Use these 200 Cambridge Thinking Skills 9694 words to build an evidence-led argument in Paper 4 Applied Reasoning. Each entry includes a meaning and usage example for evaluating documents, testing inferences or explaining a position.
Paper 4 lasts 1 hour 45 minutes and is worth 50 marks. It has four compulsory questions based on several documents. Question 4 asks you to construct a substantial reasoned argument and use evidence from those documents critically.
The 200-word list
1–20 Testing evidence and reasoning · 21–40 Testing an issue and its boundaries · 41–60 Evaluating limits and assumptions · 61–80 Synthesising sources · 81–100 Building commentary and argument · 101–120 Weighing competing priorities · 121–140 Taking a position · 141–160 Using evidence and reasoning · 161–180 Connecting ideas · 181–200 Explaining cause and effect
Exam requirements · Worked response · Worked analysis · Fencing Method · Practice and FAQs · Revision · Practice workshop
1–20 Testing evidence and reasoning
- intermediate — coming between earlier reasons and the main result. identify an intermediate conclusion.
- unstated — implied without being expressed directly. an unstated assumption about access.
- premiss — a proposition offered as a reason for a conclusion. test whether the premiss is true.
- jointly — together rather than separately. the two reasons jointly support the claim.
- deductive — involving an inference intended to follow necessarily. a deductive argument with a missing premiss.
- inductive — involving reasoning that extends beyond the observed cases. an inductive inference from a survey.
- abductive — concerned with inferring a likely explanation. an abductive inference from an unexpected result.
- counterinstance — an example that goes against a general claim. one counterinstance challenges the rule.
- equivocal — open to different meanings or interpretations. an equivocal use of the word free.
- circular — using the conclusion itself as part of its supposed support. circular reasoning provides no independent reason.
- fallacy — a flaw in reasoning. identify a fallacy in a forced choice.
- confounder — a factor that can distort a proposed causal relationship. distance may be a confounder.
- denominator — the reference total against which a count or rate is expressed. check the denominator in the reported rate.
- response — a reply or a contribution to a survey. a low survey response rate.
- self-selection — the process by which participants choose whether to take part. self-selection limits the survey.
- comparability — the extent to which items can be fairly compared. question comparability across the two periods.
- interested — having a stake that could affect an account. an interested source may still provide accurate data.
- contemporaneous — made or existing at the same time as an event. contemporaneous records of attendance.
- weight — the importance assigned to a piece of evidence. give more weight to direct measurements.
- decisive — strong enough to settle a question under the available evidence. the documents do not provide decisive support.
21–40 Testing an issue and its boundaries
- absolutist — treating a rule or claim as admitting no exception. an absolutist reading of the recommendation.
- generalisability — the extent to which a finding applies beyond its original setting. test the generalisability of a pilot result.
- necessary — required for a result or condition. a necessary condition for participation.
- sufficiency — the quality of being enough to establish or achieve something. question the sufficiency of one example.
- counterfactual — a reasoned account of what might happen under different conditions. consider a counterfactual without the policy.
- falsifiable — capable in principle of being shown false by evidence. a falsifiable claim about participation.
- confound — make the effect of one factor hard to separate from another. age may confound the comparison.
- causal — concerned with a relationship in which one thing produces an effect. a causal explanation of the decline.
- conditional — true or applicable only when a requirement is met. conditional support for a public subsidy.
- contingent — dependent on a particular circumstance. the benefit is contingent on consistent access.
- generalise — draw a conclusion that covers cases beyond those observed. generalise cautiously from a local trial.
- speculative — based on possibilities that have yet to be established. a speculative prediction about behaviour.
- prescriptive — setting out what people should do. a prescriptive claim about public spending.
- descriptive — stating what is observed or claimed to happen. a descriptive statement about current practice.
- presume — take something to be true as a starting point. presume that users have reliable internet.
- necessitate — make an action or condition necessary. a larger intake may necessitate extra staff.
- invalidate — make a claim or inference no longer valid. one error can invalidate the comparison.
- indeterminate — not settled or precisely known. the long-term effect remains indeterminate.
- unwarranted — unsupported by sufficient reason or evidence. an unwarranted inference about demand.
- tenability — the ability of a view to withstand reasonable criticism. test the tenability of a broad claim.
41–60 Evaluating limits and assumptions
- presuppose — treat something as already true before arguing. presuppose that demand is fixed.
- conflate — treat distinct things as if they were the same. conflate availability with accessibility.
- elide — leave out or pass over a distinction or detail. elide the difference between choice and constraint.
- overgeneralise — draw a conclusion that covers more cases than the evidence allows. overgeneralise from one institution.
