- Which sentence in the paragraph makes a sweeping conclusion that needs to be backed by data?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about evaluating claims in written passages, you need to identify statements that make broad assertions without sufficient evidence to support them.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping, definitive claim that "the results of these experiments have been overwhelmingly disappointing." This is a strong conclusion that requires substantial data to back it up. The word "overwhelmingly" suggests a comprehensive analysis of multiple studies, yet no specific evidence, statistics, or examples are provided to support this broad generalization.
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply defines what UBI means—it's providing factual information about a concept, not making a conclusion that needs data support. Choice C is wrong because Sentence 3 states a neutral fact that pilot programs have been conducted, which is verifiable information rather than a conclusion requiring evidence. Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 2 presents what proponents argue, clearly attributing the claims to supporters rather than stating them as established facts.
The key difference is that Sentence 4 presents the author's own definitive judgment about the results without citing any supporting evidence, while the other sentences either define terms, state verifiable facts, or attribute claims to specific groups.
Remember to watch for absolute language like "overwhelmingly," "always," "never," or "completely" in passages—these signal claims that typically require substantial evidence to be credible, making them prime candidates for questions about unsupported conclusions.
- Which sentence in the paragraph makes a claim that needs to be substantiated with evidence?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about claims that need evidence, you're being asked to identify statements that present opinions, judgments, or conclusions rather than verifiable facts.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a subjective judgment that "conservation efforts...have been largely ineffective." This is an evaluative claim that requires supporting evidence to prove. What specific efforts? How do we measure their effectiveness? What data supports this conclusion? Without evidence, this remains an unsupported opinion.
Let's examine why the other options are incorrect. Choice A (Sentence 1) presents factual, measurable information about the reef's size and composition—these are verifiable statistics that can be confirmed through scientific measurement. Choice C (Sentence 3) states that climate change threatens the reef through coral bleaching, which is a well-documented scientific phenomenon supported by extensive research. Choice D (Sentence 2) describes the reef as biodiverse, which is an observable characteristic that can be verified through species counts and ecological surveys.
The key distinction is between factual statements (which can be verified through observation or measurement) and evaluative claims (which require evidence to support a judgment). Factual statements like statistics, documented phenomena, and observable characteristics don't need additional substantiation in the same way that judgments about effectiveness, success, or failure do.
Remember: When identifying claims that need evidence, look for words that signal judgment or evaluation—like "ineffective," "successful," "better," or "worse"—rather than statements presenting measurable facts or well-established scientific phenomena.
- Which sentence introduces an idea that needs further explanation or evidence?
Answer: Sentence 4
When analyzing which sentence needs further development, you're looking for claims that make broad or surprising assertions without providing supporting details or evidence.
Sentence 4 is correct because it introduces a significant claim about Komodo dragon social behavior being "far more intricate than was previously believed" without offering any specific examples, research findings, or details about what this complexity actually involves. This statement raises natural questions: How is their behavior intricate? What did scientists discover? What specific behaviors were misunderstood? Without this supporting information, readers are left with an incomplete picture.
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 provides clear, factual information about the Komodo dragon's size classification and basic habitat that doesn't require additional explanation. Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 offers concrete examples of the dragon's predatory capabilities by naming specific prey animals (water buffalo and deer), making the claim sufficiently supported. Choice C is incorrect because Sentence 3 explains the hunting mechanism with specific details about how the venomous bite works—inhibiting blood clotting and inducing shock—providing clear evidence for its effectiveness.
On SHSAT reading questions about textual development, look for sentences that make sweeping claims about changes in understanding, comparisons to previous beliefs, or complex concepts without backing them up. These often contain phrases like "more than previously thought," "recent discoveries show," or "contrary to earlier beliefs" followed by vague descriptions rather than concrete details.
- Which sentence presents an opinion that would be more convincing with supporting evidence?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions asking which statement needs supporting evidence, you're being tested on distinguishing between facts and opinions, and recognizing when claims require proof to be convincing.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a broad, evaluative claim about binge-watching having a "detrimental effect on viewers' long-term enjoyment." This is an opinion that asserts a negative judgment without providing any research, studies, or data to back it up. To be convincing, this statement would need evidence like psychological studies, viewer surveys, or expert analysis demonstrating how binge-watching actually reduces enjoyment over time.
