- Which quotation from the passage provides the strongest evidence that focusing on food miles can lead consumers to make environmentally worse choices?
Answer: "Greenhouse-grown local tomatoes in winter can carry a heavier climate cost than tomatoes trucked from sunnier regions."
"Strongest evidence" questions ask you to find the quotation that most directly supports a specific claim in the question stem. Here, the claim is narrow: focusing on food miles can lead consumers to make choices that are worse for the environment. Your job is to find the line that shows a local option actually causing more harm than a distant one.
Choice B does exactly that. It presents a concrete case—winter greenhouse tomatoes grown locally—where the "buy local" choice carries a heavier climate cost than the trucked-in alternative. That's a direct example of a consumer following food-miles logic and getting a worse environmental outcome.
Choice A gives an important statistic, but it only shows that transportation is a small piece of the emissions pie. It supports the idea that food miles are misleading as a metric, not specifically that they cause worse choices. It's background, not evidence of harm.
Choice C describes why the concept is appealing (it feels morally clear), not that it leads to worse outcomes. It's a critique of the concept's psychology, not its consequences.
Choice D simply states the food-miles reasoning itself. It's the belief being examined, not evidence about where that belief leads.
When a question asks for the "strongest evidence" for a specific claim, match the quotation to the exact wording of that claim. Here, "environmentally worse choices" requires a quote showing a comparison where the local option loses—only B delivers that head-to-head example.
- Which evidence from the passage most strongly supports the author's central claim that technology depends on existing social conditions?
Answer: The explanation that the Reformation depended on "vernacular preachers and networks of literate reformers already positioned to interpret printed tracts"
When a question asks which evidence "most strongly supports" a central claim, your job is to identify the passage's main argument first, then find the choice that most directly illustrates it. Here, the author's central claim appears at the end: "technology... requires social conditions ready to receive it." So you're hunting for the example that most clearly shows technology depending on pre-existing social structures.
Choice B does this most directly. The Reformation is often credited as a triumph of the printing press, but the passage argues it actually depended on "vernacular preachers and networks of literate reformers already positioned" before the press arrived. That word "already" is key—it shows a social condition that had to exist before the technology could have its effect. This is the sharpest illustration of the author's thesis.
Choice A simply provides background facts about when the press was invented and its capacity. These details set up the topic but don't demonstrate dependence on social conditions. Choice C describes a consequence of the press (literacy spreading) rather than a precondition for it—it shows technology causing social change, which is closer to the opposite of the author's claim. Choice D states that historians overlook literacy as a precondition, but this is the author framing the argument, not evidence supporting it; it tells you what the claim is rather than proving it.
When tackling "which evidence supports" questions, distinguish between statements that assert a claim and statements that demonstrate it with a concrete example. The strongest support is almost always a specific illustration, not a restatement of the thesis.
- Which quotation from the passage most strongly supports the conclusion that vertical farming is unlikely to solve food insecurity in the near future?
Answer: "Rice, wheat, and potatoes, which supply the bulk of human calories, require conditions that vertical farms cannot yet economically replicate."
"Text evidence" questions ask you to match a specific claim in the passage to a specific conclusion. The trick is to identify exactly what the conclusion says, then find the quotation that directly supports that claim—not one that merely relates to the topic.
Here, the conclusion is narrow: vertical farming won't solve food insecurity soon. Food insecurity means people lacking enough calories to eat. So you need a quotation explaining why vertical farming can't feed hungry populations. Choice C does exactly that: it names the staple crops (rice, wheat, potatoes) that "supply the bulk of human calories" and states that vertical farms "cannot yet economically replicate" the conditions to grow them. If the technology can't produce the foods that actually feed people, it can't solve hunger—a direct logical link.
Choice A actually supports the opposite conclusion, praising vertical farming's efficiency. Choice B points to a real economic problem (LED costs), but high operating costs alone don't prove vertical farming can't feed the hungry—subsidies or technological improvements could address cost issues. It's supporting evidence for a different weakness. Choice D simply states what proponents claim; it introduces the topic but provides no evidence for or against feasibility.
A useful strategy: when a question asks which quote "most strongly supports" a conclusion, restate the conclusion in your own words first, then look for the answer that hits its specific terms. Here, "food insecurity" = calories = staple crops, which points straight to C. Beware of choices that are true but address a different part of the argument.
- Which sentence from the passage most directly supports the inference that the author sees the gap year as a practice whose benefits are unequally distributed?
Answer: "For low-income students, the same year off often means retail work that provides neither the growth nor the résumé advantages the tradition promises."
When a question asks which sentence "most directly supports an inference," your job is to find the line that provides the clearest textual evidence for the specific claim in the question stem. Here, the claim is that the author sees gap-year benefits as *unequally distributed*—so you need a sentence that explicitly contrasts who gains from the practice and who doesn't.
