Skip to main content

Associates

BCG Menu

Associates

Skillbuilding: Crafting Effective Arguments

Subscribe to OnBoard.

 Sara Anne Scribner, CG
"Crafting Effective Arguments," OnBoard 24 (January 2018): 5–6.

The Genealogical Proof Standard requires a “soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion based on the strongest-available evidence.”1 This article examines how to develop a convincing argument, how to write it clearly, and how to self-edit when working solo.

Sound Reasoning

Once you have completed your research, it’s time to prove what you know. Review your case and its evidence. Decide how to explain the logic. Genealogy can be complicated; it requires interpreting extensive research and often hinges on knowing the significance of a single piece of evidence. Your job is to organize the argument to persuade others. Standard 61 states: “Proof summaries and arguments present data, discussion,and conclusions in logical sequences to explain or defend a research question’s answer.”2

A proof statement is used when no explanation is necessary. State your findings and cite the supporting evidence. More involved problems require a proof summary, which lays out the evidence point by point. Proof summaries may be in narrative or list format but must sufficiently explain the rationale. A bulleted list’s abbreviated format can lead a writer to omit adequate detail. Remember to bring your reader along with you by explaining and clarifying.

The lengthiest proof format—the proof argument—typically runs several pages or an entire article and deals with thoroughly documented complex evidence. Proof statements and proof summaries form part of most proof arguments. The same principles apply to a proof argument as a proof summary: marshal the evidence and present it point by point.

BCG rubrics

The BCG rubrics provide guidance for producing quality work that meets standards and repeatedly mention logic, sequence, explanation, and clarity. Evaluate your proof against the rubrics for the case study and the kinship-determination project.3

Unbroken “chain of reasoning”4

Any argument should be thoughtfully planned and constructed of convincing points, each linking to the one before and joining the one after. Create an unbroken chain of reasoning to lay before your reader.

Several types of logic appear in genealogi-cal writing. A syllogism is a method of reasoning that compares two true things, both sharing a common element, to prove the truth of a third thing.

A classic syllogism:

If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man,

then Socrates is mortal.

A genealogical syllogism:

If colonial law allowed only those twenty-one or more to sell land and John Ott sold Virginia land in 1732, then John Ott was at least twenty-one and born in 1711 or earlier.5

In narrative form, the syllogism appears, “John Ott was born before 1712 because he sold land in the Virginia colony in 1732” with a citation to the deed and the law which was in effect at that time.

Too many possibilities

Often problems defy solution because too many possible answers exist. This happens when a case involves individuals with common names like Klein, García, Wang, or Smith. A strategy for arguing a case with many possible solutions starts with identifying all possibilities and then eliminating them one by one until a sole answer remains. Identifiers are an efficient way to eliminate individuals. Basic identifiers include name, age, residence, religion, military service, signature, and naming patterns. Selecting identifiers is strategic and requires broad research so the data set includes sufficient sources.

Carolyn L. Whitton used this method to identify a Jäger male who went by different names. First she identified nine Jäger males born in the right time and place. Only three had the baptismal name she sought, Caspar. Two Caspars died too early, leaving only one.6

Negative argumentation

Negative arguments can also prove your case. Robert Charles Anderson recommends using the “White Queen Test,” a reference to the Queen in Lewis Carroll’s novel Through the Looking- Glass.7 This test looks at a group of assertions and asks whether two explanations could fit the same set of facts. Could two people share the same name with the same middle initial and live in the same county with a same-named wife and children of the same ages? Perhaps, though it is more likely that this set of facts applies to only one person. “The more absurd the required beliefs if the hypothesis is false, the likelier the hypothesis is to be true.”8 Another type of negative argument—proof by contradiction—finds conflicting data, not all of which can be true at the same time.9

A Combination of Methods

To prove your case use one method, a combination, or all of them. As a learning exercise, determine the methods used in each scholarly journal article you read. Understanding how other authors prove their cases can be enlightening and suggest ideas for your own work.

Write for the Reader

Genealogical writing is non-fiction writing. Its first aim is to inform the reader with style and content appropriate for the specific audience. Your audience might be a certification or accreditation board, family members, or journal readers. Some writers find writing out a complex problem or proof helps identify gaps in their research or shortcomings in their analysis.

