- At a school assembly, a science club member, Anika, gives a public service message encouraging students to bring reusable water bottles.
Main argument/thesis: Students should bring reusable water bottles to school.
Claim 1: Anika says it reduces trash. She reports that during one week, the custodial staff counted about 420 empty plastic bottles in cafeteria trash bins.
Claim 2: She says it saves money over time. She reasons that if a student buys a $1 bottle twice a week, that's about $2 per week, which adds up across months, while a reusable bottle is bought once.
Claim 3: She claims, "Reusable bottles make water taste better."
Claim 4: She says, "If everyone switches, our school will become famous."
Which claim does Anika state without providing reasons or evidence?
Answer: Reusable bottles make water taste better than the water from ordinary plastic bottles.
The correct answer is that reusable bottles make water taste better. Anika simply states this as if it were a fact, but she never gives any taste-test results, comparisons, or reasons to back it up. That makes it a bare assertion with no support.
The claim about reducing trash is supported: Anika gives a specific number, the roughly 420 plastic bottles the custodial staff counted in one week. That statistic is her evidence, so it does not fit the question.
The claim about cost is also supported: Anika reasons that about $2 a week adds up over time, while a reusable bottle is bought only once. That logical explanation is her support, so it is not a bare assertion.
The statement that students should bring reusable bottles is Anika's main argument, the overall position her whole message is built to defend, not a single claim she needs to prove on its own. It is the thesis, not the answer.
To find claims without support, ask for each statement, "What reason or evidence does the speaker give?" If the answer is "none, she just says it," the claim is unsupported.
- In a morning announcement (public service message), the assistant principal encourages students to bring reusable water bottles.
Main argument/thesis: Students should use reusable water bottles to reduce waste and save money.
Claim 1 (supported): She says the school throws away a lot of plastic. She cites the custodian's count from one week: about 1,050 single-use bottles were found in trash and recycling combined.
Claim 2 (supported): She says reusables can save families money. She gives an example calculation: if a student buys 2 bottled waters a week at $1.25 each, that's $2.50 per week, about $90 over a 36-week school year.
Claim 3 (unsupported): She says, "Reusable bottles make water taste better," but provides no source.
Claim 4 (unsupported): She says, "Our school will become famous for being eco-friendly," without evidence.
Which choice best describes how the speaker supports the claim that reusables can save money?
Answer: By using a specific cost example and doing the math for a school year.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing how claims are supported; evidence includes facts, statistics, expert opinions, research findings, or specific examples with logical reasoning, while unsupported claims lack such backing. Answer A correctly describes how the speaker supports the money-saving claim by using a specific cost example ($1.25 per bottle × 2 bottles/week = $2.50/week) and calculating the total over a school year ($90 over 36 weeks), which demonstrates mathematical evidence with concrete numbers and logical calculation. The distractors fail because B refers to an unsupported claim about taste, C mentions an unsupported prediction about fame, and D describes repetition rather than evidence (repetition doesn't make something true or supported). This error reveals students may confuse repetition with evidence, not recognize mathematical calculations as a form of support, or think subjective claims about taste or predictions constitute evidence. To teach this skill, model different types of evidence support: statistical (numbers/percentages), mathematical (calculations showing costs/savings), expert opinion (credentials + statement), logical reasoning (if-then connections), and examples (specific instances); contrast these with non-evidence like repetition, predictions without basis, or subjective preferences; have students practice categorizing how speakers support claims - "The speaker supports this by: giving numbers? doing math? citing an expert? explaining cause-effect? or just repeating/asserting?"; emphasize that showing mathematical work (bottle cost × frequency × time = total) is strong evidence for financial claims. Focus on recognizing that concrete calculations provide objective support versus mere assertions or predictions.
- In a debate about school rules, Priya argues that the school should allow hats indoors (as long as faces are visible).
Main argument/thesis: Students should be allowed to wear hats inside school.
Claim 1: Hats can help students feel comfortable and confident. Support: Priya says some students feel self-conscious about hair or medical conditions, and that feeling comfortable can help them focus.
Claim 2: Allowing hats would not harm safety if faces are visible. Support: Priya describes how the rule could work in practice, giving specific steps the school could follow.
Claim 3: Teachers secretly want this rule too. Support: Priya says she is sure the teachers agree with her about the rule.
