Why is it important to use named examples in an AC 3.4 evaluation answer?

• A. Named examples like 'Ban the Box' provide evidence to support claims about an organisation's effectiveness.
• B. Named examples confuse readers.
• C. They are optional and not useful.
• D. They have no impact on credibility.

Answer: (A)

Using named examples in an AC 3.4 evaluation answer provides concrete evidence to support how and why an organization is effective. When you reference a specific program or policy, like “Ban the Box,” you’re grounding your claims in verifiable cases rather than broad statements. This makes the argument easier to follow and more credible because readers can see exactly what was implemented, the context in which it operated, and the outcomes it produced.

Named examples also help illustrate how the evaluation measures impact, show the scope and limits of the findings, and allow readers to connect the results to real-world practices or benchmarks. They enable verification and comparison, which strengthens trust in your conclusions. On the other hand, keeping examples unnamed or treating them as optional undermines credibility by leaving claims vague and uncheckable. Saying that named examples confuse readers is unlikely if the references are clear and well-explained, and claiming they have no impact on credibility misses the reality that concrete, cited evidence usually enhances trust in the analysis.