Choice A is wrong because sentence 1 states an observable fact about streaming services changing consumption patterns - this is widely documented and doesn't require additional proof. Choice B is incorrect because sentence 2 describes the factual reality that on-demand viewing eliminates schedule constraints, which is self-evidently true about how streaming works. Choice C is wrong because sentence 3 simply defines "binge-watching" and notes that this practice exists, which is a verifiable behavioral phenomenon that doesn't need supporting evidence.
Remember that opinion statements often contain evaluative language like "detrimental," "beneficial," "best," or "worst." When you see claims that make judgments about effects, consequences, or value, ask yourself: "What proof would I need to believe this?" If the answer requires research or expert testimony that isn't provided, that's your answer.
- Which sentence makes a controversial claim that requires further explanation and evidence?
Answer: Sentence 4
When analyzing claims in a passage, you need to distinguish between statements that present factual information versus those that make judgments requiring evidence. Look for opinions, comparisons, or evaluative statements that go beyond basic facts.
Sentence 4 makes a controversial claim by asserting that modern chess is "less intellectually demanding" than historical versions. This is a subjective judgment comparing the intellectual rigor of different chess variants across centuries. Such a claim would require substantial evidence—perhaps studies of game complexity, analysis of strategic depth, or expert testimony—to support it. The phrase "in many respects" signals that this is an evaluative comparison rather than an established fact.
Choice A is incorrect because sentence 1 presents widely accepted historical facts about chess being a strategy game with a long history. Choice B is wrong since sentence 2 offers factual information about chess's traceable origins to chaturanga, which is historically documented. Choice C is incorrect because sentence 3 describes the well-documented geographical spread and rule evolution of chess, which represents factual historical progression rather than a controversial opinion.
The other sentences present information that could be verified through historical records, but sentence 4 makes a value judgment about intellectual difficulty that would be nearly impossible to prove definitively.
Strategy tip: On reading comprehension questions about controversial claims, look for evaluative language, subjective comparisons, or statements that go beyond what can be directly observed or historically documented. Words like "better," "more/less," or value judgments often signal claims needing additional support.
- Which sentence should be followed by specific examples to support its argument?
Answer: Sentence 3
When you encounter questions asking which statement needs supporting examples, look for claims that make strong assertions without providing evidence. These statements typically contain opinions, judgments, or controversial points that readers would naturally question.
Sentence 3 states that "scientific breakthroughs that have resulted from ISS research are often exaggerated." This is a bold claim that directly challenges the perceived value of ISS research. To be convincing, this statement would need specific examples showing how particular discoveries were overstated or misrepresented in the media or scientific community. Without concrete evidence, readers have no way to evaluate whether this criticism is valid.
Let's examine why the other options don't require examples. Choice A (Sentence 1) simply provides factual, objective information about what the ISS is—this descriptive statement doesn't need supporting examples. Choice C (Sentence 2) describes the ISS's function as a research laboratory, which is a straightforward factual claim about its purpose. Choice D (Sentence 4) does make an argumentative claim about political versus scientific purposes, but it's presented as a general interpretation rather than a specific accusation that demands proof.
The key difference is that Sentence 3 makes a negative judgment about exaggeration that directly contradicts common assumptions about space research achievements. Such claims require substantiation to be credible.
Strategy tip: Look for statements containing evaluative language like "exaggerated," "overrated," or "ineffective"—these opinion-based claims almost always need specific supporting evidence to be persuasive in academic writing.
- Which sentence should be followed by specific evidence to support its assertion?
Answer: Sentence 4
When analyzing argumentative writing, you need to distinguish between statements that present facts versus those that make claims requiring evidence. Claims about effects, consequences, or judgments typically need supporting data to be convincing.
Sentence 4 makes a strong claim that "the long-term health risks associated with this diet are substantial" for average people. This is an assertion about potential negative health outcomes that demands specific evidence to be credible. Without studies, statistics, or expert testimony backing this claim, readers have no reason to accept it as true. The author should follow this with concrete examples of health risks, research findings, or medical data.
