How English Works · Core Guide 27
Previous guide: Letters, Records and Archives · The whole English map · Next guide: Summary and Paraphrase
eduKateSG · HOW ENGLISH WORKS · FOUNDATIONS
Trace the claim and check its support
Choose a reading route, or follow the complete guide in order. Each chapter keeps the explanation connected to examples and use.
ROUTE 1 · CHAPTERS 1–4
Claims, source statements, traceability and identity.
ROUTE 3 · CHAPTERS 9–12
Inspect representations of evidence
Methods, citations, quotations and paraphrase.
ROUTE 4 · CHAPTERS 13–16
Independent support, lateral reading, contradictions and generated text.
Full chapter index · Practice and answers · The whole English map
“The workshop has moved.” A message can sound clear while leaving its basis uncertain. Did the organiser confirm the change, did someone suggest it, or did a reader infer it from a draft? Attribution and verification help preserve those differences as information travels.
A source supplies information. Attribution identifies where a statement or idea comes from. Verification checks whether the available material supports the particular claim being made. A link, quotation or confident voice can help communication, but none automatically completes those checks.
This guide follows Letters, Records and Archives. All workshop notices and message chains are invented teaching examples. They illustrate verification rather than report an actual event.
Full Chapter Index
Open a group to choose a chapter. The teaching chapters themselves remain expanded.
Define and locate the claim · Chapters 1–4
Check relevance and boundaries · Chapters 5–8
Inspect representations of evidence · Chapters 9–12
Follow the information chain · Chapters 13–16
Compare, record and practise · Chapters 17–20
“Something changed” is difficult to check. “The organiser confirmed Room 4 for the workshop on 18 October” names an actor, status, location and event. Each part can now be compared with evidence.
Before searching, write the claim in one plain sentence. Does it concern a fact, proposal, prediction, interpretation or preference? Different kinds of statement need different checks.
Do not allow the claim to grow during verification. Finding evidence that Room 4 is available does not establish that the workshop moved there. The source must support the relationship actually asserted, not merely mention the same words.
CHAPTER 2 OF 20 · Define and locate the claim
2. Distinguish a claim from its source’s statement
“The notice says Room 4” reports wording in a document. “The workshop is in Room 4” asserts the arrangement itself. The first may support the second, but its relevance depends on the notice’s status and date.
Use attribution when the distinction matters. “The revised draft lists Room 4” preserves provisional status. Removing “draft” can make an unresolved arrangement sound confirmed.
Attribution is not a shield that makes any repetition responsible. If a statement is consequential or doubtful, readers may also need information about the source’s basis and uncertainty. Naming who said it is one step, not the whole evaluation.
CHAPTER 3 OF 20 · Define and locate the claim
3. A source must be traceable enough to inspect
“I read it somewhere” cannot guide another reader to the evidence. A useful reference identifies the relevant document, author or organisation, date and location as appropriate to the task.
A webpage link may be sufficient for a brief practical reference, while an academic task may require a specified citation format. Follow the actual requirements rather than inventing one universal form.
Save enough context to find the particular claim again. A homepage containing many changing items is less precise than the relevant document or passage. Traceability helps another reader inspect the same basis rather than rely only on your recollection.
CHAPTER 4 OF 20 · Define and locate the claim
4. Check identity rather than familiar appearance
A professional-looking page or familiar logo does not by itself establish who created the material. Inspect the source’s actual identity and its relationship to the claim.
If a message copies a notice, ask whether it preserves the original sender and whether the copied document can be located. A forwarded image can lose the source information that made it interpretable.
Do not assume that every page on a trusted platform is an official statement by that platform. Hosted personal material, commentary and institutional guidance have different roles. Identify the particular author and publication context.
CHAPTER 5 OF 20 · Check relevance and boundaries
5. Expertise is relevant to a domain
A person may have useful knowledge about room bookings without being able to establish how every participant will respond to the change. Expertise should match the question being asked.
Credentials and institutional reputation can guide attention towards a source, but the actual claim still needs a basis. An impressive title does not turn speculation into a verified observation.
Ask what the source was in a position to know and how it knows it. A participant’s direct account of receiving a message supports a different claim from an organiser’s record of distribution. Both can be useful without being interchangeable.