Claim 4: Other schools allow hats. Support: Priya says that lots of schools nearby already let students wear hats indoors.
Which claim has the strongest support because Priya explains a clear, practical reason for how it would work?
Answer: Allowing hats would not harm safety, because faces stay visible and hats come off for ID checks.
The strongest claim is that allowing hats would not harm safety, because Priya explains exactly how the rule would work: faces stay visible and hats come off during ID checks. That is a clear, practical plan that answers the biggest worry about the rule, so its support is the most solid.
The claim that hats help students feel comfortable gives a reason, but it only describes a feeling — it does not explain how the rule would actually operate. The claim that teachers secretly want the rule offers no proof at all; Priya just says she is sure, with no survey or quotes to back it up. The claim that other schools allow hats sounds convincing but stays vague, since Priya never names any school or gives numbers. Only the safety claim comes with a workable step-by-step explanation, which is what 'strongest support' means here.
- In a classroom presentation, Leo proposes a new policy: a 15-minute silent reading time at the start of every day.
Main argument/thesis: The school should add 15 minutes of silent reading every morning.
Claim 1 (supported): Leo says it would help students read more books. He cites the class library checkout record: in the month when their teacher tried "reading warm-up" twice a week, checkouts rose from 60 to 92.
Claim 2 (supported): He argues it would improve focus. He gives logical reasoning: starting with a quiet activity helps students transition from the hallway to learning, so teachers spend less time settling the class.
Claim 3 (unsupported): Leo says, "This will raise everyone's test scores," but he doesn't provide any study, data, or explanation.
Claim 4 (unsupported): He adds, "No one will complain about losing 15 minutes," without evidence.
Which claim is supported by statistical evidence?
Answer: Silent reading would help students read more books, supported by checkouts rising from 60 to 92 during a trial month.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing or outlining the argument structure clearly by identifying the main argument (the speaker's overall position or thesis), specific claims (particular statements supporting that position), and determining how claims are supported (or not); statistical evidence specifically refers to numerical data, measurements, percentages, or quantifiable information that supports a claim, as opposed to other types of evidence like expert opinions, logical reasoning, or examples. The correct answer C demonstrates the standard because it accurately identifies the claim supported by statistical evidence - Leo cites specific numbers from the class library checkout record showing checkouts rose from 60 to 92 during a trial month, which is quantifiable data supporting his claim that silent reading would help students read more books. The distractors fail because A and B are explicitly labeled as unsupported claims (no study, data, or explanation provided for test scores; no evidence for "no one will complain"), while D identifies a claim supported by logical reasoning rather than statistical evidence (the explanation about quiet time helping transitions is reasoning, not numerical data). This error reveals that students may not distinguish between different types of evidence, possibly thinking any supported claim has "statistical evidence" or not recognizing that statistics specifically means numbers/data rather than other forms of support like logical explanations. To teach this skill, explicitly teach evidence types: Statistics (numbers, percentages, measurements with sources like "60 to 92 checkouts"), Expert opinions (credentials plus statements like "Dr. X found..."), Examples (specific instances showing patterns), Logical reasoning (if-then explanations like "quiet time helps transitions because..."), and Research (studies or surveys cited); create a chart with columns for each evidence type and have students sort evidence from various speeches. Practice identifying statistical evidence specifically by looking for numbers, percentages, counts, or measurements; use the question "Does this claim have numbers/data to back it up?" to help students recognize statistical support versus other types; emphasize that logical reasoning, while valid support, is different from statistical evidence.
- In a short debate statement to the class, Jordan argues about school schedules. Jordan says teens need more sleep, citing the American Academy of Pediatrics that teens need 8–10 hours per night, and adds that "many students in our school get less than 8 hours." He says later start times can improve attendance, referring to a 3-year study by Dr. Elena Ruiz (a sleep researcher at Metro University) of 12 schools where schools that started after 8:30 had about 10% fewer tardies. He also claims, "Sports practices won't be affected at all," and, "Parents will definitely love this change," though he gives no details for either. Which statement best identifies Jordan's main argument?
Answer: The school day should start about 30 minutes later than it does now.
