Claim, Support, Question
Claim, Support, Question is a reasoning routine from Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, developed in its Visible Thinking work. It has three moves: make a claim about a topic, name the evidence that supports it, and raise a question about what the claim or its support leaves unexplained. Used regularly, it trains a group to back statements with evidence and to keep them open to challenge.
Facilitation script
- 1
Introduce the material and the three columns. Model one full row with the whole group.
5 min - 2
Collect claims: participants write claims about the topic on sticky notes and post them in the first column. Merge duplicates.
5 min - 3
Add support: for each claim, the group names the evidence behind it. Record it, and leave cells empty where nothing solid is offered.
7 min - 4
Add questions: for each claim, record what is unexplained, what would speak against it, or what would need to be checked.
6 min - 5
Review the chart. Mark the claims that hold, the ones that need evidence, and the questions to follow up, each with an owner.
7 min
Tips
Model the routine first on a claim that belongs to nobody in the room, or on one of your own, so that questioning is understood as part of the routine and not as an attack.
Be strict about the support column: opinions, repetitions of the claim and "everyone knows" do not count, and an empty cell is a useful result.
Treat a good question as an achievement equal to a good claim, since groups otherwise rush through the third column.
Common pitfalls
Accepting restatements of the claim or general agreement as support, which fills the chart and leaves the reasoning as weak as before
Using the question column to attack the person who made the claim, after which people stop offering claims at all
Collecting only safe, obvious claims, so the contested statements that drive the real disagreement never reach the chart
Treating the question column as optional and running out of time before it, which removes the part that keeps conclusions open to revision
Ending without assigning the open questions, so the gaps in evidence are documented and then ignored
Variations
Remote: set up a three-column table in a shared document or whiteboard and have participants fill in rows in parallel before discussing. Individual: use the three columns as a note-taking format while reading a report or listening to a pitch, then compare notes. Small groups: give each group a different section of the material and have them present their strongest and their weakest claim. Ongoing: keep a standing chart during a project and add claims as they come up in meetings, returning to it when new evidence arrives.
Where it fits
When to use it
A strategy or planning discussion is running on statements that sound like facts and nobody has asked what they rest on
A research readout or data review needs to separate what the data shows from what the team concludes
The group has to assess a report, a pitch or a vendor proposal and wants a common way to examine its claims
A team tends to accept the most confident speaker's interpretation and needs a simple structure that asks for evidence from everyone
You have 15 to 30 minutes and want a critical-thinking step that needs no preparation
When not to use it
The argument is complex, with many premises and counter-arguments that depend on each other: an Argument Map shows that structure, which three columns cannot
The group is at the stage of generating ideas: asking for evidence now will shut ideas down, so run Brainstorming first and examine the results later
The aim is to surface hidden assumptions behind a plan and not to test stated claims: use Assumption Storming
The disagreement is about values or priorities, where evidence will not settle it: use a dialogue or decision format instead
Trust in the group is low and people expect to be exposed: build some safety first, or run the routine on external material only
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Claim, Support, Question?▾
Claim, Support, Question is a thinking routine from Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Participants state a claim about a topic, name the evidence that supports it, and raise a question about what remains uncertain. It is used to make reasoning visible and to build the habit of backing statements with evidence.
What counts as support?▾
Support is something that can be pointed to: an observation, data, a passage in a text, a documented experience or a source others can check. A restatement of the claim, a strong feeling or the fact that many people believe it does not count. If the group cannot name support, record that openly, because it tells you where to look next.
Can Claim, Support, Question be used in business meetings?▾
Yes. The routine comes from education, but the three columns work well for reviewing strategy assumptions, research findings, business cases and proposals. It takes 15 to 30 minutes and needs only a board, which makes it easy to insert before a decision.
How is it different from an Argument Map?▾
An Argument Map diagrams the full structure of an argument, with premises, objections and rebuttals linked to a conclusion. Claim, Support, Question is much lighter: one row per claim, with its evidence and one open question. Use the routine for a quick check in a meeting and an Argument Map when a complex case needs careful analysis.
Does the routine work for one person?▾
Yes. It can be used individually as a note-taking format while reading or listening, in pairs, in small groups or with a whole room. In groups the benefit is that others notice gaps in support and raise questions the author of the claim would not.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Claim, Support, Question into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.