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply defines what the ketogenic diet is and notes its popularity—both factual statements that don't require additional proof. Choice D is wrong because Sentence 2 explains a well-established biological process (ketosis) that doesn't need further evidence in this context. Choice C is incorrect because Sentence 3 states a historical fact about the diet's original medical use for epilepsy, which is documented and doesn't require immediate support.
On the SHSAT, look for statements that make evaluative claims, especially those using strong adjectives like "substantial," "dangerous," or "beneficial." These opinion-based assertions always need backing evidence, while factual definitions and established processes typically don't. When you see words signaling judgment or consequence, ask yourself: "Where's the proof?"
- Which sentence should be followed by specific financial data or examples to support its claim?
Answer: Sentence 3
When analyzing argumentative passages, you need to identify claims that make assertions without providing adequate support. Look for statements that present judgments or conclusions that would benefit from concrete evidence.
Sentence 3 states that "the economic viability of these operations is often overstated by their advocates." This is a strong claim about financial feasibility that lacks any supporting evidence. To be convincing, this assertion would need specific data such as startup costs, operating expenses, profit margins, or examples of failed vertical farming ventures. Without such concrete information, readers have no way to evaluate whether this economic criticism is valid.
Let's examine why the other options don't require additional support: Choice A (Sentence 1) simply defines vertical farming and mentions it's "often touted" as a solution—this is a neutral, factual statement that doesn't need data. Choice C (Sentence 2) lists verifiable benefits like year-round operation and water efficiency, which are well-documented advantages that don't require further proof in this context. Choice D (Sentence 4) describes a logical benefit (reduced transportation costs from local production) that readers can easily understand without needing specific financial figures.
Remember that on the SHSAT, questions about supporting evidence often focus on statements that make evaluative claims—particularly those involving economics, effectiveness, or comparative judgments. When you see words like "overstated," "ineffective," or "superior," ask yourself: "What proof would a skeptical reader need to accept this claim?"
- Which sentence makes a claim that needs to be supported with further evidence or explanation?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about claims and evidence, you're being tested on your ability to identify statements that make assertions without providing sufficient support or proof.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a broad claim about "considerable opposition from various groups" without offering any evidence to back this up. What groups oppose geothermal power? How do we know the opposition is "considerable"? What forms does this opposition take? The sentence presents this as fact but provides no supporting details, statistics, or examples to verify the claim.
Let's examine why the other options don't need additional support: Sentence A simply defines what geothermal energy is—this is a factual description that doesn't require further evidence. Sentence B explains why geothermal energy is renewable by stating the underlying reason (the Earth's heat is constantly replenished), which provides logical support for the classification. Sentence C describes the mechanical process of how geothermal power works, offering a factual explanation of the technology rather than making an unsupported claim.
The key difference is that sentences 1-3 either define, explain, or describe observable processes, while sentence 4 makes an assertion about opposition that readers would need evidence to believe or evaluate.
Remember this pattern: Look for statements that make claims about attitudes, opinions, effectiveness, or extent (like "considerable," "widespread," "successful") without providing data, examples, or sources. These almost always need additional support, while factual descriptions and explanations of processes typically don't.
- Which sentence expresses an opinion that needs to be supported with further explanation or examples?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about distinguishing facts from opinions, look for statements that make judgments or evaluations that reasonable people could disagree about, especially those using subjective language.
Sentence 4 is correct because it contains the opinion that modern origami creations "are often too complex for the average person to appreciate." The phrase "too complex...to appreciate" expresses a subjective judgment about people's ability to value or understand art. This claim would need supporting evidence, such as surveys of public reactions, examples of specific works that confuse viewers, or expert analysis of complexity levels. The word "appreciate" is particularly subjective since different people appreciate art differently.
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 provides factual definitions. Origami is objectively "the Japanese tradition of paper folding" and does literally "transform a flat sheet into a finished sculpture" - these are verifiable facts about the process.
Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 states factual information about origami's typical materials and methods. You can verify whether most origami uses single squares of paper without cuts or glue by examining actual origami techniques.
Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 3, while mentioning that principles are "surprisingly advanced," primarily states that mathematical principles exist behind origami designs. The mathematical complexity can be objectively demonstrated through geometric analysis and mathematical proofs used in origami design.