- extrapolate — extend an observed pattern beyond the data available. extrapolate from a small pilot.
- circumscribe — limit something to a defined range. circumscribe the policy’s application.
- predicate — base a claim or decision on a condition. predicate success on continued funding.
- reductive — simplifying a subject in a way that loses important detail. a reductive account of motivation.
- tenable — capable of being maintained under criticism. a tenable explanation of the discrepancy.
- fallacious — based on faulty reasoning. a fallacious comparison between unlike cases.
- ambivalent — having mixed or opposing feelings about something. an ambivalent response to regulation.
- normative — concerned with what ought to be done or valued. a normative claim about fairness.
- empirical — based on observation or evidence from experience. empirical evidence on take-up.
- asymmetry — a significant difference between two sides that are compared. an asymmetry in bargaining power.
- contention — a claim presented as part of an argument. the contention that access is universal.
- caveat — a warning or limitation attached to a statement. accept the proposal with a caveat.
- paradox — an apparently contradictory situation or statement. the paradox of choice without access.
- compatibility — ability to work or coexist together. compatibility with local practice.
- salience — importance or prominence in a particular context. the salience of cost in the debate.
- commensurate — matching another thing in size or degree. support commensurate with need.
61–80 Synthesising sources
- attribute — identify where an idea or quotation comes from. attribute the statistic to Source A.
- cite — identify the source of material used in an argument. cite the survey in Source B.
- paraphrase — restate a source’s meaning in your own words and structure. paraphrase the author’s reasoning.
- excerpt — a passage taken from a longer work. an excerpt from a public address.
- provenance — the origin and history of a piece of material. check the provenance of a photograph.
- testimony — a person’s account offered as evidence. testimony from residents.
- dataset — an organised collection of data. a dataset on bus ridership.
- sample — a subset examined to learn about a larger group. a sample of city schools.
- metric — a defined quantity used to measure performance or change. an attendance metric.
- variable — a factor that may vary or be deliberately changed. control for a confounding variable.
- baseline — a reference point used to judge later differences. measure change against the baseline.
- methodology — the overall system of methods used to investigate a question. question the study’s methodology.
- outlier — a result far from the others in a set. identify an outlier.
- independent — arising separately from the source or factor under discussion. an independent source.
- convergence — movement towards agreement or a shared conclusion. convergence between findings.
- divergence — movement apart or difference between results or views. divergence between local and national data.
- complement — add a missing part or strength to something else. complement the survey with testimony.
- complicate — show that a simple explanation leaves important things out. complicate the initial conclusion.
- reconcile — explain how apparently conflicting claims can fit together. reconcile the two findings.
- triangulate — check a claim by comparing different independent sources or methods. triangulate claims across three sources.
81–100 Building commentary and argument
- commentary — reasoning that explains how evidence supports a claim. develop the commentary after a quotation.
- warrant — the reasoning that connects evidence to a claim. explain the warrant for the claim.
- grounds — the basis or reasons for holding a position. give grounds for a limited trial.
- scope — the range of cases a statement or argument covers. limit the scope of the argument.
- inference — a conclusion reached from available evidence. draw an inference from the pattern.
- deduction — reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. reach the conclusion by deduction.
- generalization — a broad statement drawn from specific cases. a generalization from a narrow sample.
- analogue — a comparable case with a similar structure or function. an analogue from a neighboring district.
- precedent — an earlier case used as a guide for a later one. cite a legal precedent.
- exception — a case to which a rule or pattern does not apply. allow for an exception.
- criterion — a single standard for judging something. use reliability as one criterion.
- condition — a circumstance required for a claim or proposal to hold. state a condition for success.
- implication — what follows from a statement even when left unstated. consider the implication for families.
- counterexample — a case that shows a general claim does not always hold. offer a counterexample to an absolute claim.
- oversimplification — an explanation that drops important complexity. avoid oversimplification.
- falsehood — a statement that is untrue. identify a falsehood in a source.
- equivocation — a shift between meanings of a term within a line of reasoning. detect equivocation over the meaning of freedom.
- governance — how institutions make and carry out decisions. local governance shapes enforcement.
- tentative — held provisionally pending stronger evidence. a tentative explanation.
- defensible — capable of being supported with sound reasons. a defensible thesis.
101–120 Weighing competing priorities
- trade-off — a choice in which obtaining one benefit comes with a loss elsewhere. a trade-off between privacy and convenience.
- proportionate — appropriate in scale to the problem or objective. a proportionate response to a risk.
- equitable — fair in view of different needs or starting points. equitable access to public services.
