- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 1 that geothermal energy is 'sustainable'?
Answer: Sentence 5 contrasts geothermal energy with fossil fuels, highlighting its low emissions.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which sentence directly backs up the specific claim being made. Here, sentence 1 claims geothermal energy is "sustainable," so you're looking for evidence that proves this particular characteristic.
Sentence 5 provides the strongest support for sustainability by contrasting geothermal energy with fossil fuels, emphasizing that geothermal plants "produce minimal greenhouse gas emissions and have a small physical footprint." This directly addresses sustainability by showing geothermal energy's environmental advantages—low emissions and minimal land use are key indicators of a sustainable energy source.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A describes the natural origins of Earth's heat, but explaining where geothermal energy comes from doesn't prove it's sustainable. Choice B details the drilling process to access geothermal reservoirs, which is about extraction methods rather than sustainability. Choice D explains how steam generates electricity, focusing on the conversion process rather than environmental impact.
The key distinction is that sustainability refers to an energy source's ability to meet current needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet their needs. This involves environmental impact, resource depletion, and long-term viability. Only sentence 5 addresses these sustainability concerns by highlighting geothermal energy's minimal environmental footprint.
Remember: when questions ask for supporting evidence, match the evidence directly to the specific claim. Don't be distracted by sentences that provide background information or describe processes—focus on which sentence actually proves the particular point being made.
- The author's claim in sentence 3 about the 'true brilliance' of the aqueducts is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 4 explains how the use of a slight, consistent slope allowed for a pump-free system.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "best supports" an author's claim, you need to identify what specific evidence directly backs up that claim. The author claims the "true brilliance" of Roman aqueducts was their "precise, continuous gradient."
The correct answer is D because sentence 4 provides the concrete explanation of why this gradient was so brilliant. It shows how maintaining "a slight downward slope over many miles" allowed engineers to "harness the power of gravity to ensure a constant flow of water without the need for pumps." This directly explains what made the gradient system so ingenious—it was a pump-free solution that worked reliably across vast distances.
Looking at the wrong answers: A is too general, discussing Roman engineering broadly rather than specifically supporting the gradient claim. B only describes the basic function of aqueducts (transporting water) without explaining what made their design brilliant. C focuses on the end results and benefits of having water supply, but doesn't address why the gradient system itself was clever.
The key trap here is confusing related information with supporting evidence. Sentences 1, 2, and 5 all relate to aqueducts, but only sentence 4 actually explains and supports the specific claim about the gradient's brilliance.
For SHSAT reading questions about textual support, always ask yourself: "Which piece of evidence directly explains or proves this specific claim?" Look for the sentence that provides the reasoning or mechanism behind the author's assertion, not just related background information.
- Which sentence provides the best evidence for the claim in sentence 2 that the library was a 'major center of scholarship'?
Answer: Sentence 5 lists specific, foundational academic achievements that occurred at the library.
When you encounter questions asking for "evidence" to support a claim, you need to find the sentence that most directly demonstrates or proves that claim through concrete examples or facts.
The claim in sentence 2 is that the library was a "major center of scholarship." To support this, you need evidence that scholars actually did important scholarly work there. Sentence 5 provides exactly this type of evidence by naming specific scholars (Euclid and Eratosthenes) and explaining that "fundamental principles of mathematics, astronomy, and medicine were established" at the library. This directly proves the library was a center where significant scholarly achievements happened.
Let's examine why the other options fall short: Choice A is incorrect because sentence 1 only makes general statements about the library's "significance" without specifically mentioning scholarship or scholarly activities. Choice C is wrong because sentence 4 describes scholars coming to study at the library, but studying somewhere doesn't necessarily make it a center of scholarship—that requires producing new knowledge or breakthroughs. Choice D is incorrect because sentence 3 describes the library's collection goals, which relates to being a repository of knowledge rather than a place where new scholarly work is conducted.
Remember that evidence questions require you to distinguish between related information and direct proof. Look for specific examples, concrete achievements, or measurable outcomes rather than general descriptions or related activities. The strongest evidence will show the claim in action, not just describe circumstances around it.
