ACARA v9 CONTENT DESCRIPTION “construct arguments based on analysis of a variety of evidence to support conclusions or evaluate claims, and consider any ethical issues and cultural protocols associated with accessing, using or citing secondary data or information”
Builds on constructing evidence-based arguments from secondary data. This year you go wider: you analyse a variety of cited evidence, weigh how good each source is, and reach a conclusion the combined evidence can carry. You also take more care over accessing, using and citing that evidence ethically and respectfully.
A strong argument rests on a variety of cited evidence
A single dataset can be wrong, biased or too narrow. A robust scientific argument draws on several independent lines of secondary evidence, surface-temperature records, ocean-heat series, ice-extent surveys, published emissions tables, and shows that they point the same way. When different sources, gathered by different teams with different methods, agree, the conclusion is far harder to dismiss. The job is to gather that variety, judge the quality of each source, and analyse what the whole body of evidence supports, not just the one number that suits the claim.
Read the pattern in one cited record
This is the published annual mean surface-temperature anomaly for a region, taken from a national climate agency dataset and cited by source and year. Switch the view to see the trend that a table alone can hide.
The line view makes the steady upward trend obvious. This is only one cited source, though, so on its own it supports the claim for this region; the next step is to test whether other independent records agree.
Build the case from a variety of cited evidence
A student argues that this region is warming, drawing on several published, cited datasets. Decide which statements are sound, varied evidence that genuinely supports the conclusion.
Claim: This region has warmed measurably over the past four decades.
The national agency surface-temperature dataset, cited by source and year, shows a clear upward anomaly trend across the period.
A separate, cited ocean-heat-content series for the adjacent sea shows steady warming over the same decades.
A cited glacier-extent survey by a different research group records continued retreat in the region.
A single hot summer everyone remembers felt unusually warm, so the climate must be warming.
Figures were copied from an unnamed blog and the warmest years were kept while cooler ones were quietly dropped.
Decide whether each statement is evidence for the claim, or not.
Accessing and citing secondary data carries responsibilities
Reusing data is not the same as owning it. Before you cite a dataset you should check that its licence or terms allow reuse, represent the figures honestly without trimming or inflating them, and attribute the dataset, its authors and the year so a reader can reach the original. Some evidence carries stronger duties still. Where it includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge, that knowledge can have cultural protocols, often described as Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, governing how it may be accessed, used and cited. Treat it as belonging to its community: seek permission, attribute it correctly to the knowledge holders, present it accurately, and respect any restrictions rather than assuming it is free to take.
How should you access the Traditional Owner records?
The longest continuous observations of the region come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander seasonal knowledge held by a local Traditional Owner group. Choose how to use them in your argument and weigh what each choice gains and gives up.
A variety of evidence can include knowledge that belongs to people and carries cultural meaning. How you access, credit and represent it is an ethical decision as much as a scientific one.
Choose a response to see what is gained and what is given up.
A conclusion should follow the whole body of evidence
An argument is not fixed. As you add each new cited, independent source, the conclusion may be reinforced, sharpened or scoped back. The honest response is to follow the variety of evidence as a whole, weighing source quality and acknowledging any source that disagrees, rather than keeping only the data that suits the claim. Step through how a regional warming argument firms up as each properly cited dataset is added.
Watch the conclusion follow the variety of evidence
Each step adds another independent, properly cited dataset about the region. See how the working conclusion is updated as the body of evidence grows.
New evidence (1 of 3)
Only the agency surface-temperature series is cited, showing a clear regional warming trend.
Accepted model: One cited record suggests the region has warmed; the case rests on a single source.
Add the next piece of evidence and watch whether the accepted model holds or has to change.
Why this matters
Whether you are advising a council, writing a report or reading the news, the strength of a case rests on the variety of evidence behind it and the honesty with which it is sourced. Knowing how to analyse several cited datasets, weigh their quality, credit every source, and respect the cultural protocols attached to some knowledge is a skill that reaches well beyond science class.
Quick self-check
1. Your argument leans on a temperature series, a published emissions table and a glacier-extent map, all gathered by other people. What kind of evidence is this?
2. Which version analyses a variety of evidence to support a conclusion, rather than resting on one source?
3. You want to reuse figures from a published research dataset. Before citing it in your argument you should check that you may access and use it by...
4. Some long-term observations you want to cite are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander seasonal knowledge held by a Traditional Owner group. The appropriate step is to...
5. One cited dataset disagrees with the three others your argument relies on. The most defensible response is to...