Evaluating Types of Evidence

To convince someone of an idea, authors use three main types of evidence. Statistics are facts expressed as numbers, like saying $75\%$ of students prefer pizza. Anecdotes are short, personal stories used to illustrate a point; they make an argument feel 'human.' Finally, Expert Testimony comes from people with specialized knowledge, such as a doctor discussing health or a mechanic talking about engines. Each type serves a different purpose: numbers provide scale, stories provide emotion, and experts provide authority.

Not all evidence works the same way. Statistics appeal to our logic (logos). If you hear that $9/10$ laptops survived a drop test, you feel logically safe buying one. Anecdotes appeal to our emotions (pathos). A story about a single child helped by a charity can be more moving than a list of data. When evaluating evidence, ask yourself: Is the author trying to make me think ($logic$) or make me feel ($emotion$)? A strong argument often uses a mix of both to be truly persuasive.

The 'best' evidence depends on your audience and your claim. If you are writing a scientific paper, you need heavy statistics and expert testimony. If you are writing a speech to inspire classmates to volunteer, anecdotes will likely be more effective. A common mistake is using an anecdote to prove a universal truth. Just because one person had a bad experience doesn't mean everyone will. Always ensure your evidence matches the 'size' of your claim.