- The author's claim in sentence 3 that the tower's design was a 'masterpiece of engineering' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 5 explains the specific way the lattice structure cleverly solved the problem of wind forces.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "best supports" a claim, you're being tested on your ability to identify the strongest evidence for an argument. The key is finding the sentence that provides the most specific, concrete proof of the claim being made.
In this passage, the author claims Eiffel's design was a "masterpiece of engineering" because it was "specifically crafted to be both stable and lightweight." To support this claim, you need evidence that shows how the engineering actually worked brilliantly to solve a problem.
Choice A is correct because sentence 5 provides the specific mechanism that makes the design masterful: "By allowing the wind to pass through it, the design dramatically reduced the stress on the tower, ensuring its longevity." This sentence explains exactly how the engineering was masterful—it shows the clever solution (wind passing through) and its beneficial result (reduced stress and longevity).
Choice B is wrong because negative criticism doesn't support the claim that the design was masterful—it contradicts it. Choice C identifies the engineering challenge (wind resistance) but doesn't explain how the design brilliantly solved it, making it background information rather than support. Choice D provides historical context about when and why the tower was built, but this doesn't demonstrate engineering excellence.
Strategy tip: When looking for the best supporting evidence, choose the option that provides specific details about how or why the claim is true, not just related information. The strongest support shows the mechanism or process that proves the point.
- The claim in sentence 3 that composting reduces landfill waste is an 'advantage' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 4 explains the negative environmental consequence of putting organic waste in landfills.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which sentence provides the most direct logical support for a specific claim. The question asks which sentence best supports why reducing landfill waste is an "advantage."
Sentence 4 provides the strongest support because it explains exactly why sending organic waste to landfills is problematic. It details that organic matter in landfills decomposes anaerobically, releasing methane—a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. This directly explains why reducing landfill waste is beneficial: it prevents harmful environmental consequences. By showing the negative effects of the alternative (landfills), sentence 4 makes the strongest case for why composting's waste reduction is truly advantageous.
Looking at the wrong answers: Choice B is too general—sentence 2 simply states that composting has environmental benefits without explaining why waste reduction specifically matters. Choice C only defines what composting does but doesn't explain why reducing landfill waste is good. Choice D describes additional benefits of composting but doesn't focus on supporting why landfill waste reduction itself is advantageous.
Remember that the best supporting evidence directly addresses the specific claim being made. When a question asks you to support why something is an "advantage" or "benefit," look for the sentence that explains the negative consequences of not doing that thing, or the positive effects that result from it. Don't be distracted by sentences that are related to the topic but don't directly support the specific claim in question.
- Which sentence best supports the claim that the Navajo language was an effective basis for a code because of its obscurity?
Answer: Sentence 4 notes that the language was 'virtually unknown outside their community.'
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "best supports" a specific claim, you need to find the sentence that provides the most direct evidence for that particular point, not just general information about the topic.
The question asks which sentence supports the claim that the Navajo language was effective because of its obscurity - meaning its rarity or unknown nature made it hard to break. Sentence 4 directly states that the Navajo language was "virtually unknown outside their community." This explicitly establishes the obscurity that made the language so valuable as a code base. The phrase "virtually unknown" is key evidence that directly supports why this language would be unbreakable - enemies couldn't decipher what they had never encountered.
Let's examine why the other choices miss the mark: Choice A discusses the general problem with previous codes but doesn't mention anything about the Navajo language's obscurity specifically. Choice B identifies the Navajo language as the solution but doesn't explain why it was effective - it doesn't mention the obscurity factor. Choice C gives us the successful outcome (the code was never broken) but again doesn't explain that this success was due to the language's obscurity.
Remember that "best supports" questions require you to find the most specific, direct evidence for the exact claim being made. Don't be tempted by sentences that discuss the general topic or even the outcome - look for the sentence that provides the clearest evidence for the specific reason or characteristic mentioned in the question.