Jordan's main argument is the overall position he wants the class to accept: that the school day should start about 30 minutes later. Everything else he says is a reason meant to support that position. The point about teens needing 8–10 hours of sleep is a supporting claim backed by the pediatrics group—it explains why a later start would help, but it isn't what he is trying to convince you to do. The statement about schools after 8:30 having fewer tardies is also a supporting claim, backed by Dr. Ruiz's study; it's evidence for the change, not the change itself. The idea that parents and coaches will support the change is an unsupported claim—Jordan offers no schedule details or evidence—so it is one of his weakest points, not his central thesis. To find a speaker's main argument, ask, "What is this person trying to get me to believe or do?" The answer is usually a call to action or a should-statement, while the other sentences give reasons that back it up.
- A student entrepreneur, Lena, pitches a fundraiser idea to her homeroom: selling reusable water bottles with the school logo.
Main argument/thesis: The school should run Lena's reusable bottle fundraiser.
Claim 1: Students want the product. Support: Lena says she surveyed 80 students; 52 said they would "probably" or "definitely" buy one.
Claim 2: The fundraiser can make a profit. Support: She shows numbers: bottles cost $4 each in bulk, and she proposes selling them for $9, leaving $5 per bottle before other costs.
Claim 3: "These bottles are the best quality on the planet." Support: She gives no tests, reviews, or comparisons.
Claim 4: It could reduce plastic waste. Support: She reasons that if students refill bottles, they buy fewer single-use drinks.
Which claim is supported by survey data?
Answer: Students want the product.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating requires identifying different types of evidence - survey data involves collecting responses from multiple people to show patterns or preferences, distinct from financial calculations, unsupported assertions, or logical reasoning. The correct answer A demonstrates the standard because Lena's claim "Students want the product" is supported by survey data: "she surveyed 80 students; 52 said they would 'probably' or 'definitely' buy one" - this is numerical data collected through surveying students about their preferences. The distractors fail because B uses financial calculations (cost/price numbers), C is explicitly unsupported ("gives no tests, reviews, or comparisons"), and D uses logical reasoning (if-then explanation about refilling bottles). This error reveals students may not recognize survey data as a specific evidence type, may confuse different kinds of numerical evidence, or may not understand that asking people and recording responses constitutes survey support. To teach evidence types, create clear categories with examples: Survey Data (asked X people, Y% said), Financial Data (costs/prices/budgets), Expert Opinion (credentials + quotes), Logical Reasoning (if-then explanations); practice identifying evidence types in real speeches; teach that surveys involve asking questions and reporting responses numerically, making them strong support for claims about what people want or think.
- In a public service message played during advisory, a student leader argues that students should bring a healthy snack instead of candy.
Main argument/thesis: Students should choose healthier snacks at school.
Claim 1: Healthier snacks help students focus. Support: The speaker explains that sugary snacks can cause an energy spike and then a crash, making it harder to pay attention.
Claim 2: Many students already want healthier options. Support: The speaker cites a cafeteria suggestion-box count: 34 notes asked for fruit cups or yogurt, while 9 asked for more candy.
Claim 3: "Candy is basically poison." Support: The speaker moves quickly to the next point and offers this as a personal reaction.
Claim 4: Healthy snacks can be affordable. Support: The speaker names low-cost snacks like a banana or carrots, though without listing exact prices.
Which claim is presented as an opinion stated like a fact without any facts, examples, or reasons to back it up?
Answer: Candy is basically poison, an extreme statement offered as a strong personal reaction rather than backed by any source or reason.
The best answer is that candy is basically poison. Calling something "poison" is an extreme, dramatic statement, and the speaker offers it only as a personal reaction—no source, definition, or reason is given to prove it. That makes it an opinion dressed up like a fact. The other choices all give something to back them up. The claim that healthier snacks help students focus is supported by reasoning about a sugar energy spike and crash that hurts attention. The claim that many students want healthier options is supported by actual numbers from the suggestion box: 34 requests for fruit or yogurt against 9 for candy. The claim that healthy snacks can be affordable is supported by named examples like a banana or carrots—even without exact prices, the speaker still points to specific cheap options. When a speaker makes a big, strong claim, look for evidence: a reason, a number, or an example. The "poison" claim is the only one that gives none, so it is the opinion stated like a fact.
- During a student council meeting, Maya gives a 3-minute persuasive speech to classmates arguing that the school should move homeroom to the end of the day instead of the beginning.
