A wine research argument explains why the evidence supports a particular answer. It does more than assemble facts about a topic or report what several authors think. The reader needs to see the connection between the prescribed question, your claims, the evidence behind them and the judgement you eventually make.
For D6, that judgement should develop through independent research and critical evaluation. You don’t need to sound certain about everything. You need to be clear about what can be established, what remains uncertain and why those distinctions matter to the task. A qualified answer can be considerably more persuasive than an unqualified one.
Begin with the task and a provisional answer
Return to the exact title and supporting instructions. Identify what kind of answer is required and what boundaries apply. A comparison needs meaningful treatment of the relevant alternatives; an evaluation needs a reasoned judgement. A fascinating account of a wine region may still fail to perform the intellectual work requested.
Write a provisional answer in plain language. Treat it as a hypothesis to test, not a verdict to defend at any cost. In a fictional practice investigation of paid winery tastings, you might initially expect the change to help a small business. Research may reveal that visitor capacity or staffing costs make the answer conditional.
Keep the question and provisional answer visible while reading. For each source, ask whether it supports, challenges or changes that answer. If a new idea matters, update the plan. If it merely interests you, keep it in a separate note. A short assignment has little room for attractive detours.
Separate claims, evidence and reasoning
A claim states something you want the reader to accept. Evidence supplies a basis for accepting it. Reasoning explains why that evidence supports the claim in this context. Missing the third element creates a familiar problem: a paragraph containing a strong assertion, a citation and an unexplained leap between them.
For example, a fictional winery’s records might show higher tasting revenue after introducing a fee. That supports a statement about recorded revenue, assuming comparable records. It doesn’t establish higher profit unless costs are examined, and it doesn’t establish that the fee caused the change unless plausible alternative explanations are considered.
Make the connection explicit. Explain whether the evidence measures the outcome directly, provides an example or supports a mechanism. Then state the limit. This doesn’t require cumbersome language after every fact; it requires enough explanation for the reader to understand why your main claims deserve their place in the argument.
Establish criteria before deciding what wins
An evaluation needs a basis for judgement. Use the criteria required by the brief, and explain additional criteria where the task permits them. Commercial viability might involve contribution to profit, operational feasibility and customer response. Environmental performance needs suitable boundaries and measures. Those aren’t automatically interchangeable definitions of success.
Avoid choosing criteria simply because they favour your preferred result. If a fictional comparison examines reusable and single-use containers, don’t praise one on transport weight and the other on convenience without explaining how the overall judgement is reached. Apply comparable questions to the alternatives and identify material trade-offs.
Some criteria may conflict. A change might reduce one burden while increasing another, or suit one business model better than another. Explain those conditions rather than force every comparison into a universal winner. The purpose of evaluation is a supported decision, which may reasonably depend on the circumstances specified in the task.
Weight evidence rather than count citations
Source evaluation should determine how much confidence a claim receives. One transparent, relevant study may contribute more than several articles repeating a press release. Conversely, a technically strong study in a poorly matched setting may have limited application. Explain the relationship between quality, relevance and the inference you make.
Check whether apparently independent sources share the same underlying data. Five summaries of one survey don’t become five separate surveys. Trace important findings to their origin, compare methods and retain the qualifications. Repetition can create an impression of consensus even when the evidence base is surprisingly narrow.
Monash University’s source-analysis guidance encourages comparison across sources, including their assumptions and reasoning. Applied here, that means placing relevant findings in conversation. Explain where they agree, where their scope differs and which distinctions affect the answer, using original analysis rather than a procession of summaries.
Build sections around questions and decisions
Ideas and arguments need an order the reader can follow. Organise sections around the major requirements of the brief and the decisions needed to answer them. A source-by-source arrangement can be useful in notes, but it often hides comparison in the finished piece. The authors shouldn’t dictate the structure simply by arriving in your folder first.
For the fictional tasting-fee example, separate sections might investigate the revenue mechanism, operational costs and customer response. Each should end with a local judgement that contributes to the wider answer. Avoid writing three unrelated mini-essays and expecting the conclusion to create a connection that the body never established.
Within a paragraph, make one main analytical move. State a relevant claim, introduce suitable evidence, examine its significance and connect it with the question. This is a flexible editing aid, not a mandatory formula. Vary sentence rhythm and length while keeping the logic visible. Clear prose gives complicated reasoning somewhere to stand.
Give the strongest counterargument a fair hearing
A counterargument challenges an important part of your case. Choose one that could reasonably change the conclusion, rather than an exaggerated claim that is easy to dismiss. If your argument favours paid tastings, a serious objection might concern visitors who would otherwise have purchased wine. Calling all critics resistant to change avoids the actual issue.
Represent the opposing evidence accurately and within its scope. Explain why a reasonable reader might find it persuasive. Then evaluate it using the same standards you apply to your preferred evidence. The University of Manchester’s guidance on critical writing treats criticism as examination of arguments and methods, including constructive improvement.
