Draft a History investigation around claims and counterevidence
Before drafting a History investigation, write a provisional answer to the research question and identify its limits.
State a provisional answer first
Before drafting a History investigation, write a provisional answer to the research question and identify its limits. This gives the draft an argument to test. It should remain open to revision as evidence develops. Then break the answer into a few supporting claims. Each claim needs a reason and source support. A chronological narrative can provide context, but chronology alone does not establish a judgment about cause, effect or significance.
Build paragraph evidence packets
For each planned paragraph, collect the claim, relevant evidence, interpretive link and strongest complication. Include precise references in your working notes. The complication may be contrary evidence, a different interpretation or a source limitation that reduces confidence. Do not force every paragraph into identical lengths or symmetrical sides. The structure should follow the historical problem and the weight of evidence, with each paragraph advancing the answer.
Work through a policy-effect argument
Imagine investigating whether a housing policy improved conditions in a named district. One packet contains inspection reports indicating improvement. Another contains residents' accounts of continuing problems. Rather than declaring one source type reliable and the other biased, ask what each measures and whose experience it represents. Differences may reveal uneven implementation. Your answer could therefore become more specific: some recorded conditions improved, while access or experience remained unequal.
Integrate counterevidence honestly
Place counterevidence where it affects the relevant claim. Explain whether it overturns the claim, narrows it or requires a different causal account. A separate objections paragraph is not automatically necessary. Avoid weakening your answer through ritual phrases about every source being biased. Specific evaluation shows why particular evidence should receive particular weight. You can reach a reasoned judgment despite uncertainty, provided the judgment's scope matches what the evidence establishes.
Reverse-outline the investigation
After drafting, summarize each paragraph in one sentence. Read those sentences together and check that they form a coherent answer. Remove repeated context, revise unsupported claims and ensure the conclusion follows from the analysis. Confirm the required structure and other submission requirements for your History cohort with your teacher. A strong investigation is traceable: the reader can follow how particular evidence supports a claim and how competing evidence changes the final judgment.
Check the evidence trail before you finish
Choose one important sentence from your response and trace it back to the source or class material that supports it. Check whether you have stated an observation, inferred a cause or adopted another historian's interpretation. Those claims need different kinds of justification. Record precise references in research notes and separate quotations from your own paraphrases. Then ask what evidence could weaken the sentence and whether your answer acknowledges that possibility. This short audit improves the relationship between evidence and argument without requiring you to add more material simply for length. When accounts disagree, check whether they refer to the same period, population and outcome before deciding that one contradicts the other. This comparison can reveal a difference in scope that a simple reliability judgment would miss.
Your next-step checklist
Checklist choices stay in this browser.
Official references
This is an original practical guide from IBvia. The examples are illustrative; your subject guide, assessment year and school instructions determine the requirements.
Keep working on your next step
Choose evidence that can answer your Business IA question
Select supporting documents for a real organizational issue and use their strengths and gaps in your analysis.
Read the guide ↗
Plan an Economics IA commentary around one event
Choose an article, connect its event to economic theory and develop evaluation that follows the evidence.
Read the guide ↗