The Certainty Spectrum
Every hedge placed on one bar — and the unhedged claim falling off the end of it.
Click to zoom
Everything on the bar is defensible. The thing falling off the end is not.
Scale a claim to the evidence you actually have, so it survives the counter-example an examiner is looking for.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
An unhedged claim invites one counter-example that destroys it. Eight ways to make a claim you can defend.
All young people are addicted to their phones.
An examiner reads that and immediately thinks of a young person who is not. Your claim is now broken, and you spend the rest of the paragraph defending something indefensible.
Young people tend to rely heavily on their phones.
Same idea. Now the counter-example does not touch it, because you never claimed all.
Hedging is not weakness. It is the difference between a claim that survives scrutiny and one that does not — and examiners read it as academic maturity.
Every hedge placed on one bar — and the unhedged claim falling off the end of it.
Everything on the bar is defensible. The thing falling off the end is not.
Five absolute claims. Pick the hedge that saves each one without emptying it.
Each claim below is currently indefensible. One option rescues it. The others either fail to fix it, or weaken it so much that you have stopped arguing anything.
Fix this: All teenagers prefer online learning to classroom teaching.
Three decisions where how much evidence you have settles which hedge you may use.
One
Your evidence: a single country's data.
Candidates: in most cases / arguably
The expert chooses:
Because:
Two
Your evidence: a well-established pattern with known exceptions.
Candidates: tend to / appear to
The expert chooses:
Because:
Three
Your position: you accept the opposing view partly, and will spend the next two sentences qualifying it.
Candidates: broadly speaking / to some extent
The expert chooses:
Because:
A paragraph of absolute claims with six gaps. One sentence is already limited and needs nothing.
Should governments fund public transport rather than roads?
Cities that invest in rail see lower congestion within a decade, though the effect varies with population density.
, the environmental case for public transport is stronger than the economic one, since the savings are hard to measure directly.
Drivers resist congestion charging when it is first introduced, but opposition usually falls once the scheme is running.
The evidence from Stockholm support this: approval rose from 36% to 70% after the charge was implemented.
In 2019, exactly 62% of the city's commuters used public transport at least once a week — a figure taken directly from the municipal survey.
A well-designed network reduce car dependency over time, although this depends heavily on how far people live from a station.
Write one thesis sentence and find out whether it is defensible, over-hedged, or still absolute.
Task 2 prompt: Some people believe that governments should ban private cars from city centres.
It has to survive an examiner actively looking for a counter-example — but it also has to actually say something. Those two pressures pull in opposite directions, and holding both is the skill.
One sentence. One hedge, two at most.
Write 'none' if you did not use one.