Main argument/thesis: Homeroom should be at the end of the school day.
Claim 1 (supported): Maya says end-of-day homeroom would reduce late arrivals. She cites the assistant principal's announcement that "tardies are highest in first period," and she adds that when students miss the bus or get dropped off late, they would miss homeroom instead of a class that teaches new material.
Claim 2 (supported): She says it would improve organization. She explains that teachers could use the last 10 minutes to check planners, remind students of tomorrow's materials, and help students pack what they need, which logically prevents forgetting items.
Claim 3 (unsupported): Maya says, "Everyone would feel less stressed immediately," but she gives no survey, example pattern, or expert source.
Claim 4 (unsupported): She adds, "No teachers would mind this change," without any evidence from teachers.
Which claim is supported by reasons and evidence in Maya's speech?
Answer: End-of-day homeroom would reduce late arrivals because tardies are highest in first period and students who arrive late would miss homeroom instead of class.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing or outlining the argument structure clearly by identifying the main argument (the speaker's overall position or thesis), specific claims (particular statements supporting that position), and determining how claims are supported (or not); supported claims have reasons (logical explanations) and/or evidence (facts, statistics, expert opinions, research findings, examples showing patterns), while unsupported claims are bare assertions, opinions stated as facts, emotional appeals, vague generalizations, single anecdotes, or circular reasoning lacking factual backing. The correct answer C demonstrates the standard because it accurately identifies a claim that Maya backs with both evidence (the assistant principal's announcement about "tardies are highest in first period") and logical reasoning (explaining that late students would miss homeroom instead of instructional class time), making this a well-supported claim rather than a mere assertion. The distractors fail because A and B are explicitly labeled as unsupported claims in the passage (Maya provides no survey data, examples, or expert sources for "everyone would feel less stressed" or "no teachers would mind"), while D merely restates the main argument/thesis rather than identifying a specific supporting claim with evidence. This error reveals that students may confuse unsupported assertions with supported claims, not recognizing that statements like "everyone would feel" or "no teachers would mind" require evidence to be considered supported, or they may confuse the main argument with specific supporting claims. To teach this skill, first help students identify argument structure using a graphic organizer with the main argument at top and specific claims branching below with evidence listed under each claim; then teach what counts as evidence (facts/statistics/data, expert opinions with credentials, research findings, specific examples showing patterns, logical reasoning) versus non-evidence (bare assertions, opinions as facts, emotional appeals, vague language, single anecdotes); practice by having students highlight evidence in transcripts and circle unsupported claims, then discuss the differences. Focus on the analytical skill of identifying whether claims are backed by reasons/evidence or are merely assertions, teaching students to ask "What evidence does the speaker provide for this claim?" rather than "Do I agree with this claim?"
- In a short commercial played on the school's video announcements, a student promotes the cafeteria's new "Power Parfait." The student makes several claims about why students should choose it for breakfast.
Main argument/thesis: Students should choose the Power Parfait for breakfast because it is a healthy, energizing option.
Claim 1: The parfait has 12 grams of protein and 6 grams of fiber, based on the cafeteria recipe.
Claim 2: Protein helps you feel full longer, so you're less likely to get distracted by hunger in first period.
Claim 3: It's the most popular breakfast in the entire city.
Claim 4: One bite will make you a better student.
Which claim in the ad is supported by statistical evidence?
Answer: The parfait has 12 grams of protein and 6 grams of fiber, based on the cafeteria recipe.
Statistical evidence means specific numbers, measurements, or quantities you could count or verify. The claim about 12 grams of protein and 6 grams of fiber uses exact measurements from the cafeteria recipe, so it is backed by statistical evidence. The claim that it is the most popular breakfast in the entire city sounds like it could be counted, but the ad gives no sales figures, survey, or source—it's just an assertion, not real data. The claim that one bite makes you a better student is an exaggerated promise with no numbers or proof of any kind behind it. The claim that protein keeps you full so hunger won't distract you is actually supported, but by reasoning (a cause-and-effect explanation), not by statistics—there are no numbers in it. Only the protein-and-fiber claim offers measurable, numerical data, which is exactly what statistical evidence is.
- During a 6th-grade student council meeting, Maya gives a 1-minute persuasive speech to classmates arguing that the school should create a no-phones-at-lunch rule.
