Different questions need different methods
| English | 中文 | Pinyin |
|---|---|---|
| method/ˈmeθəd/ | 方法 | fāng fǎ |
| interpretation/ɪnˌtɜːprɪˈteɪʃn/ | 解释 | jiě shì |
| standard/ˈstændəd/ | 判断标准 | pàn duàn biāo zhǔn |
Two people ask about the same river
- A scientist asks whether the river water is safe to drink. A historian asks why people built homes beside it. The same place gives rise to different questions, so one method cannot answer both completely.
- Choose a method 方法 that fits the question. A water test can provide evidence about a measured substance; a dated letter can provide evidence about a person’s reasons.
Explain what a measurement can show
- A scientific claim should identify what was measured, how it was measured and under which conditions. Repeating a test helps check whether a result is stable.
- A clean result from one sample does not establish that every part of the river is safe at every time. The claim must match the sampling and the instrument’s limits.
Which method directly addresses a claim about a measured substance in river water?
The test measures the substance named in the claim; the other sources address different questions.
One clean water sample proves the river is safe at every time.
The sample supports only a limited statement about its setting, date and measured properties.
Explain how a source supports an interpretation
- A historian may compare letters, maps and records to explain a settlement. Ask who made each source, when and for what purpose; a source can reveal a perspective without describing every person’s experience.
- An interpretation 解释 connects selected details to an explanation. Compare it with another explanation and ask which source details each can account for.
A resident’s letter gives a reason for moving. What should you check first?
Context helps evaluate what the letter can support and whose perspective it represents.
Use a fair standard of comparison
- A standard 判断标准 is a rule for judging a claim. Measurement accuracy matters for a concentration result; source context and corroboration matter for an explanation of past decisions.
- Do not rank a whole area of knowledge from one weak example. Explain what the methods can establish for the particular questions and where their limits remain.
Which comparison is best justified?
The comparison explains their roles for specified questions without ranking entire fields.
Connect the example to a knowledge question
- “What is the river’s depth?” asks about the river. “How does the method affect what we can know about the river?” asks about knowledge and can connect the two examples.
- Make the connection explicit: the methods select different evidence and support different conclusions. Check your teacher’s current themes and areas of knowledge before using this comparison in assessed work.
Match each method to the claim it most directly supports.
Each method has a purpose and a limit.
Which actions strengthen a comparison of knowledge methods?
A fair comparison identifies the question and evidence; a whole-field verdict goes beyond the example.
At one river site, a measured water sample supports a statement about a named substance on a named date. A resident’s letter describes why their family settled near a crossing. The sample cannot establish that family’s reason, and the letter cannot establish water safety. Comparing the methods shows how the question determines what counts as useful evidence. It does not show that one field is always more reliable than the other.
Calling a source “subjective” does not explain why a particular claim is weak. Show how its context affects the inference you make.
State the question, identify the method, explain the evidence it produces and limit the conclusion. Compare methods for a particular purpose.