CHAPTER 6 OF 20 · Check relevance and boundaries
6. Primary and secondary depend on the enquiry
A document created in relation to an event can be a primary source for that enquiry. A later explanation interpreting such material is secondary in relation to that evidence. The distinction concerns the source’s role, not an automatic ranking of truth.
A primary source may contain mistakes or incomplete knowledge. A careful later analysis may help explain its context and limitations. Use each for the job it can actually do.
For the workshop example, an organiser’s confirmation is closer to the booking decision than a later recollection. But the confirmation’s date, version and scope still need checking. “Primary” does not remove those questions.
CHAPTER 7 OF 20 · Check relevance and boundaries
7. Dates protect temporal accuracy
A current claim needs evidence that applies to the relevant period. Last month’s room arrangement may not describe this week’s workshop. A newly reposted old notice does not become newly issued information.
Distinguish publication date, event date and revision date. An article updated today can discuss a much earlier event. A report published later can contain observations from a specified past period.
Do not demand novelty when the question is historical. An older source may be precisely the evidence needed for what was announced then. The right date is the one relevant to the claim, not automatically the most recent timestamp.
CHAPTER 8 OF 20 · Check relevance and boundaries
8. Scope includes people, place and conditions
“Group A received the notice” does not establish receipt by Group B. “The room is available after four” does not establish availability at three. A condition can carry the limit that makes the statement accurate.
Carry these boundaries into your restatement. A summary that drops the time condition can mislead even if it retains the room number correctly.
Check quantity as well. “Some respondents” and “all participants” name different groups. Verification is not complete when one favourable detail matches; the full claimed relationship must remain within the source’s coverage.
CHAPTER 9 OF 20 · Inspect representations of evidence
9. Inspect the basis and method
How was the information obtained: direct observation, a document, a survey, a calculation or another report? The answer affects what the source can support.
In an invented survey, six of eight respondents may favour a later time. The method and response group matter before generalising to every eligible participant. A count without its basis can invite an exaggerated conclusion.
You do not need to become a specialist in every field to notice missing method information. Identify the gap and use suitable expert guidance where the stakes or technical complexity require it. Do not substitute polished presentation for a missing account of how the information was produced.
CHAPTER 10 OF 20 · Inspect representations of evidence
10. Follow the citation to the actual material
A reference can exist yet fail to support the associated claim. It may concern a different population, an earlier arrangement or a possibility rather than a confirmed result.
Open or obtain the relevant source and inspect the passage, not merely its title. If access is unavailable, state that you have not checked the underlying content. A search snippet can help locate a source without representing its full argument.
Do not invent citation details to fill an incomplete reference. Record what is known and identify what needs resolving. A plausible-looking author, title and date are not substitutes for a source that can actually be traced.
CHAPTER 11 OF 20 · Inspect representations of evidence
11. Quotation preserves wording, not automatic truth
Quotation marks identify exact words. They do not establish that the quoted speaker was correct or that the words describe a current arrangement.
Preserve surrounding qualifications. “We may use Room 4 if it is available” cannot responsibly become a quotation of “use Room 4” presented as a settled instruction. The omitted material changes the status.
Explain who said the words and what role they have in your account. A quotation can be evidence of a person’s statement even when it is not evidence that the statement’s content is true.
CHAPTER 12 OF 20 · Inspect representations of evidence
12. Paraphrase must preserve evidential strength
“The report suggests a possible connection” should not become “The report proves the cause”. New wording must preserve the source’s certainty, quantity, conditions and attribution.
Do not treat a paraphrase as your own discovery merely because the sentence has changed. The underlying idea still requires attribution when it comes from another source.
The next guide, Summary and Paraphrase, develops this work in detail. Here the verification test is whether the restatement carries the same supported relationship rather than a stronger, more convenient version.
CHAPTER 13 OF 20 · Follow the information chain
13. Repeated reports may share one origin
Three messages can repeat the same unverified claim from one original message. Their number does not make them three independent confirmations.
Trace where each account obtained its information. If all cite the same draft, the draft remains the shared basis. A separate booking confirmation would supply a different kind of support.