Main argument/thesis: The school should ban phone use during lunch to improve students' well-being and friendships.
Claim 1 (supported): Maya says phone-free lunch helps students talk more. She cites a survey she and her teacher ran of 120 students: 78 students (65%) said they "mostly look at a screen" at lunch, and 70 of those 78 said they would talk more if phones were away.
Claim 2 (supported): She adds that breaks from screens can help attention later in class. She explains a cause-and-effect reason: if lunch is a real break, brains rest, and it's easier to focus afterward.
Claim 3 (unsupported): Maya says, "Everyone will be happier immediately, guaranteed," but she gives no data or source.
Claim 4 (unsupported): She says, "Other schools never allow phones at lunch," but she does not name any schools or provide proof.
Which claim is best supported by reasons and/or evidence in Maya's speech?
Answer: Phone-free lunch helps students talk more, supported by the 120-student survey results.
The best-supported claim is that phone-free lunch helps students talk more. Maya backs this with real evidence from her survey of 120 students: 78 of them (65%) said they mostly look at a screen at lunch, and 70 of those students said they would talk more if phones were away. Those specific numbers are what make this claim strong.
The claim that other schools never allow phones at lunch is unsupported—Maya names no schools and offers no proof, so it is just an assertion. The claim that everyone will be happier immediately, guaranteed, is an emotional appeal with no data or source; words like "guaranteed" and "always" do not count as evidence. The claim about screen breaks helping attention is a real claim, but Maya supports it only with a cause-and-effect reason, not with facts or survey data—so it is supported less strongly than the claim built on actual numbers. When you decide which claim is best supported, look for concrete evidence like statistics and survey results, not just confident wording or logical guesses.
- In a morning classroom debate, Malik argues that the school should limit homework to 60 minutes per night. He makes several statements during the debate.
Which statement is an unsupported claim because it attacks motives and provides no evidence?
Answer: Teachers give tons of homework because they don't care about kids and want to make school harder.
The best answer is the one saying teachers assign homework because they don't care about kids and want to make school harder. This is unsupported because it guesses at teachers' motives and calls them uncaring without offering any proof—no survey of teachers, no examples of their behavior, nothing but an accusation. That makes it a personal attack rather than a real reason.
The statement about sleep is supported: it gives a reason (homework pushes bedtimes later) tied to what doctors recommend. The statement about family time is supported too, because it backs the point with survey data (19 of 28 students miss responsibilities). The statement about limiting homework to 60 minutes is Malik's overall position, and here it is given a reason about a fair schedule, so it is not an unattacked, evidence-free jab at anyone's motives. Only one choice criticizes people's character instead of ideas and offers zero evidence—that is what makes it the unsupported claim the question asks about.
- Speaker: 'Our school is safe; nothing bad has happened in my three years here.' What flaw?
Answer: Short safe period is not proof
Three years without a bad event at one school is too small a sample to prove the school is safe. The speaker treats a short calm period as if it guarantees safety, but that isn't evidence about the future. The tempting wrong answer is "bad events happen everywhere," but that misses the real flaw, which is the weak proof from a limited time.
- On the morning announcements, the principal gives a short editorial-style message about recess.
Main argument/thesis: Sixth graders should keep daily recess.
Claim 1 (supported): The principal says recess helps students return to class ready to learn. She references a district memo summarizing a study of 12 schools showing that classes after recess had fewer behavior interruptions.
Claim 2 (supported): She says physical activity supports health. She quotes the school nurse, who explains that movement helps the body and can improve mood.
Claim 3 (unsupported): She claims, "Kids who don't get recess become lazy," but she offers no data or expert support for that statement.
Claim 4 (unsupported): She adds, "Every successful school has lots of recess," without examples or proof.
Which claim is presented as an opinion or generalization without support?