- discretion — freedom to exercise judgement within a role or set of rules. give teachers discretion.
- autonomy — the ability or right to make one’s own decisions. protect personal autonomy.
- accountability — responsibility to explain and answer for decisions. increase public accountability.
- consensus — broad agreement among a group. build consensus over priorities.
- dissent — expressed disagreement with a prevailing view. allow space for dissent.
- compliance — acting according to a rule or requirement. monitor compliance with the rule.
- enforcement — steps taken to make a rule operate in practice. the cost of enforcement.
- disparity — a noticeable difference between groups or outcomes. a disparity in participation.
- burden — a cost, duty or difficulty borne by someone. reduce the burden on families.
- incentive — a feature that encourages someone to act. create an incentive to volunteer.
- deterrent — something that discourages an action. a deterrent to unsafe driving.
- feasibility — whether a proposal can be carried out in practice. assess the feasibility of a pilot.
- viability — whether a proposal can work or continue successfully. question the long-term viability.
- allocation — distribution of limited resources among possible uses. the allocation of public funds.
- reciprocity — mutual exchange of benefits, help or obligations. a relationship based on reciprocity.
- compromise — a settlement in which competing parties accept some limits. reach a compromise.
- safeguard — a measure designed to protect against a risk. build in a safeguard for applicants.
121–140 Taking a position
- claim — a statement you want the reader to accept. make a claim.
- stance — your position on a question. take a clear stance.
- thesis — the central position or interpretation your response develops. support the thesis.
- premise — an idea the argument starts from. question the premise.
- assumption — something treated as true without being established. test the assumption.
- assert — state a position firmly. assert that access matters.
- argue — give reasons in support of a position. argue for a trial.
- maintain — continue to hold or defend a view. maintain that the policy is fair.
- contend — put forward a position that can be challenged. contend that the proposal is workable.
- justify — give sufficient reasons for a decision or judgement. justify the expense.
- advocate — publicly support an action or change. advocate for reform.
- defend — answer criticism of a view or choice. defend a decision.
- qualify — limit a statement so it applies only where warranted. qualify the conclusion.
- concede — acknowledge a valid point made by the other side. concede that costs may rise.
- rebut — answer an opposing claim with reasoning or evidence. rebut the objection.
- counterargument — a reasoned objection to a position. address a counterargument.
- reservation — a concern that makes agreement incomplete. express a reservation.
- distinguish — show what makes two things different. distinguish cost from value.
- criteria — standards used to judge something. agree on the criteria.
- verdict — a final judgement reached after consideration. reach a verdict.
141–160 Using evidence and reasoning
- evidence — information that helps establish a claim. draw on evidence.
- example — a specific case that makes a general point clearer. give a concrete example.
- illustrate — make an idea clearer through a case or detail. illustrate the difficulty.
- demonstrate — show how or why something is true. demonstrate a connection.
- substantiate — support a claim with convincing information. substantiate the allegation.
- corroborate — provide independent support for an existing account. corroborate the witness’s account.
- infer — draw a conclusion from available clues. infer a motive from the wording.
- imply — suggest a meaning without saying it directly. imply that change is possible.
- interpret — explain what something means in context. interpret a figure in context.
- analyse — examine how parts work together. analyse the writer’s choices.
- evaluate — judge the strength, quality or value of something. evaluate the proposal.
- plausible — reasonable enough to believe given what is known. a plausible explanation.
- credible — worthy of belief or trust. a credible source.
- relevant — directly connected to the issue being considered. relevant to the question.
- sufficient — enough for the purpose or conclusion at hand. sufficient for a limited trial.
- representative — typical enough to reflect a larger group. a representative sample.
- anecdote — a brief account of a particular incident. open with an anecdote.
- limitation — something that restricts what a method or claim can establish. acknowledge a limitation.
- contradict — state or show something incompatible with another claim. contradict the earlier finding.
- synthesise — combine ideas from separate sources into a new account. synthesise competing accounts.
161–180 Connecting ideas
- whereas — introduces a clause that contrasts with another. whereas the first option costs less.
- although — introduces a fact that qualifies the main statement. although demand may rise.
- however — signals a contrast or change in direction. however, costs remain uncertain.
- nevertheless — signals that a point still holds despite a difficulty. nevertheless, the trial could go ahead.
- conversely — introduces a contrasting relationship in the reverse direction. conversely, lower demand can free capacity.
- similarly — points out a meaningful likeness. similarly, smaller groups need space.
- likewise — shows that a similar point applies elsewhere. likewise, evening users need lighting.
- consequently — introduces a result of what came before. consequently, the queue grew.
