, because the whole chapter rests on them. Evidence is what a source actually shows: a finding, a number, a documented fact. Interpretation is what you conclude from it: your reading of what the evidence means. Both belong in honest work. The dishonesty is letting one wear the other’s clothes, so your opinion looks like proof.

Here’s the rule: state the evidence, then mark your interpretation as yours. “The report found library visits fell 12 percent” is evidence. “So the closures clearly hurt the community” is interpretation, and presenting it as if the report said it is overclaiming: asserting more than your sources support. The honest version keeps them separate, “visits fell 12 percent (City Report, 2025), which suggests the closures hurt access, though other causes are possible.”

Then there’s the part beginners hide: doubt. When evidence is thin or sources disagree, say so. Hedging is using cautious language (“suggests”, “may”, “the evidence is mixed”) to match your confidence to your proof. It isn’t weakness, it’s accuracy, and a reader trusts a careful claim more than a bold one that breaks on contact.

Read the Evidence-vs-Opinion Signals

You don’t need to memorize this, just recognize which side a phrase sits on. Evidence-grounded language points to a source. Interpretation language points to you. Keep them visibly distinct, and hedge when the evidence is mixed. Read each column on its own; the rows aren’t matched sets, they just gather phrases of the same kind.

Rewrite an Overclaim Honestly

Watch the fix on a civic example. You’re writing about a new bike lane and you read: Cyclist numbers rose 20 percent the year the lane opened (City Transport, 2025). That’s the evidence. Now an overclaimed version:

Overclaim: The new bike lane proves dedicated lanes get people cycling. “Proves” is too big, and one year’s rise doesn’t show the lane caused it; weather, fuel prices, or a trend could share the credit.

Honest version: Cycling rose 20 percent the year the lane opened (City Transport, 2025), which suggests the lane helped, though a single year can’t rule out other causes. The evidence is exact, the interpretation is flagged as yours, and the uncertainty is stated. Same facts, but now a reader can trust you.

Your Turn!

Below is a short paragraph that mixes evidence and opinion and overclaims once. Mark which sentences are evidence and which are your interpretation, then rewrite the one overclaim honestly, with hedging if needed.

A council survey found 60 percent of residents want more parks (Council, 2025). This proves the mayor’s housing plan is deeply unpopular. Park usage also rose last summer.

Keep the AI closed for this one: telling evidence from interpretation is a call only you can practice. Then check your answer against the model solution found at the end of this chapter.

Let’s Recap!

• Evidence is what a source shows; interpretation is what you conclude, and both must stay visibly separate.

• Overclaiming presents your opinion as if the source proved it, and it costs you the reader’s trust.

• Hedging matches your wording to your confidence, and honest uncertainty reads as accuracy, not weakness.

• Use signal phrases as a quick test: “the study found” points to a source, “this means” points to you.

• Claim exactly what your evidence supports, no more.

Part 1 is done: you can credit, reword, and represent sources honestly. It’s now time to check your understanding with a quiz. In Part 2 you’ll go one step further and disclose your limits and tools, so your reader knows not just what you found, but what you couldn’t.

Model Solution

Evidence: “A council survey found 60 percent of residents want more parks (Council, 2025)” and “Park usage also rose last summer” both report findings. Interpretation: “This proves the mayor’s housing plan is deeply unpopular” is your conclusion, and an overclaim, the survey is about parks, not housing, and “proves” is far too strong. An honest rewrite: Most residents want more parks (Council, 2025), which may signal frustration with current priorities, but it says nothing direct about the housing plan. The evidence stays exact, the claim is hedged, and you don’t borrow proof the survey never gave.