Corroboration matters when sources provide genuinely relevant additional evidence. Do not count copies as independent observations or assume agreement automatically resolves a claim. Inspect the chain rather than the volume of repetition.
CHAPTER 14 OF 20 · Follow the information chain
14. Search outside a source’s self-description
A source may describe itself as reliable. Additional checks can look for its authorship, institutional relationship, corrections and how relevant independent sources describe its work.
This outward checking complements close inspection of the source itself. It is often called lateral reading. The aim is not to collect a pile of opinions but to locate information relevant to the source’s identity and basis.
Use appropriate sources for the check. An unrelated complaint does not settle the accuracy of a particular report. For further guidance, see MIT Libraries’ Evaluating Sources.
CHAPTER 15 OF 20 · Follow the information chain
15. Contradiction needs investigation, not automatic selection
An earlier notice lists Room 2; a revised draft lists Room 4. The discrepancy may reflect a proposed change, a confirmed update or an error. The later date alone may not settle the status.
Identify what differs and seek the evidence that can resolve it. An organiser’s confirmation might clarify the applicable arrangement. If no such material is available, preserve the uncertainty.
Do not choose the preferred answer and label the other source wrong without a basis. A transparent account can state that the inspected documents conflict and that confirmation is still needed.
CHAPTER 16 OF 20 · Follow the information chain
16. Generated text is not its own evidence
An AI-generated answer can offer leads, explanations or suggested references. Its confident wording does not verify the facts, and a generated citation must be checked for existence and relevance.
The same principle applies to any convenient summary supplied by a tool or intermediary. Trace the underlying material before using it as the basis of a consequential factual claim.
Separate assistance from authority. A tool can help organise a checking task; the result still needs the appropriate source and inspection. Do not cite a fluent answer as if it were a verified record of the event it describes.
CHAPTER 17 OF 20 · Compare, record and practise
17. Compare attribution and support
| Invented statement | What is identified | Check still needed |
|---|---|---|
| Someone said the room changed. | An unspecified report | Source, date and basis |
| The draft lists Room 4. | Wording and provisional status | Whether it was confirmed |
| The organiser confirmed Room 4 in the dated reply. | Named source and confirmation | Relevant event, date and exact scope |
| Three forwarded messages list Room 4. | Repetition | Whether their origins are independent |
| A summary says the room is confirmed. | An intermediary’s claim | The underlying confirmation |
Verification concerns the full relationship. Matching a room number is insufficient if the event, time or status does not match the claim.
For an important claim, record the claim, source location, relevant passage, date or version, result of the check and unresolved limits. This need not be an elaborate document for a simple task.
In the sample case: “The draft lists Room 4, but no confirmation was located among the inspected messages.” This note preserves what was found and what remains unverified.
If new evidence arrives, update the conclusion and retain enough context to explain the change. For a deeper eduKate branch on reported and verified states, see News Source-State Attribution.
Task 1. Do three copied messages provide three independent confirmations? Answer. Not necessarily. Trace their origins; they may all repeat one source.
Task 2. A source says the move is possible. Can a paraphrase state that it is confirmed? Answer. No. Preserve evidential strength and status.
Task 3. Does a working citation guarantee support? Answer. No. Inspect whether the source actually supports the associated claim with the relevant scope.
Task 4. What should be reported when two inspected notices conflict? Answer. Name the discrepancy and identify the needed confirmation. Do not silently choose one without a basis.
Task 5. Is a quotation automatically evidence that its content is true? Answer. No. It can establish what a source said; truth requires the appropriate additional evaluation.
CHAPTER 20 OF 20 · Compare, record and practise
20. Reconnect verification with faithful restatement
Sources become useful when their identity, content and limits remain traceable. Attribution preserves origin; verification checks support; careful wording keeps the conclusion proportionate.
When communicating the result, distinguish established information, a source’s report, your interpretation and unresolved gaps. A smaller accurate claim is more useful than a larger one whose basis disappears in transit.
The next guide, Summary and Paraphrase, examines how to compress or restate information without changing those relationships. Return to the whole English map for the complete series.
Reference Notes
All message chains and verification examples are invented. For complementary guidance, see MIT Libraries’ Evaluating Sources and Purdue OWL’s Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing. These references support further study; they are not evidence about the sample workshop arrangements.