Answer: Kids who don't get recess become lazy.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing or outlining the argument structure clearly by identifying the main argument (the speaker's overall position or thesis), specific claims (particular statements supporting that position), and determining how claims are supported (or not); unsupported claims include opinions stated as facts, emotional appeals, vague generalizations, single anecdotes, or circular reasoning that lack factual backing like statistics, expert opinions, research findings, or logical explanations. The correct answer C demonstrates the standard because it accurately identifies a claim presented as an opinion or generalization without support - the principal simply asserts "Kids who don't get recess become lazy" without providing any data, research, expert opinion, or even logical reasoning to back this sweeping generalization about student behavior. The distractors fail because A is supported by research evidence (district memo summarizing a study of 12 schools), B is supported by expert opinion (school nurse's explanation about movement and mood), and D is the main argument/thesis rather than a specific claim needing support. This error reveals that students may not recognize sweeping generalizations as unsupported claims, possibly thinking that if an authority figure (like a principal) says something it doesn't need evidence, or they may not distinguish between statements that sound authoritative but lack backing versus those with actual support. To teach this skill, focus on recognizing generalizations and opinion statements: teach students to identify absolute language ("all," "every," "become") and sweeping statements about groups as red flags for potential unsupported claims; model asking "What evidence backs this up?" for each claim, noting when the answer is "none." Practice with examples of supported versus unsupported claims about student behavior: "Study shows students with recess have fewer disruptions" (supported) versus "Kids without recess become lazy" (unsupported generalization); use a T-chart labeled "Opinion/Generalization" and "Evidence-Based Claim" to sort statements from speeches; emphasize that even principals and experts need to provide evidence for their claims, and that critical listening means evaluating support regardless of who is speaking.
- In an oral editorial for the school news show, a student argues that the school should keep arts classes (music and art) every year instead of cutting them.
Main argument/thesis: The school should not cut arts classes.
Claim 1: Arts classes help academic skills. Support: The speaker mentions a district report showing students who took at least one arts class had higher average attendance than students who took none.
Claim 2: Arts classes build confidence. Support: The speaker gives an example of three students who felt more comfortable presenting after performing in a concert.
Claim 3: "If we cut art, the school will stop being a real school." Support: The speaker does not explain what "real school" means or provide evidence.
Claim 4: Cutting arts would save less money than people think. Support: The speaker cites the proposed budget showing arts supplies are $1,200 for the year, which is less than 1% of the total activity budget.
Which claim is supported by specific budget numbers?
Answer: Cutting arts would save less money than people think.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating requires identifying specific types of evidence - budget numbers are concrete financial data showing costs, percentages, or monetary comparisons, distinct from attendance data, examples, or unsupported predictions. The correct answer D demonstrates the standard because the claim about saving less money is supported by specific budget numbers: "arts supplies are $1,200 for the year, which is less than 1% of the total activity budget" - these are concrete financial figures with a calculated percentage. The distractors fail because A uses attendance data (not budget numbers), B uses examples of students (not financial data), and C is explicitly unsupported with no explanation of what "real school" means. This error reveals students may not distinguish between different types of numerical evidence, may not recognize budget/financial data as a specific evidence category, or may confuse any numbers with budget-specific numbers. To teach evidence types, create clear categories: Budget/Financial (dollars, costs, percentages of spending), Statistics (survey results, attendance rates), Examples (specific instances), Expert Opinion (quoted authorities); practice sorting evidence from speeches; emphasize that budget numbers specifically relate to money/costs/spending, making them ideal support for claims about financial impact or savings.
- In a student-led forum, Elena argues that the cafeteria should offer a vegetarian main dish every day. She makes several claims:
- She says more students would eat school lunch if there were more options. She cites a student government poll of 300 students: 110 said they would choose a vegetarian main dish at least once a week.
- She says it can be done without slowing lines, reasoning that the cafeteria already serves two main choices on Fridays, so adding a vegetarian option uses an existing system.
- She says, "Vegetarian food is always tastier than meat."
- She says, "If we don't do this, students will stop trusting the school."
Which claim does Elena support with research/survey evidence?
Answer: More students would eat school lunch with more options, because a poll of 300 students found 110 would choose a vegetarian main dish.
Research/survey evidence means data gathered by asking a group of people questions—like a poll or survey with actual numbers. The best answer is the claim that more students would eat lunch with more options, because Elena backs it with a poll of 300 students where 110 said they would pick a vegetarian dish weekly. That is real data collected from people.
The claim that a vegetarian option would not slow lines is supported, but only by logical reasoning about the existing Friday system—no survey or data is involved. The claim that vegetarian food tastes better sounds like it has a reason attached, but a general statement about what "most people prefer" is an opinion, not collected data. The claim that students will lose trust also offers a reason, yet it points to past events, not any poll or study. Only one claim uses numbers from asking a group of people, so only one is supported by research/survey evidence.