Good genealogical writing involves three steps: state the problem, explain how your evidence resolves that problem, and construct a conclusion. Standard 62 defines good writing as accurate, clear, and coherent. It is free from flaws that “interfere with readability.” Its style is straightforward and precise.10

A helpful presentation method for a complex case is a series of logically sequenced statements, each building on the preceding one. Explain step by step what makes your conclusion sound. Working from the research question, move through the proof, stating and explaining each point. Continue bringing up points with each piece of evidence supporting the conclusion. Your last point makes the conclusion inevitable.

The conclusion restates what you have already proved in the narrative and helps the reader remember your arguments. Avoid the beginning writer’s mistake of introducing new points in the conclusion. New information blindsides a reader and muddies what you’ve worked so hard to prove. Find the right place in your draft for the new item.

Self-edit

If you are writing material for a BCG portfolio, no one may review, critique, or proofread it before submission.11 When outside review is allowed, you may not easily find a qualified or willing reviewer. A solution lies in self-editing.

  • Gain objectivity. After many hoursworkingon a problem, you may understand it so well you do not realize that your narra- tive skips ahead, fails to explain evidence, or makes an invalid assumption. Writers often lose objectivity after working and re-working a piece of writing. To gain fresh perspective, stop work and put the draft away overnight or foreven a few hours. Read your draft aloud. You’ll notice weak or missing areas when hearing your voice proclaim your words.
  • Bring in experts. Bruce Ross-Larson provides insight into items that editors cut or change.12 William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White recommend omitting needless words.13 See how many words you can cut from each sentence without changing the meaning.
  • Check each paragraph for a topic sentence.The first sentence should orient the reader, show the writer’s direction, and provide a transition from the previous para-  Paragraphs organize your narrative but long ones—over half a page—fatigue and demotivate readers. Divide overly long paragraphs whenever possible to offer visible mileposts.
  • Use word processing software features. Find errors with grammar and spell checkers. Active voice is stronger than passive. Use electronic search capability to find words indicating passive construction and rewrite when 
  • Choose the correct verb tense. Usepast tense when writing about events and people of the past. Describe existing records and documents in present tense.

Summary

Designing your work with the reader in mind improves any writing. Explaining the logic of your case, step by step, gives the reader a chance tounderstand your argument and agree with your conclusion. Commonly used logic techniques, including syllogisms and negative arguments, help prove a case. Self-editing strengthens your writing and leads to more effective and compelling arguments.

Publication dates and website links were updated as of 3 October 2025.

  1. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, 2nd edition, revised (Nashville, Tenn.:Ancestry, 2021), 2.
  2. Ibid., 35; emphasis added by author.
  3. “Rubrics for Evaluating New Applications for BCG Certification,” 2025; PDF files, Board for Certification of Genealogists (https://bcgcertification.org/become-a-certified-genealogist#cg-application-rubrics).
  4. Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet,  7 for “chain of reasoning”; eBook edition, The Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/244).
  5. For more information, see B. Darrell Jackson,“Logic for Genealogists,” National GenealogicalSociety Quarterly 105 (March 2017): 31–43.
  6. Carolyn Whitton, “Caspar Diederich Jäger and ‘Heinrich’ Jäger of St. Louis: One Man or Two?” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 96 (June 2008): 129–38, esp. 135.
  7. Robert Charles Anderson, Elements of Genealogical Analysis (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2014), 125–127.
  8. For an application of this test, see Harold Henderson, “Genealogy Experiments: Indirect Evidence Up Close,” OnBoard 21 (September 2015): 21
  9. As an example, see Yvette Hoitink, “Using Proof by Contradiction to Focus Your Research,” OnBoard 23 (September 2017): 17–18, 22–23.
  10. Genealogy Standards, 36.
  11. The BCG Application Guide (Washington, DC.: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2025), 3 for “Requirement Restrictions"; PDF file, Board for Certification of Genealogists (https://bcgcertification.org/images/files/BCG_Application_Guide-2025.pdf).
  12. Bruce Ross-Larson, Edit Yourself: A Manual for Everyone Who Works with Words (New York: W. Norton, 1996), 45–108.
  13. William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, 2nd  (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 17.