Deciding What Counts as Evidence in an Inquiry
A student investigating how a drummer's use of the ride cymbal shapes groove has collected three kinds of material. First, a fan blog claiming the drummer 'always plays behind the beat'. Second, her own tapping transcription of the ride pattern across four bars of one track, showing where each stroke falls relative to the hi-hat. Third, an interview where the drummer says he 'thinks about the cymbal like a conversation'. She has room in her 1,500-word report for about three pieces of evidence per claim and must justify her conclusions. Her teacher has warned against treating opinion as data.
1. Rank the three sources by evidentiary strength for her specific claim, and justify the ranking.
Read the worked answer
Strongest: her own tapping transcription. It is primary, specific to the claim about placement relative to the beat, and reproducible. Because it records where strokes fall against the hi-hat, it directly supports or contradicts a claim about groove placement.
Middle: the drummer's interview. It is a primary source from the practitioner and can illuminate intent, but 'like a conversation' is metaphorical, not measurable. It can support interpretation but not establish timing facts.
Weakest: the fan blog. It is secondary, unattributed, and uses a vague phrase ('behind the beat') without defining the reference point. It may suggest a hypothesis worth testing but cannot itself be evidence.
A good answer notes that strength depends on the claim: the blog would be even weaker for a timing claim, while the interview would be stronger for a claim about the drummer's compositional intentions.
2. The transcription covers only four bars of one track. What limitation should she acknowledge, and how could she address it within her word limit?
Read the worked answer
She should acknowledge sampling: four bars of one track cannot support a general claim about the drummer's style. The pattern may be atypical, and a single section may not represent the song.
Addressing it within the limit:
- Narrow the claim from 'the drummer's style' to 'this passage'.
- Add a second short transcription from a contrasting section (for example, a chorus) to test whether the pattern holds.
- State the limitation explicitly in the conclusion rather than overgeneralising.
This is stronger than padding with more opinion sources, because it shows awareness of scope - a criterion the report rewards.