144 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking
4.3 Evidence
Practically anything can be evidence: a
footprint, a bloodstain, a written or spoken
statement, a statistic, a chance remark, an
email, some CCTV footage... the list could
run to pages.
There is good and bad evidence, just as there
are good and bad reasons (for a conclusion).
Judging whether or not a piece of evidence is
‘good’ depends on what it is being used as
evidence for. There is nothing good or bad
about a percentage of people saying they think
that false claims for personal injury are on the
increase. That is just raw data; a fact. It becomes
evidence when it is used as a reason for some
conclusion or verdict; or, to put it another way,
when something is inferred from it.
From this we can see that ‘evidence’ and
‘reason’ have some overlap in meaning.
However, there are subtle differences in the
way we use the terms in connection with
arguments. Recall once more the evidence
underlying the discussions in the previous two
chapters. The charts in Doc 3 in Chapter 4.1
(pages 131–2) could be cited as evidence for the
claim that:[A] The vast majority of people believe that
more compensation payments are being
made than previously, and that more
false claims are being made.But we could just as well say that the data in
the charts gave reasons for inferring [A]. It is
useful therefore to think of the numbers and
percentages reflected in the charts as raw
evidence (or raw data) which has been
extracted and processed into the statement,
[A]. [A] expresses the evidence in a form that
could be used as a reason (or premise) in an
argument. It also interprets the data, bysummarising the figures and connecting the
information from Charts 1 and 2.
Similarly, the figures in Doc 4 in Chapter 4.1
(page 134) are evidence for the claim that:
[B] Overall, more than 3000 fewer claims
were notified in 2007/8 than in 2000/1.These two claims between them could then be
used to argue that, for example:
[C] The public perception of a dishonest
‘compensation culture’ is completely
mistaken.Expressed as an argument:
[1] According to a report by the UK House
of Commons Constitutional Affairs
Committee the vast majority of British
people believe that more
compensation payments are being
made than previously. However, the
Compensation Recovery Unit reported
that over 3000 fewer claims were
made in 2007/8 than in 2000/1. The
widespread perception among the
British public that there is a growing,
and increasingly dishonest,
compensation culture is completely
mistaken.Whether we want to call [A] and [B] ‘evidence’
for [C] or ‘reasons’ for [C] is a matter of
preference. They are evidence because they are
factual and statistical; they are reasons because
they are used in support of a conclusion. The
distinction is maintained when we say that
the reasons (or premises) in [1] are based on the
evidence provided by two sources. If [A] and
[B] are warranted by the evidence from those
sources, then [1] is well founded, and