- Which sentence best supports the claim that the military campaign against the emus was 'largely unsuccessful' (sentence 5)?
Answer: Sentence 5 describes the emus' effective tactics and their ability to evade the soldiers.
When you encounter a question asking which sentence "best supports" a specific claim, you need to look for evidence that directly proves or demonstrates that claim. The claim here is that the military campaign was "largely unsuccessful."
The correct answer is D because sentence 5 provides concrete evidence of the campaign's failure. It explains exactly why the military efforts didn't work: the emus were "surprisingly difficult targets" that could "scatter into small groups" and "outmaneuver the soldiers." This directly demonstrates the unsuccessful nature of the campaign by showing how the emus consistently defeated the military's tactics.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work. Choice A merely introduces the historical event and gives it a name, but doesn't provide any evidence about success or failure. Choice B describes the problem that prompted the military response (crop destruction and fence damage), but this actually happened before the campaign began, so it can't support claims about the campaign's results. Choice C explains what the government decided to do (deploy military with machine guns), but describing the response doesn't tell us whether that response was effective or not.
On reading comprehension questions like this, always distinguish between sentences that describe the problem, the attempted solution, and the actual results. Only evidence about results can support claims about success or failure. Look for specific details that directly prove the claim rather than sentences that merely provide background information or describe the initial situation.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 1 that the QWERTY layout was 'not based on efficiency'?
Answer: Sentence 4 states that the design's intended purpose was to make typing slower.
When you encounter a question asking which sentence "best supports" a specific claim, you're being tested on your ability to identify the most direct evidence for that claim. Here, you need to find which sentence most clearly demonstrates that QWERTY was "not based on efficiency."
The correct answer is B because sentence 4 directly contradicts the idea of efficiency. It explicitly states that the QWERTY design was intended "to slow typists down" - the exact opposite of what an efficiency-focused design would do. This sentence provides the clearest evidence that efficiency was not the goal; in fact, deliberate inefficiency was the goal.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work as well: A) Sentence 2 only describes the problem that needed solving, but doesn't explain how the solution was inefficient. C) Sentence 3 explains the strategy of separating letter pairs, but this could potentially be seen as efficient problem-solving rather than proof of inefficiency. D) Sentence 5 discusses why QWERTY persists today, which is about modern usage rather than the original design intent.
When analyzing supporting evidence questions on the SHSAT, look for the sentence that most directly proves or demonstrates the claim being made. Don't get distracted by sentences that provide related information or context - focus on which one offers the strongest, most explicit support for the specific assertion in question.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 1 that the Rosetta Stone's importance lies in 'what it unlocked'?
Answer: Sentence 5 states the broad cultural and historical impact of the stone's translation.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which sentence most directly reinforces the specific claim being made. The key phrase here is "what it unlocked" — this metaphor suggests the stone opened access to something previously inaccessible.
Sentence 5 best supports this claim because it describes the ultimate outcome: the stone unlocked understanding of "the language and culture of ancient Egypt." This directly connects to the metaphor of unlocking — the stone served as a key that opened up an entire civilization's knowledge that had been lost for centuries. The phrase "first step in understanding" shows how the translation breakthrough led to accessing previously unknown information.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A describes when the stone was discovered and dated, which provides background but doesn't explain what was "unlocked." Choice B mentions the three scripts, which is a physical description but doesn't show how this feature led to unlocking knowledge. Choice C explains the translation method scholars used, which describes the process but not the broader significance of what was ultimately revealed.
The distinction is crucial: while sentences 3 and 4 describe the stone's features and how it was used, only sentence 5 captures the transformative result — unlocking access to an entire lost civilization's language and culture.
For text analysis questions, always look for the choice that most directly addresses the specific language used in the question. Here, focus on what "unlocked" means metaphorically rather than getting distracted by supporting details.
- The claim that the printing press was a 'pivotal moment in history' (sentence 1) is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 5 describes the large-scale societal effects, such as increased literacy and the rapid spread of ideas.
