Most arguments in scientific papers are not as straightforward as this:
Claim: Climate change affects crop yields.
- Supporting statement: Maize production dropped 15% in drought years (Smith 2020).
- Supporting statement: Heat stress reduces wheat grain size (Jones 2021).
More often than not, the supporting statement forms a sub-argument:
Claim: Climate change affects crop yields.
- Supporting statement: Rising temperatures damage photosynthesis.
- Supporting statement: Enzyme efficiency drops above 35°C (Chen 2019).
- Supporting statement: Drought reduces water availability for irrigation (Lee 2022).
This is not a problem per se, but it can introduce uncertainty. Now you are not using proven facts, but reasoning.
Note
Sub-arguments don’t automatically create uncertainty—non-deductive ones do. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
Hedging
Use hedging appropriately. Hedging is the use of ‘uncertain’ words to indicate that you’re not completely sure about something. This is key for arguments that require non-deductive reasoning (e.g. when interpreting the results in the Discussion).
Hedging words: May, would, could, might, suggest, seem, indicate, possible, etc.
Hedging is not necessarily a bad thing, because it helps to ensure that you introduce appropriate uncertainty where needed. However, when every sentence is hedged, the argument loses direction.
❌ This could suggest X, which might mean Y, perhaps leading to Z.
✅ This suggests X, which affects Y, leading to Z.
If there is too much, and inappropriate hedging, the reader will struggle to distinguish what is supported by evidence versus what is speculation.