Outside Evidence Question

So say that you are arguing about how much something changed over the years and you split your documents into two different groups and then use these two groups to argue that the thing has significantly changed over the years. For your outside evidence, can you make it another group (a separate paragraph) that you use to briefly support your argument about how the change was significant? The outside evidence wouldn’t be related to the other two groups, but it would work to support the main argument and it would be part of your thesis.

The patterns of trade significantly changed from the period 1200 to 1750 because countries switched from using paper money when travelling through trade routes to silver based trade and patterns of trade changed because humans began to be traded in addition to luxury goods. The patterns of trade also significantly changed because technology that was used for trade was innovated on and changed over the years.
The last supporting claim about technology changing would be solely supported using outside evidence instead of documents.

1 Like

Make sure that you’re being specific – what technology (think about the methods of travel: ships in particular) helped change these patterns of trade? Also remember, this additional
piece of evidence must be different from the evidence used to earn the point for contextualization. (ie. no double dipping)


Indeed! Something I suggest to my students is to keep the Outside Evidence within your body paragraphs of your argument as it’ll help you connect it to your argument. Dropping a factoid, no matter how well-described won’t earn points if it’s not connected to your argument

Yes, but I was wondering if you could just do a paragraph ONLY containing outside evidence if it helps support the main argument about how trade significantly changed? Also, if the factoid is just ONE word but if its well connected to your argument, would you earn the point?

Factoids usually won’t earn points unless you explain them AND tie them to your argument. Fact-dropping is great as long as you back it up with more information. Technically, you can get the outside evidence stuff if you have it as its own paragraph, but again, it’s got to tie into your argument, and having it be its own paragraph can make that tricky.

The importance of silver is emphasized again in Document 4, where the author talks about how 326,000,000 silver coins were made by Spain showing how everything was bought using silver coins in contrast to Document 1 where everything seemed to be bought with paper money or flying cash as it was called during that time. This huge amount of silver coins shows how important silver was to different states like Spain.

This is a sample passage I wrote in my DBQ and Document 1 talked about the use of paper money which related to my argument. So I added in the part about flying cash as outside evidence and it is the part in bold. Would this get the point?

Honestly? Not really. It doesn’t enhance your argument in any way, and doesn’t really add to the overall statement beyond showing that you know that little fact. It’s a nifty fact to know, no doubt, but Outside evidence has to tie in to your argument!

In China though, a woman named Ning Lao Tai Tai talks about how she still couldn’t go out of the house even amidst reform efforts and this custom of women not leaving the house traces back to the Song Dynasty were Confucian beliefs were reaffirmed. Women still not being able to leave the house shows how women’s social interactions had not changed since the Song Dynasty showing how reform efforts didn’t bring about much change in that aspect.

Would this bit of outside evidence about the Song Dynasty get the point?

It’s better, but again, and you really need to be thinking about this/asking yourself this: “How does what I just said connect to and enhance/further my argument?”

Would it get the point?

probably not my dude

Could you see if one more example would get the point? Sorry about all of the questions…
Ottoman reform movements also produced racist nationalistic ideals which focused on warding off minority ethnicities by reformers groups like the Young Turks who thought that these minority races inside the ottoman Empire was weakening it and this is proven in document 7 where the author mentions how about 12,000 Bulgarians inside the Ottoman Empire including women and children were killed by Ottomans. This is a significant change to the way people viewed each other in society caused by nationalistic ideals part of the Ottoman reform movement.

I was using the this bit about the Young Turks to help me support my analysis of document 7.

Fiveable Logo

2550 north lake drive
suite 2
milwaukee, wi 53211

✉️ help@fiveable.me


about for students for parents for teachers for schools & districts content team privacy contact


🥇 2020 Fiveable Olympics study plans upcoming events trivia hypertyper resources cram passes


community tiktok discord twitter instagram facebook careers

*ap® and advanced placement® are registered trademarks of the college board, which was not involved in the production of, and does not endorse, this product.

© fiveable 2020 | all rights reserved.