Deciding What a Source Can Support
You are writing a research report in Chinese on changing family structures in China. You have three sources. Source A is a 2019 government statistical yearbook table showing average household size falling from 3.96 in 2000 to 2.92 in 2019. Source B is a 2021 newspaper opinion piece arguing that smaller households mean weaker family ties. Source C is a 2020 academic study of 30 families in one city, finding that adult children contact parents daily by phone. Your draft currently says: 中国的家庭关系正在变弱，因为家庭规模变小了. Your teacher says the claim is too strong for the evidence.
1. Assess what each source can and cannot support, and explain why the draft claim is too strong.
Read the worked answer
Source A supports the factual claim that average household size fell between 2000 and 2019. It is a statistical table and is strong for that narrow point, but it says nothing about the quality of relationships.
Source B is an opinion piece. It offers an interpretation but is not evidence of a trend; opinion pieces select and frame facts to persuade. It cannot be used as proof that ties weakened.
Source C is a small qualitative study of 30 families in one city. It can show that daily contact occurred in those families, but it cannot be generalised to China as a whole, and it actually points against the draft claim.
The draft is too strong because it moves from a change in household size to a claim about relationship quality, which none of the sources measures directly. It also uses causal language (因为) that the data do not establish.
2. Rewrite the draft claim so it is proportionate to the evidence, and justify each change.
Read the worked answer
A proportionate rewrite: 统计数据显示，中国家庭的平均规模从2000年的3.96人下降到2019年的2.92人。家庭规模的变化不一定意味着家庭关系变弱；一项针对某城市三十个家庭的质性研究发现，成年子女与父母每天通过电话联系。
Changes and reasons: the causal 因为 is removed because the sources do not establish causation. The word 变弱 is replaced with a neutral statement about household size, because no source measures relationship strength directly. The small study is reported with its limits (某城市三十个家庭) so it is not overgeneralised. The rewrite separates the statistical fact from the interpretation, which is what the evidence allows.