Remember: Opinion statements often contain evaluative words like "too," "best," "should," or phrases about what people think or feel. Facts can be verified through observation or research, while opinions require subjective judgment.
- Which sentence in the paragraph should be elaborated on with specific data or examples?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about strengthening arguments or improving writing, look for claims that need concrete support. Writers often make broad statements that would be more convincing with specific evidence.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about funding models "failing to keep pace" without providing any supporting evidence. This assertion would be much stronger with specific data—perhaps statistics showing the gap between library budgets and expanded service costs, or examples of libraries forced to cut programs due to inadequate funding. Without concrete evidence, this statement remains an unsupported opinion that readers might question or dismiss.
Choice A is wrong because sentence 1 serves as an effective topic sentence that introduces the evolution concept without requiring specific details. Choice B is incorrect because sentence 2 already provides concrete examples of expanded services (internet access, workshops, community events), making it sufficiently specific. Choice C is wrong because it functions as a logical conclusion drawn from the evidence in sentence 2—the connection between expanded services and community importance is clear enough without additional support.
Remember that strong arguments require evidence for their claims, especially when making assertions about problems or failures. On the SHSAT, look for statements that make definitive claims about trends, effectiveness, or impacts without backing them up—these almost always need elaboration with specific data or examples to be persuasive.
- Which sentence makes a general statement that needs to be explained with more detail?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about general statements versus specific details, you're being tested on your ability to distinguish between broad claims and concrete evidence or examples.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about "serious drawbacks for company culture" without providing any specific examples or explanations of what these drawbacks actually are. This type of general statement leaves readers wondering: What exactly are these drawbacks? How do they manifest? The sentence introduces a major point but doesn't support it with details.
Looking at the wrong answers: Sentence A mentions "changed the dynamics of many industries," which is somewhat general, but the entire passage serves to explain this statement through the specific examples that follow. Sentence B provides a concrete, specific benefit of remote work—access to wider talent pools—that doesn't require further explanation. Sentence C offers another specific example with measurable details about work-life balance and commute elimination.
The key difference is that sentences A, B, and C either provide specific information themselves or are adequately supported by the surrounding context. Sentence D, however, introduces a significant claim about cultural problems but leaves it completely unsupported.
For SHSAT reading questions, watch for statements that make broad assertions without backing them up with evidence, examples, or explanations. These often appear at the end of paragraphs as topic sentences that would logically be followed by supporting details in a longer piece of writing.
- Which sentence in the paragraph needs to be supported by specific examples or data?
Answer: Sentence 3
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which statement makes a broad claim that readers would naturally question or want verified.
Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a sweeping evaluative claim: "the programs have proven to be more problematic than beneficial in the long run." This statement presents a definitive conclusion about bike-sharing programs' overall effectiveness without providing any evidence. Words like "proven," "more problematic than beneficial," and "in the long run" signal that this is a significant claim requiring specific data, studies, or examples to be credible. What problems? How do they outweigh benefits? Which cities experienced these issues?
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply states that many cities have implemented these programs, which is easily verifiable and doesn't make a controversial claim. Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 describes how bike-sharing systems typically work—this is factual information about their basic operation that doesn't require additional support. Choice C is incorrect because Sentence 4 acknowledges that proponents make certain arguments; it's reporting what others believe rather than making its own claim that needs evidence.
Notice how Sentence 3 also creates a contradiction within the paragraph—it claims the programs are problematic while other sentences suggest benefits. This tension makes the need for supporting evidence even more critical.
Strategy tip: Look for sentences containing evaluative language, superlatives, or definitive conclusions (words like "proven," "always," "never," "most effective"). These broad claims almost always need specific evidence to convince skeptical readers.
- Which sentence makes a general claim that requires specific examples to be fully understood?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about claims requiring examples, you're looking for statements that make broad assertions without providing the specific details needed to fully understand their scope or impact.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about "a surprising number of health problems" without specifying what those problems actually are. To fully grasp this statement, you'd need concrete examples like insomnia, depression, diabetes, or cardiovascular issues. The phrase "surprising number" is particularly vague—it could mean three problems or thirty. This generality makes the claim incomplete without supporting details.