- therefore — introduces a conclusion or result that follows. therefore, a trial is justified.
- furthermore — adds a supporting point. furthermore, the existing room is free.
- specifically — narrows the discussion to a precise detail. specifically, the plan would add two sessions.
- instead — signals a replacement or different choice. instead, use the current building.
- alternatively — introduces another option. alternatively, change the timetable.
- otherwise — indicates what happens under different conditions. book early, otherwise places may fill.
- provided — introduces a condition when used with a following clause. provided that staffing is adequate.
- despite — introduces something that fails to prevent the main outcome. despite the delay.
- unlike — marks a difference between two things. unlike the previous scheme.
- respectively — matches items with values in the same stated order. costs were $5 and $8, respectively.
- overall — signals a judgement about the whole picture. overall, the benefits are modest.
- ultimately — identifies what matters after other factors are considered. ultimately, the decision depends on demand.
181–200 Explaining cause and effect
- cause — produce or bring about an outcome. cause avoidable delays.
- contribute — play a part in bringing about an outcome. contribute to overcrowding.
- trigger — set a process or reaction in motion. trigger a review.
- accelerate — make a process happen faster. accelerate the transition.
- intensify — make something stronger or more severe. intensify competition.
- exacerbate — make an existing problem worse. exacerbate existing inequalities.
- mitigate — reduce the severity or harmful effect of something. mitigate the harm.
- prevent — stop something from happening. prevent further damage.
- deter — discourage someone from taking an action. deter people from taking risks.
- enable — make an action possible. enable students to attend.
- facilitate — make an action or process easier. facilitate access to training.
- reinforce — strengthen an effect, belief or behaviour. reinforce an existing pattern.
- undermine — weaken something, often gradually. undermine public trust.
- sustain — keep something going over time. sustain the improvement.
- displace — push something or someone out of an existing place or role. displace smaller operators.
- redistribute — change how something is shared. redistribute public funds.
- consequence — an outcome that follows an action or event. an unintended consequence.
- mechanism — the process through which an effect occurs. identify the mechanism.
- correlation — a pattern in which two things vary together. observe a correlation.
- constraint — a condition that limits what can be done. work within a budget constraint.
What Paper 4 Question 4 requires
Applied Reasoning is an A Level component. The documents can contain arguments, factual material and data. Earlier questions ask you to analyse and evaluate reasoning or evidence. Question 4 asks you to construct a substantial case. The 2028–2030 syllabus explicitly describes responding to significant counter-positions.
Make the supplied material part of the reasoning. A document can establish a fact, illustrate a limit, challenge an assumption or support an objection. Naming a document without explaining its relevance gives the reader little reason to accept the claim. Explain the relationship between what the document shows and what you conclude.
Cambridge International Thinking Skills 9694 syllabus page · 2026–2027 syllabus · 2028–2030 syllabus
A worked argument using a mini document pack
Original practice claim. The town should close its central street to private cars every Saturday. Document A records high pedestrian numbers during two festivals. Document B describes delivery problems reported by several shops. Document C gives a timetable showing fewer buses on Saturdays. These are invented notes for practice.
The documents support a limited trial more strongly than a permanent Saturday closure. Document A shows the street can attract many pedestrians during festivals, when people have a special reason to visit. It does not establish likely demand on an ordinary weekend. Document B identifies a plausible difficulty for shops, though the accounts do not show how often deliveries would be affected. Document C raises a separate access issue because visitors unable to walk far may have fewer alternatives on Saturdays.
A trial could therefore reserve an early delivery window and use a period when buses can serve the area reliably. Before a permanent decision, the town should compare ordinary Saturdays with similar trial days. It should measure visits and access as well as reported delivery delays. This would address the objection that a closure could shift costs onto shops and visitors who have few alternatives.
Word list · Exam requirements · Worked analysis
Distinguish relevance, credibility and sufficiency
Document A is relevant to pedestrian use because it records people on the street. It is limited as evidence of normal demand because festivals can change attendance. Document B is relevant to deliveries because shop staff directly encounter them, while their reports may cover only a small set of experiences. Credibility concerns whether an account can be trusted. Sufficiency concerns whether it gives enough support for a particular conclusion.
Document C may establish scheduled service, but it does not tell you whether the buses have spare capacity or whether the times suit people who want to visit. An evaluation should connect that limitation to the proposed closure. If the conclusion depends on people switching to buses, the missing capacity information matters.
A paragraph can compare evidence without dismissing it. State what each item establishes, then explain what remains uncertain and why that uncertainty affects the position. The result can support a qualified recommendation rather than forcing an all-or-nothing answer.