Choice C does exactly that. It names a specific group (low-income students) and states that for them, the gap year yields "neither the growth nor the résumé advantages the tradition promises." That direct contrast between what wealthier students gain and what poorer students don't is the textual backbone of the inequality inference.
Choice A describes universities' historical skepticism about students returning to school—an unrelated concern about completion, not about class-based access. Choice B actually undercuts the inequality argument by highlighting a positive, general outcome (higher completion rates) without distinguishing between groups. Choice D is purely historical background about where the tradition began; it says nothing about who benefits or suffers from it today.
A useful strategy for "which sentence supports this inference" questions: translate the inference into a checklist of ideas that must appear in the evidence. Here, you needed (1) a mention of different groups and (2) a difference in outcomes. Only C contains both. Sentences that are merely factual, historical, or general-population claims usually can't support inferences about *disparity*—look for language that explicitly names subgroups or draws contrasts.
- Which piece of evidence best supports the inference that the author views the debate over museum arrangement as not resolvable by choosing one method exclusively?
Answer: The description of a compromise using "thematic special exhibits within a chronological permanent collection"
Questions asking which evidence best supports an inference require you to match the evidence directly to the specific claim being inferred. Here, the claim is that the author sees the debate as not resolvable by one method alone. Your job is to find the sentence that most directly implies "both approaches are needed."
Choice C works because the compromise described—thematic exhibits inside a chronological collection—is explicitly framed as a response to the fact that "neither approach alone fully serves both casual visitors and serious researchers." That closing sentence tells you the author endorses a hybrid, which is exactly the inference the question asks about.
A only tells you thematic displays are trendy; popularity doesn't show that one method is insufficient on its own. B reports a short-term attendance bump, which actually supports thematic arrangement rather than suggesting a need for both approaches. D is a criticism of thematic displays specifically—it argues one side of the debate, but a critique of thematic arrangement alone would just as easily support choosing chronological exclusively. It doesn't point toward the "neither alone works" conclusion.
The trap in questions like this is picking evidence that's strong but supports the wrong claim (like D, which is vivid and quotable but one-sided). Always re-read the exact wording of the inference and ask: "Does this evidence point to that specific conclusion?" Compromise language—"blend," "hybrid," "both," "neither alone"—is almost always your signal when the inference involves reconciling opposing views.
- Which evidence from the passage best supports a reader's inference that the author is skeptical of the first group of historians' lesson?
Answer: The point that the automobile's solution "simply displaced harm onto future generations who could not attend the 1898 conference to object"
When a question asks you to identify evidence of an author's skepticism toward a viewpoint, look for language that carries evaluative weight—word choices, tone, or framing that tips the author's hand. Authors rarely announce their opinions directly in balanced-sounding passages; instead, they let one side's argument land with more rhetorical force.
Here, the first group of historians claims the manure crisis proves panic is "misplaced" because problems solve themselves. If the author agreed, they'd let that view stand. Instead, the passage gives the *counter*-argument extra weight through a pointed, almost mournful image: future generations "could not attend the 1898 conference to object." That vivid, morally charged phrasing—highlighting voiceless victims—signals the author finds the "don't worry" lesson naive. That's why D is the strongest evidence of skepticism.
A is neutral factual detail establishing the scale of the problem; it supports neither historical camp. B describes the failure of 1898 planners, which actually supports the first group's point that problems can resolve without planning. C likewise reports the outcome the first group celebrates—the vanishing of the crisis—so it reinforces rather than undermines their lesson.
The trap here is choosing evidence that merely relates to the topic (A, B) or even backs the opposite view (C). Skepticism must be shown through language that critiques.
Tip: When hunting for authorial tone, focus on the passage's most emotionally or ethically loaded phrase. Neutral statistics and factual reports almost never reveal a viewpoint—word choice does.
- A student claims the passage argues that the "sharks must swim to breathe" rule is completely false. Which sentence from the passage most directly refutes the student's characterization?
Answer: "The common assumption that sharks must swim constantly to breathe is only partially true."
When a question asks which sentence "refutes" a mischaracterization, you're looking for the line that most directly contradicts the specific wording of the student's claim. Here, the student says the passage argues the old rule is "completely false." You need a sentence that explicitly acknowledges the rule has some truth to it.
Choice A does exactly that. By stating the assumption is "only partially true," the author directly signals that part of it is true — which is the opposite of "completely false." This single sentence dismantles the student's absolutist reading in one stroke.
Choice B simply introduces an example of sharks that don't fit the rule. That supports the idea that the rule has exceptions, but it doesn't address whether the rule is partially or completely false. Choice C similarly gives evidence about buccal pumpers resting — again, an exception, not a statement about the rule's overall validity. Choice D says the rule "holds only for certain species under certain conditions," which does concede the rule has limited validity, but its emphasis falls on the limitations rather than on affirming that the rule is still true in some cases. A more explicitly counters "completely false" by asserting "partially true."