Let's examine why the other choices don't fit. Sentence 1 (A) provides a clear, specific definition of circadian rhythms—it's complete as stated and doesn't need examples to be understood. Sentence 2 (B) gives a concrete example right within the sentence itself ("regulating the sleep-wake cycle"), so it's already supported with specifics. Sentence 3 (D) makes a straightforward factual claim about light being the most powerful cue, which is specific enough to stand alone.
Watch for this pattern on the SHSAT: questions testing your ability to identify unsupported claims often feature sentences with vague quantifiers like "many," "numerous," or "surprising number of" followed by broad categories like "problems" or "benefits." These signal that specific examples would strengthen understanding. Always ask yourself: "Would I need to know more details to fully grasp what this sentence is claiming?"
- Which sentence presents a main idea that requires specific examples for support?
Answer: Sentence 3
When analyzing reading passages, you need to distinguish between statements that are self-evident and those that make claims requiring proof or examples to be convincing.
Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a counterintuitive claim that directly contradicts common knowledge. The statement "Despite the era's reputation for strict social codes and formality, it was actually a period of significant social rebellion" presents a main idea that challenges what most people believe about the Victorian era. To convince readers of this surprising assertion, the author would need to provide specific examples of rebellious movements, figures, or events from that time period. Without concrete evidence, this claim remains unsupported and unconvincing.
Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply states well-established historical facts about the Victorian era's timeframe and general characteristics. These are widely accepted truths that don't require additional proof. Choice C is wrong because Sentence 2 also presents commonly known historical facts about British imperial expansion and middle-class growth during this period. Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 4 makes a straightforward observation about Victorian literature and even provides a supporting example (Charles Dickens), making it adequately supported rather than requiring additional evidence.
Remember this pattern: Look for statements that make surprising, controversial, or counter-intuitive claims. These "despite what you might think" statements almost always need specific examples to be credible. Factual statements about dates, locations, or widely accepted historical events typically stand on their own.
- Which sentence in the paragraph makes a claim that needs to be substantiated with specific examples?
Answer: Sentence 4
When you encounter questions about claims that need substantiation, you're looking for statements that make broad assertions without providing the specific evidence needed to support them.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about "fundamental flaws" in Roman road construction methods but provides no specific examples of what these flaws actually were. This type of unsupported generalization requires concrete evidence—such as specific engineering problems, maintenance issues, or construction weaknesses—to be credible and convincing.
Let's examine why the other options don't need additional substantiation. Sentence 1 (D) presents factual information about the road network's extent that can be verified through historical records. Sentence 2 (B) describes the roads' general purposes, which is established historical fact that doesn't require specific examples to be understood or accepted. Sentence 3 (C) mentions construction techniques but does so in a way that acknowledges their sophistication without making problematic claims—the examples given (layered foundations, paved surfaces) actually do provide some substantiation.
The key difference is that Sentence 4 introduces a critical judgment about flaws without backing it up, while the other sentences either state verifiable facts or make claims that are already reasonably supported within the sentence itself.
Remember: Look for statements that make negative or controversial claims without evidence. Words like "fundamental flaws," "serious problems," or "major weaknesses" often signal assertions that need specific examples to be convincing.
- Which sentence makes a strong claim that is not adequately supported in the paragraph?
Answer: Sentence 4
When analyzing arguments in reading passages, you need to distinguish between claims that are well-supported by evidence and those that make bold assertions without adequate backing.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim that "the technology creates more problems for the marine environment than it solves for humans" without providing any supporting evidence. This is a strong comparative statement that would require substantial proof—specific examples of marine environmental damage, quantified impacts, or detailed explanations of how these problems outweigh the benefits to humans. The paragraph offers none of this evidence.
Let's examine why the other choices are adequately supported: Sentence A states that desalination plants "are becoming increasingly common in arid regions," which is a factual observation that doesn't require extensive proof within this context. Sentence B describes reverse osmosis as "the most prevalent method" and explains the basic process—this is presenting factual information about the technology. Sentence D claims the process is "highly effective at producing potable water," which logically follows from the explanation of how reverse osmosis works and aligns with the established fact that these plants are becoming common (suggesting they work).
The key difference is that Sentence 4 makes a value judgment comparing environmental costs to human benefits without providing the evidence necessary to support such a significant claim.
