Describe, analyse, evaluate: the three ways to write a geography answer

Imagine three officers at the council in Hootley, a town in the fictional land of Owlobia, all reading the same pedestrian count. Which of their three reports should the council trust? The first officer reports that the count falls from four hundred and twelve people at the station end of the high street to fifty-seven at the far end. The second says why: shoppers arrive by train, and they turn off into shops as they walk. The third officer says the count cannot be trusted, because it lasted ten minutes on one wet Tuesday. All three used the same numbers, and the council has a budget riding on which report it believes. You may already have a favourite. Keep that favourite in mind, because the answer turns on the question being asked.

Every answer you write in a geography exam is one of three kinds of writing, and each kind answers its own question. Start with the first officer, who gave figures and places. What question did that answer? It answered what, where and how much, and that is descriptive writing. Descriptive writing sets out the evidence, meaning the figures, the places and the changes, and it gives no reasons. The count falls from four hundred and twelve at the station to fifty-seven at the far end, and the first report stops there. Analytical writing answers why and how. It gives causes, links and processes, joined by words like because, so and which means. The second officer wrote analytically. Shoppers arrive by train, so the station end is busiest, and they turn off into shops as they walk. Now the third officer's report. What question was that officer answering? That officer was answering how far the count can be trusted. Critical writing answers how far, how good and how reliable, and it weighs the evidence to reach a judgement backed by that evidence. Critical writing does not mean criticising. Criticising lists what is wrong, while critical writing says what the evidence does show before it says where the evidence falls short. That makes the third report half of a critical answer. The wet Tuesday is a fair weakness, but a full judgement would also weigh what the count can still show. Now a sentence for you to sort. A student writes: the count is highest at the station, but one short count on a wet day cannot prove that this happens every day. Is that descriptive, analytical or critical writing? Pick one, with a reason. It is critical writing. It grants what the count shows, with the highest numbers at the station, and then it judges how far one short count can prove it.

Every command word asks for one of these three kinds, so the first job with any question is to sort its command word. Identify, state, name, give and define are descriptive. Each one asks for a short, exact item, such as a term, a figure or a place. Describe and outline are descriptive too. They ask what something is like, using figures and places, and they stop before any reason. Compare stays descriptive. It asks for the similarities and differences between two things, and never for why they differ. Calculate, plot and complete ask for a number or a finished graph, and that makes them descriptive as well. Now place one yourself: reasoned ideas for an unstudied place. Which kind is suggest? Suggest is analytical, because its ideas come with reasons. It sits with explain, which asks for the reasons how or why, and with examine. Suggest can also climb a level. On some courses, the longest suggest questions are marked for a judgement as well. Assess, evaluate, discuss, justify and to what extent are the command words for critical writing. Each one asks you to weigh evidence and reach a judgement, and each has its own video in the chapter on long answers. A new task now, with three questions on one topic. The first asks you to define deforestation. The second asks you to explain one way that deforestation can raise the risk of flooding. The third asks how far you agree that stopping logging is the best way to protect tropical rainforests. Which kind of writing does each of those three questions want? Define is descriptive, because it wants one exact meaning. Explain is analytical, because it wants a reason with a chain. How far do you agree asks for critical writing, because it wants a position that gets weighed. You can hear which kind you are writing from its signal words. Descriptive writing uses words for size and place, like rises from or the highest, and analytical writing uses joining words, like because, this leads to, and which means. Critical writing uses words that weigh, like however, on balance, and this is only partly true because. Here is how each deforestation answer would open. Deforestation is the cutting down and clearing of forest, usually to use the land for something else. With fewer trees to intercept the rain, more water reaches the ground at once and runs off quickly, so rivers rise faster. Now try the third opening yourself. How would an answer that weighs begin? One way in: stopping logging would save some trees, but logging is only one of several reasons forests are cleared, so I agree only partly. It grants a point first, and then the but and the only partly do the weighing. The kinds stack as the questions get longer. The explain answer stands on a fact before its chain, and a critical answer uses facts and chains as its evidence before it judges.