When a question asks you to refute a specific characterization, match the language precisely. "Completely false" is refuted most directly by "partially true" — look for the sentence whose wording is the mirror image of the mischaracterization, not just one that provides related evidence.
- Which quotation most strongly supports the inference that the author believes public criticism of algorithms is often misdirected?
Answer: "Blaming the algorithm can conveniently shift responsibility away from the people who wrote it."
When a question asks which quotation supports an inference about the author's belief, you're looking for the line that most directly reveals the author's own judgment—not background information, not a definition, not a neutral observation. The word "misdirected" is your key clue: you need a quotation suggesting that criticism is aimed at the wrong target.
Choice A does exactly that. The phrase "shift responsibility away from the people who wrote it" implies that blame belongs with the human designers, not the algorithm itself. If critics are blaming the algorithm, and the author says that blame conveniently deflects from the real culprits, then the author clearly views the public's criticism as pointed in the wrong direction.
Choice B defines what an algorithm is. It provides context but says nothing about whether criticism is misplaced—it's descriptive, not evaluative. Choice C describes a cultural trend (algorithms sound scary now) but doesn't evaluate whether criticism is fair or unfair; it simply notes that the word carries negative weight. Choice D emphasizes the scale of algorithmic impact, which actually validates why people are concerned—it doesn't suggest their criticism is misaimed, only that the stakes are high.
A useful strategy for "supports the inference" questions: physically match the inference statement to the quotation. Here, "criticism is misdirected" needs a line about blame being aimed at the wrong target. Only A contains that redirecting move. Distractors often restate other true ideas from the passage—true, but not evidence for the specific inference being tested.
- A politician cites the passage to argue that coral reefs "are proving resilient" to climate change. Which sentence from the passage most directly contradicts this characterization?
Answer: "'What we're seeing isn't strength,' she says. 'It's the last patches of a system running out of time.'"
When a question asks which sentence "most directly contradicts" a claim, you're looking for language that explicitly opposes the interpretation — not just information that complicates it. The politician's claim is that reefs are "proving resilient." So you need the sentence that most pointedly denies resilience.
Tanaka's quoted statement in D does exactly that. She names the exact word the politician would use ("strength") and rejects it: "What we're seeing isn't strength. It's the last patches of a system running out of time." This is a direct, explicit refutation — the surviving reef areas are not evidence of resilience but of imminent collapse.
A is background information about why reefs matter ecologically. It establishes stakes but says nothing about resilience or its absence. B actually supports the politician's misreading — it notes that bleached corals can recover, which sounds like resilience if quoted selectively (this is the trap answer for anyone skimming). C reports a fact about the duration of a bleaching event; while troubling, a fact about length alone doesn't contradict a claim about resilience — a politician could argue the reef "survived" that long event. Only D interprets the evidence and explicitly denies the resilience framing.
When a question asks what "contradicts" a claim, prioritize sentences that make evaluative or interpretive statements over sentences that report neutral facts. Facts can be spun; direct interpretive rebuttals cannot. Also watch for trap answers like B that superficially seem relevant but actually support the misreading you're trying to refute.
- Which piece of evidence from the passage most strongly supports Marsh's claim that Corvus's language use involved genuine understanding rather than pattern-matching?
Answer: The observation that Corvus's errors "resembled the errors young children make, such as overextending category words"
Questions asking which evidence "most strongly supports" a claim require you to match the evidence directly to the specific argument being made. Here, Marsh's argument isn't just that Corvus knows a lot of words — it's that Corvus's language use reveals underlying structure (grammar/categories) rather than surface-level mimicry. So you need evidence that specifically distinguishes rule-based understanding from mere pattern-matching.
That's exactly what B does. The passage explicitly frames the systematic, child-like errors as Marsh's key counterargument: random pattern-matching would produce random mistakes, but overextending "dog" to all four-legged animals shows the parrot is operating with categories — a hallmark of genuine linguistic cognition. The nature of the errors is what rules out the skeptics' alternative explanation.
A is tempting but weak: knowing many words could easily be explained by memorization or pattern-matching, which is precisely what skeptics claimed. C shows novel word combination, which is impressive but the passage presents it as the evidence skeptics dismissed as statistical pattern-matching — so it can't be the strongest support against their view. D describes the impact of Marsh's methodology on the field, not evidence for her specific claim about Corvus's understanding.
Strategy tip: When a passage presents a debate (claim vs. counterclaim), the strongest supporting evidence is usually the piece that specifically rules out the opposing explanation — not the most dramatic or impressive-sounding detail. Ask yourself: "Which option would the skeptic have the hardest time explaining away?"