Strategy tip: Look for sentences that make broad comparative claims or strong value judgments—these typically require more evidence than simple factual statements or process descriptions. Unsupported claims often use words like "more than," "worse than," or definitive statements about complex issues.
- Which sentence in the paragraph makes a broad claim that should be supported by evidence?
Answer: Sentence 3
When you encounter questions asking about claims that need evidence, you're being tested on your ability to distinguish between factual statements and assertions that require proof. Look for statements that make sweeping generalizations or present conclusions without backing them up.
Sentence 3 is the correct answer because it makes a broad, evaluative claim: "this employment model has proven to be fundamentally unstable for the majority of participants." This statement asserts something as fact about the majority of gig workers without providing any supporting data, studies, or specific examples. Words like "fundamentally," "majority," and "proven" signal that this is a significant claim requiring evidence to be credible.
Let's examine why the other options don't require evidence in the same way. Choice A (Sentence 1) provides a straightforward definition of the gig economy - this is definitional information, not a claim requiring proof. Choice C (Sentence 2) presents commonly acknowledged characteristics of gig work (flexibility and cost reduction) without making sweeping judgments about their effectiveness or impact. Choice D (Sentence 4) simply gives factual examples of gig economy platforms, which are verifiable and don't represent debatable claims.
On the SHSAT, watch for qualifying words that signal broad claims: "majority," "most," "proven," "clearly," "obviously," or "fundamentally." These words often indicate statements that go beyond basic facts and make assertions about effectiveness, causation, or widespread conditions - exactly the type of claims that responsible writing should support with evidence.
- Which sentence makes a claim that would require detailed examples and expert analysis to be persuasive?
Answer: Sentence 4
This question tests your ability to identify claims that require substantial evidence to be convincing versus those that are more straightforward or factual.
Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a broad evaluative claim comparing ancient Stoic principles with "modern psychological understanding." To be persuasive, this statement would need extensive support: specific examples of which Stoic principles conflict with psychology, citations from psychological research, expert testimony from both philosophy and psychology scholars, and detailed analysis of how these fields actually contradict each other. Without such evidence, this is merely an unsupported assertion.
Choice A is wrong because Sentence 1 presents basic historical facts (when and where Stoicism was founded) that can be verified through standard historical sources without requiring complex analysis or multiple expert perspectives.
Choice B is incorrect because Sentence 2 describes core Stoic teachings in straightforward terms. While these are philosophical concepts, the sentence simply states what Stoics believed rather than making a controversial claim about those beliefs.
Choice C is wrong because Sentence 3 describes what Stoics are "known for" - this is describing their reputation or common characterization, which is observable and verifiable without requiring detailed expert analysis to convince readers.
When you encounter questions about what claims need extensive support, look for statements that make comparisons between different fields, assert conflicts or contradictions, or make evaluative judgments. These typically require much more evidence than simple factual statements or descriptions of established beliefs.
- Which sentence makes a claim that needs more elaboration to be fully convincing?
Answer: Sentence 3
When evaluating argumentative writing, you need to identify claims that lack sufficient supporting evidence or explanation. Strong claims require adequate backing to be convincing to readers.
Sentence 3 states that the claim of bioplastics being "eco-friendly" is "in many cases, misleading to consumers." This is a significant assertion that challenges a widely accepted belief, but the author provides no statistical data, research studies, or detailed examples to support this sweeping statement. The word "misleading" is particularly strong and demands concrete evidence to be convincing.
Let's examine why the other choices don't need as much elaboration. Sentence 1 (C) simply defines bioplastics and lists factual examples of their sources - this is straightforward definitional information that doesn't require further proof. Sentence 2 (B) describes how bioplastics are "often promoted" as environmentally friendly, which is an observable fact about marketing practices rather than a claim requiring evidence. Sentence 4 (D) provides a specific example supporting the author's argument by explaining that some bioplastics require special industrial composting conditions - this actually serves as partial evidence for the claim in sentence 3.
The author does attempt to support sentence 3 with sentence 4, but one limited example isn't sufficient to justify such a broad claim about bioplastics being misleading "in many cases."
For SHSAT questions about argumentative writing, look for statements that make broad generalizations or strong judgments without adequate supporting evidence. Claims that challenge popular beliefs especially need robust backing to be persuasive.