Writing about findings means writing up your own fieldwork results, and some courses print the three kinds of writing as a skill for that job. A student counted pedestrians for ten minutes at five sites along the Hootley high street, walking away from the station. Site one, at the station, had four hundred and twelve. Site two, a hundred and fifty metres along, had three hundred and five. Site three, at three hundred metres, had three hundred and thirty-four. Site four, at four hundred and fifty metres, had one hundred and eighteen. Site five, six hundred metres along, had fifty-seven. The first question asks you to describe what the results show. Try describing what the counts show along the street, from the station outwards. Start with the trend. The number of pedestrians falls with distance from the station, from four hundred and twelve at Site one to fifty-seven at Site five. Then the exception. Site three breaks the pattern, rising again to three hundred and thirty-four, which is more than Site two. That answer has a trend, figures and an exception, and no because. A because sentence would answer why, and this question only asked what. Now the second question: can you explain one reason for the pattern, carried on with so? Many shoppers arrive by train, so the station end has the most people passing. That is the point, and two more links develop it. As the shoppers walk along the street, they turn off into shops and side roads, so fewer people are left to pass each later site. This means the far end, six hundred metres away, has the lowest count. Copying the figures from the first answer would not do this job, because figures say how much and this question asks why. A different test now. Two students write answers of about the same length. Answer A says: the count is four hundred and twelve at the station, three hundred and five at Site two, one hundred and eighteen at Site four and fifty-seven at Site five. Answer B says: the count is highest at the station because shoppers arrive by train, so fewer people are left to pass Site five. Which answer reaches analytical writing, A or B, and why that one? B reaches it, because its because and its so join a cause to its effect. A is careful description, and more figures would only make it longer description. One examiner's report on a long hazards question says some answers kept "describing the events rather than analysing their effects or responses". The same report says the top answers "demonstrated an understanding of how factors such as national wealth, magnitude, population density, and preparedness influenced outcomes". The fix is to carry each described fact one step on, with so or which means, to what it caused or changed. Now carry that sentence one step on. What could the low count at Site five lead to? Add the links and it climbs. The count falls to fifty-seven at Site five, so shops at the far end get the fewest people walking past, which means they win the least passing trade. One examiner's report on a whole paper notes that many students "were able to develop their 'chain of explanation' well on higher tariff questions and show that they are able to effectively interpret exam command words". If you join your reasons with so, you are already doing what that report praised.

Critical writing comes last because it stands on the other two kinds: description gives it evidence, analysis gives it reasons, and the judgement goes on top. A student writes: my results prove that the number of pedestrians always falls with distance from the station. The question asks how far you agree. The descriptive layer is the evidence. Four of the five sites fit the claim, falling from four hundred and twelve at the station to fifty-seven at six hundred metres. The analytical layer is the reasoning. The fall fits shoppers arriving by train and spreading out, and the rise at Site three needs a reason of its own, perhaps a supermarket entrance or a bus stop there. Now you start the critical layer. What is too weak to carry the word prove? The word always is too strong, because Site three breaks the pattern. And ten minutes at each site on one day is too small a sample to prove anything, since another day, time or weather could change the counts. Look at the order, though. The critical answer granted what the results do show before it weighed where they fall short, and that is the difference between weighing and criticising. Some answers stop at the method: I counted for ten minutes at five sites. That sentence describes what was done and judges nothing. Rewritten as critical writing, the same fact becomes: ten minutes at each site on one day is too short to trust, because a different day could give different counts. One examiner's report on a fieldwork question records the same slip: "many candidates simply described the methods rather than evaluate their strengths and weaknesses". The habit that fixes it: after each fact about your method, say what it does to how far the results can be trusted. The plan now has evidence, reasons and weaknesses, but it still has a gap at the bottom. What does the plan still need before it answers how far you agree? It needs a verdict. The results support a general fall with distance, but they do not prove it always happens, so I agree only partly. Only that last line is the judgement, and it is built from the layers under it. The full method for long answers like this one belongs to the evaluate video in the long-answers chapter.

Time to bring it back, and this time the answers come from you.

Which kind of writing answers why and how? Analytical writing, with its reasons joined by because, so and which means.

Now a second one. Which kind of writing does compare want, and what does it never include? Descriptive writing: the similarities and differences between two things, and never the reasons behind them.

Now one never shown: how reliable is a river survey? Which kind of writing is that? Critical writing. Say what the river results do show, weigh where the method falls short, and finish on a judgement.

Now the last row: what does a critical answer do before it points out a weakness? It grants what the evidence does show, so its judgement weighs both sides instead of only criticising.

Back to the council in Hootley. Each officer's report was right for a different question: what is happening, why it happens, and how far to trust it. An exam question tells you which one it wants with its command word, and the longest questions want all three, with a judgement on top.

If you could teach this one to a friend now, give it a thumbs-up, and you will know it is done. If it has not settled yet, save it, give it a day, and look again.

Next in the chapter is Identify, state, name, give and define: short, exact answers. Hopefully that's next in your feed, but if not, search for ScholaFly G E oh one, oh two.

Every other video is on scholafly.com too, easy to search by video code or by keyword. Whatever you're revising, go there and have a look, or, watch the next video.