- In a short presentation to the PTA, a parent speaker argues that the school should start 20 minutes later.
Main argument/thesis: The school day should begin 20 minutes later.
Claim 1: Students would be more alert. Support: The speaker cites a local university sleep researcher, Dr. Kim, who studied 10 schools and reported fewer first-period tardies after later start times.
Claim 2: Families could adjust. Support: The speaker explains that buses could shift routes by 20 minutes without changing the number of buses, because the elementary schedule would stay the same.
Claim 3: "No one likes early mornings, so this will definitely raise grades for everyone." Support: The speaker does not provide data about grades or explain why it would help every student.
Claim 4: Attendance could improve. Support: The speaker gives a statistic: in Dr. Kim's report, average attendance increased by 3% in the schools that changed start times.
Which claim is weakest supported because it makes a sweeping promise without evidence?
Answer: Since mornings feel hard, the change will lift grades for all.
The best answer is the claim that says a later start will lift grades for all students just because mornings feel hard. Notice that the speaker never gives any grade data and never explains how starting later would help every single student—so this is a big promise with nothing behind it. That makes it the weakest supported claim. The alertness claim is backed by Dr. Kim's study of ten schools, which found fewer first-period tardies, so it has real evidence. The bus-route claim is supported by a logical explanation: routes can shift twenty minutes because the elementary schedule stays the same, so no extra buses are needed. The attendance claim rests on an actual statistic—a 3% rise in attendance in the schools that changed their times. Each of those three has a reason, study, or number supporting it. When you evaluate a speaker's claims, look for the one that promises a result but offers no data or clear reasoning to back it up.
- In a product pitch to the PTA, two students, Sam and Priya, propose selling healthy snack packs at school events.
Main argument/thesis: The PTA should approve healthy snack packs instead of candy-only sales.
Claim 1 (supported): They say many families want healthier options. They report results from a quick survey of 120 event-goers: 78 said they would buy a snack pack with fruit, popcorn, and water.
Claim 2 (supported): They say the plan can still raise money. They show a simple calculation: if each pack costs $1.20 to make and sells for $2.00, the profit is $0.80 per pack.
Claim 3 (unsupported): Sam says, "These snack packs are the healthiest food you can eat," without nutrition facts or comparisons.
Claim 4 (unsupported): Priya says, "If we sell these, our events will be the most popular in the whole city," without evidence.
Which statement is best supported by evidence in the pitch?
Answer: Many families want healthier options, supported by a survey where 78 out of 120 people said they would buy the pack.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing or outlining the argument structure clearly by identifying the main argument (the speaker's overall position or thesis), specific claims (particular statements supporting that position), and determining how claims are supported (or not); well-supported claims have specific evidence like statistics, survey data, expert opinions, or logical reasoning with clear connections, while unsupported claims rely on exaggeration, bare assertions, or vague promises without backing. The correct answer B demonstrates the standard because it identifies the claim best supported by evidence - Sam and Priya provide specific survey data (78 out of 120 event-goers said they would buy the pack), which is concrete numerical evidence showing actual demand for healthier options rather than just asserting that families want them. The distractors fail because A and C are explicitly labeled as unsupported claims (no nutrition facts for "healthiest food"; no evidence for becoming "most popular in the whole city"), while D merely restates a version of the main argument rather than identifying a specific supported claim. This error reveals that students may not recognize the difference between claims with specific, quantifiable support (survey results with numbers) versus claims that use superlatives or absolute language without evidence, or they may think that positive-sounding statements don't need support. To teach this skill, emphasize the importance of specific evidence: compare "many families want healthier options" (vague) with "78 out of 120 people surveyed said they would buy it" (specific); teach students to look for concrete support like numbers from surveys, specific calculations, or cited sources rather than accepting broad claims. Practice evaluating evidence quality by creating a scale from "no support" to "strong support": no support = bare assertion ("it's the healthiest"), weak support = vague claim ("many people want"), strong support = specific data ("78 out of 120 surveyed"); have students rate claims from various speeches and justify their ratings; focus on teaching that the best-supported claims have specific, verifiable evidence rather than emotional appeals or exaggerated promises.
- Speaker: 'Video games cause violence. Lab players acted more aggressively.' How is the argument weak?
