What is the "evidence mapping" trick for building arguments?

[GeorgeM]

I found another gem from that LSE blog: after you have your questions, you need to "look for evidence/case/example" . This means actively searching your resources for proof that helps you answer your own questions. They mention that evidence can be an example, a case analysis, or even a counter-argument you want to oppose.

This clicked for me. Instead of just summarizing everything I read, I'm now asking: "How is/are my evidence/s addressing my key questions? Are they making an effective claim?" . It turns writing from a chore into a puzzle. I'm actually building a case, not just dumping information. For anyone else struggling, try this "evidence mapping" approach—it’s a game-changer for structuring your argument logically.

 

[Kirk]

The "evidence addressing key questions" framing is so simple but I've never thought of it that way. I always read sources to understand what they say, not to answer what I'm asking. No wonder my papers felt like book reports. Now I'm going to start with my questions first. Then every source is either useful or not. If it doesn't answer a question, maybe I don't need it. Thanks for sharing the LSE tip.