Word list · Worked response · Fencing Method
How to fence a reasoning word
1. Base. The survey may be unrepresentative. 2. Detail. The survey may be unrepresentative of ordinary Saturday visitors. 3. Tone. A survey taken during a festival may give a limited picture of normal demand. 4. Logic. Festival visitors have a reason to attend that would be absent on an ordinary Saturday, so the result offers limited support for a permanent closure. 5. Transfer. Feedback from people who already use a library may understate barriers faced by people who never enter it.
When using bias, name the mechanism. A source can have an interest and still provide accurate records. If you suspect selection bias, say who was included, who may have been missed and how that could affect the result.
The eduKate Fencing Method for Vocabulary
Word list · Worked analysis · Practice and FAQs
A second document-based workshop
Imagine a proposal to keep a school study room open later. Document A records students who stayed after a special event. Document B gives a staff rota showing a gap on Wednesdays. Document C reports that some pupils use a bus that leaves before the proposed session would end. Decide which document supports demand, which bears on feasibility and which introduces an access constraint.
Now draft a counter-position. It might argue that a later study room benefits only pupils who can already stay. The bus evidence supports that concern, though it does not establish how many students face it. Use the uncertainty to shape a practical conclusion. A trial might test an earlier finishing time or run only on a day with a later bus.
Is Question 4 a general opinion essay? It is a source-based reasoned argument. Should I use every document in the same way? Follow the question and use the documents critically according to what each can support. Is the time limit only for Question 4? The 1 hour 45 minutes cover all four questions.
Word list · Fencing Method · Revision
Read the argument back against the evidence
Highlight your conclusion and mark each reason supporting it. Beside each reference, write what the document establishes in a few words. If the same reference could be used to defend the opposite view, identify the assumption that decides which interpretation is stronger. Explain that assumption rather than hiding it behind a connector.
Finish by checking whether you have dealt with a significant opposing case. Choose an objection that could genuinely change the result. State the evidence behind it, test its limits and explain why your conclusion still holds or needs narrowing.
Practice workshop
Map the structure of one argument
Select a document and underline its main conclusion. Draw a line from each reason to the claim it supports. Look for a statement that acts as both a conclusion of earlier reasoning and a reason for a later claim. In your answer, identify its role and explain how the reasoning would change if the statement were removed.
Check the comparison before using a figure
Imagine a report says visits increased from 40 to 60. Ask whether both figures count the same period, place and kind of visitor. A larger count may arise from longer opening hours rather than a higher rate. Describe the comparison you would need before using the figure to support a permanent change.
Distinguish two independent sources from repetition
If a newspaper and a committee report use the same council survey, they may present one underlying finding in two places. Identify what each contributes independently. A separate record of actual attendance might offer a stronger check than another summary of intentions. Explain whether the information supports the same claim or a different one.
Give the strongest objection its own reasoning
If your argument supports a trial, an opponent might say it imposes costs before the need is established. Explain what evidence backs that concern. Then weigh the cost against what the trial could establish and the cost of deciding without it. A response to an objection should make clear why the conclusion survives or changes.
Check the degree of support
Write one conclusion the documents establish confidently, one they make plausible and one they leave open. A bus timetable establishes the scheduled service. It may make a concern about access plausible. It leaves spare capacity uncertain unless the documents give information about passenger numbers. Use a verb that fits each degree.
Build an evidence-led ending
Return to the exact claim in Question 4. State the decision your reasons support and identify a condition that might change it. If the evidence supports a limited trial, explain why a permanent decision would require stronger or more relevant data. An ending should make the significance of the evaluation clear.
Use an alternative explanation to test a conclusion
Suppose one document reports that attendance rose after a town introduced a free weekend bus. Another says a popular exhibition opened in the same period. Explain why the timing allows more than one explanation. The bus might contribute to the rise, while the exhibition may also have attracted visitors independently.
Identify a comparison that would help separate the effects. You might compare attendance at similar exhibitions served by different transport arrangements, or compare visitors on days with and without the free bus while the same exhibition was running. Neither comparison automatically resolves the question. Consider what else differs before treating the result as decisive.
Use the uncertainty in your final judgement. If the documents support the possibility of a benefit but give weak evidence of its size, say so. A qualified recommendation can still be persuasive when it explains what additional evidence would justify a larger commitment.
Next reading
Cambridge International AS & A Level Literature in English (9695) · Pearson Edexcel International GCSE English Language A (4EA1) · EIKEN Grade 2
GRE Analyze an Issue · Singapore–Cambridge H1 General Paper · Back to the 200-word list