Your response might rebut the objection, concede part of it or revise the recommendation. For the fictional business, the evidence might support charging for a guided premium experience while leaving another route available. That is an illustrative argumentative possibility, not a reported result or advice for a real winery. Evidence must determine whether it fits.
Explain mechanisms and alternative explanations
When you argue that one change affects another, explain how. A proposed fee might alter visitor numbers, time spent with staff or purchase behaviour. Each mechanism needs suitable evidence, and some may work in opposing directions. Simply observing a before-and-after difference doesn’t identify which mechanism produced it.
Consider other changes during the period. A fictional winery might introduce a fee at the same time as opening a new terrace or changing its booking system. If the evidence cannot separate their effects, say so. You can describe the observed outcome without attributing the entire movement to whichever change your essay happens to discuss.
Avoid hiding uncertainty behind a more forceful verb. Words such as proves or guarantees require a stronger basis than a suggestive association. Explain whether the evidence establishes an outcome, supports a plausible interpretation or leaves several explanations open. Precision in that distinction helps the argument remain useful when circumstances change.
Use limitations to set the reach of the answer
A limitation should affect the inference you make. If the evidence concerns large destination wineries, explain what might differ for a small appointment-only operation. Staffing, visitor volume and customer expectations could matter, but don’t present those possible differences as measured facts unless you have evidence for them.
Distinguish uncertainty that changes the decision from uncertainty that merely refines it. A missing cost category may undermine a profitability conclusion; a small rounding difference may not. Give the important gap proportionate attention and identify what additional evidence would help. A generic paragraph saying all research has limitations adds little without this connection.
You can make a conditional judgement where the evidence supports one. State the condition clearly and explain why it matters. Avoid an empty conclusion that everything depends on everything else. The reader should leave knowing which conditions are decisive, what the evidence says about them and where further investigation is needed.
Write the conclusion as an answer, not a contents list
Informed conclusions should bring the main findings together and answer the prescribed task at the strength the evidence permits. The University of Manchester’s discussion of conclusions distinguishes consolidation from final judgement. For your own writing, move beyond repeating section headings to explain what their combined analysis establishes.
Don’t introduce a decisive new source or unexamined claim in the last paragraph. If it changes the answer, it belongs in the body where it can be evaluated. A recommendation should follow from the analysis and include material conditions, rather than arrive as an optimistic flourish after a cautious discussion.
Read the conclusion beside the introduction and the brief. Check that the subject hasn’t widened, a comparison hasn’t disappeared and a tentative finding hasn’t become universal. Follow the current assignment instructions for presentation and assessment requirements. General writing guidance helps explain reasoning; it doesn’t supply an alternative WSET marking scheme.
Test the complete argument before polishing sentences
Create a reverse outline by writing one sentence describing each paragraph’s job. Look for unsupported steps, repeated claims and sections that never contribute to the answer. Ask what a sceptical reader would need to know at the weakest point. Repairing that gap usually helps more than adding another elegant transition.
Then check attribution. Keep the author’s finding, your interpretation and any hypothetical example distinguishable. Your own reasoning can be original without pretending to have conducted research you didn’t conduct. A persuasive wine argument earns confidence through a visible evidence trail and fair judgement, rather than through the volume of its voice.
Check your working process against clear academic writing and analysing wine data as linked checks: identify the evidence each claim needs, preserve source limitations and confirm that the final judgement still answers the authorised task.
Original Diploma practice
These original fictional exercises develop argument-building skills. They are not official WSET questions, assigned marks or an assessed submission.
Exercise 1: repair an inference
A fictional winery records higher tasting revenue after introducing a fee. A draft claims the fee increased profit. What is missing?
Indicative points: revenue; costs; comparability; other changes; causality; scope.
Outline answer: Establish compatible revenue records and relevant costs before judging profit. Examine simultaneous changes and the comparison period. The records may support a revenue observation without isolating the fee’s causal effect or proving profitability.
Exercise 2: choose a counterargument
Your fictional argument favours paid tastings. Select a serious objection and explain a fair response.
Indicative points: relevance; evidence; visitor effects; consistency; concession; revision.
Outline answer: Investigate whether the change discourages valuable visitors or purchases, using suitable evidence. Apply the same appraisal standards as elsewhere. Rebut, qualify or revise the judgement according to the finding rather than portray critics as simply opposed to innovation.
Exercise 3: reorganise a section
A draft summarises four authors in four paragraphs without comparing them. Propose a more analytical structure.
Indicative points: question; claims; common measures; differences; weighting; judgement.
Outline answer: Group relevant findings around the task’s decision criteria. Compare scope, methods and implications within each section, explain their evidential weight and make a local judgement. Preserve accurate attribution without letting the reading order control the argument.
Exercise 4: qualify the final answer
Evidence concerns large destination wineries, while a fictional task concerns a small appointment-only producer. What should the conclusion do?
Indicative points: applicability; conditions; gaps; inference; recommendation; clarity.
Outline answer: Identify material differences and assess what can reasonably transfer. Make a supported conditional judgement where possible, explain the decisive gap and state what further evidence would help. Don’t convert a context-specific finding into a universal recommendation.