Answer: It misuses the lab evidence
The lab shows players acted more aggressively in a controlled setting, not that video games cause real-world violence. That leap stretches the evidence too far. The tempting wrong answer is that aggression cannot be measured, but researchers can measure aggressive responses; the real flaw is equating lab behavior with actual violence.
- At a 6th-grade student council meeting, Maya gives a short persuasive speech arguing that the school should create a phone-free lunch zone in half of the cafeteria.
Main argument/thesis: The school should set aside a phone-free lunch area so students can talk more and feel better at lunch.
Claim 1: Students would socialize more. Support: Maya says her group counted 60 students at lunch for three days; in the area where fewer phones were out, students had about 2 conversations per table instead of 1.
Claim 2: A phone-free zone would reduce lunch stress. Support: She quotes the school counselor, Mr. Alvarez, who says he sees more friendship conflicts that start from group chats during lunch and that "a short break from phones can calm conflicts."
Claim 3: "Everyone will be happier immediately." Support: Maya does not give any facts, examples, or expert statements—she just says it's obvious.
Claim 4: The zone would be easy to try. Support: She explains the school could start with a two-week trial using signs and student volunteers, then collect feedback.
Which claim is not supported by reasons or evidence in Maya's speech?
Answer: Everyone will be happier immediately.
This question assesses CCSS.SL.6.3: Delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not. Delineating means describing the argument structure clearly by identifying the main argument (speaker's overall position), specific claims (statements supporting that position), and evaluating how claims are supported - supported claims have reasons (logical explanations) and/or evidence (facts, statistics, expert opinions, research findings, examples showing patterns), while unsupported claims are bare assertions, opinions stated as facts, emotional appeals, vague generalizations, single anecdotes, or circular reasoning lacking factual backing. The correct answer C demonstrates the standard because it identifies Maya's claim "Everyone will be happier immediately" as unsupported - the stimulus explicitly states Maya "does not give any facts, examples, or expert statements—she just says it's obvious," making this a bare assertion without evidence. The distractors fail because they identify claims that actually have support: A has observational data (counted students and conversations), B has expert opinion (school counselor quote), and D has logical reasoning (explaining the trial process). This error reveals students may not understand what qualifies as evidence versus mere assertion, may accept statements at face value without checking for backing, or may confuse having an opinion with supporting that opinion. To teach this skill, use a graphic organizer with Main Argument at top, specific claims branching below, and evidence listed under each claim; teach what counts as evidence (facts/statistics/data, expert opinions with credentials, research findings, specific examples showing patterns, logical reasoning) versus NOT evidence (bare assertions, opinions as facts, emotional appeals, vague language, single anecdotes); practice with transcripts where students highlight evidence and circle unsupported claims, focusing on the analytical skill of evaluating whether claims are backed by reasons/evidence or are mere assertions.
- A community member speaks at a school assembly about starting a recycling program.
Main argument/thesis: The school should restart recycling in classrooms.
Claim 1 (supported): She says recycling can reduce trash pickups. She reports that last year, when recycling bins were in place, the school's trash dumpster was emptied 2 times per week; after bins were removed, it was emptied 3 times per week (based on the facilities log).
Claim 2 (supported): She says students are willing to help. She describes a sign-up sheet from the environmental club: 26 students volunteered to do weekly bin checks.
Claim 3 (unsupported): She says, "Recycling always saves tons of money," but gives no dollar amounts.
Claim 4 (unsupported): She says, "If we don't recycle, people will think we don't care at all," which is mostly an emotional appeal.
Which claim has stronger evidence in the speech?
Answer: Recycling reduced trash pickups from 3 times to 2 times per week, per the facilities log.
The strongest claim points to trash pickups dropping from 3 times to 2 times a week, and it names a source—the facilities log. That is a specific number you can check, so it counts as strong evidence.
The claim that recycling "always saves tons of money" sounds convincing, but it gives no dollar amounts, so there is nothing to verify. The claim about people thinking the school doesn't care is an emotional appeal, not a measurable fact. The claim about 26 students signing up is real evidence, but it supports that students are willing to help—not the pickup argument—and student interest is weaker proof than documented pickup counts. Look past how confident or detailed a claim sounds and ask which one offers specific, checkable data from a reliable record.
