Skip to main content
Medicine LibreTexts

7.6: Good vs. Weak Support

  • Page ID
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    What questions will your readers have? What will they need to know? What makes for good supporting details? Why might readers consider some evidence to be weak?

    If you’re already developing paragraphs, it’s likely that you already have a plan for your writing, at least at the most basic level. You know what your topic is, you probably have a main idea or working thesis, and you might have at least a couple of supporting ideas in mind that will further develop and support your thesis.

    When you’re developing a paragraph on a supporting idea, you need to make sure that the support that you develop for this idea is solid. See Table 7.2 for examples of good and weak support.

    Table 7.2: Good and weak support

    Good support Weak support

    Is relevant and focused (sticks to the point).

    Is well developed.

    Provides sufficient detail.

    Is vivid and descriptive.

    Is well organized.

    Is coherent and consistent.

    Highlights key terms and ideas.

    Lacks a clear connection to the point that it’s meant to support.

    Lacks development.

    Lacks detail or gives too much detail.

    Is vague and imprecise.

    Lacks organization.

    Seems disjointed (ideas don’t clearly relate to each other).

    Lacks emphasis of key terms and ideas.

    Activity: Check Your Understanding

    The original version of this chapter contained H5P content. You may want to remove or replace this element.

    Attribution statement

    Other than the activity, content from this page was adapted, with editorial changes, from:

    The Word on College Reading and Writing by Carol Burnell, Jaime Wood, Monique Babin, Susan Pesznecker, and Nicole Rosevear, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.Download for free at:

    This page titled 7.6: Good vs. Weak Support is shared under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lapum et al. (Ryerson University Library) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.