When you encounter a question asking which sentence "best supports" a broad claim, you need to identify which piece of evidence most directly proves that claim's validity.
The passage claims the printing press was a "pivotal moment in history." To support such a sweeping statement, you need evidence of major, transformative change. Sentence 5 provides exactly this by describing large-scale societal transformation: "literacy rates soared, and new ideas could spread across Europe with unprecedented speed." These are the kinds of fundamental changes that make a moment truly pivotal in history.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A describes the problem that existed before Gutenberg's invention, but explaining what came before doesn't prove the invention was historically pivotal. Choice B explains the printing press's mechanical capability to produce books quickly, which is important but focuses on the technology itself rather than its historical impact. Choice D discusses the economic effects of lower book costs, which is significant but represents just one dimension of change rather than the broad historical transformation implied by "pivotal moment."
The key difference is scope and impact. While sentences 2, 3, and 4 describe specific aspects of the change (the prior problem, the technical solution, and economic effects), only sentence 5 captures the sweeping societal transformation that justifies calling this a "pivotal moment in history."
Strategy tip: When supporting broad historical claims, look for evidence that shows wide-reaching, transformative effects rather than just technical details or single-dimension changes.
- The claim in sentence 2 that 'cats seem to have domesticated themselves' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 4 states that the cats initiated the contact with humans by moving into their settlements.
When you encounter a question asking which sentence "best supports" a specific claim, you need to find the sentence that provides the most direct evidence for that particular statement.
The claim that "cats seem to have domesticated themselves" suggests that cats, rather than humans, initiated and drove the domestication process. To support this claim, you need evidence showing cats taking the active role in establishing the relationship with humans.
Choice D is correct because it directly demonstrates cats taking initiative: "Wild cats were drawn to these early farming settlements by the abundant prey." This sentence shows cats actively seeking out and moving into human settlements on their own, which perfectly supports the idea that they "domesticated themselves" rather than being actively domesticated by humans.
Choice A is wrong because simply stating where cat domestication began doesn't explain how it happened or who initiated it. Choice B is incorrect because it only describes agricultural changes that created conditions for rodent populations—it doesn't mention cats at all. Choice C is wrong because while it describes the mutually beneficial relationship, it focuses on the farmers valuing the cats and the eventual outcome, not on cats taking the initial action that started the process.
For SHSAT reading questions about textual support, always look for the most direct connection between the evidence and the claim. The supporting sentence should contain specific details that logically prove or demonstrate the statement in question, not just provide related background information.
- The claim in sentence 3 that the Maya collapse was caused by a 'combination of interrelated factors' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 5 shows how one factor (environmental stress) likely triggered several other social and political problems.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, focus on finding which sentence directly demonstrates or proves the claim being made, rather than just providing related information.
The claim in sentence 3 states that the Maya collapse resulted from a "combination of interrelated factors" - meaning multiple causes that influenced each other. To support this claim, you need evidence showing how different factors connected and triggered one another.
Sentence 5 perfectly demonstrates this interconnected relationship. It shows how environmental stress (the drought and deforestation mentioned in sentence 4) "likely led to" a cascade of other problems: increased warfare, political instability, and social breakdown. This illustrates exactly what "interrelated factors" means - one problem causing multiple others in a chain reaction.
Choice A is incorrect because sentence 1 only provides timing information about when the collapse occurred, not evidence about multiple interconnected causes. Choice C is wrong because sentence 4 identifies just one environmental factor, but doesn't show how it connected to other problems. Choice D fails because sentence 2 merely lists outcomes of the collapse (abandoned cities, lost writing systems) rather than explaining the interconnected causes that led to these results.
Strategy tip: On evidence questions, distinguish between sentences that provide background information, describe effects, or list single factors versus those that demonstrate relationships between causes. Look for connecting words like "led to," "resulted in," or "caused by" that show how factors influence each other.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 3 that the drive-in's decline was caused by multiple factors?
Answer: Sentence 5 presents an economic reason that contributed to the decline of drive-in theaters.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "best supports" a claim, you're being tested on your ability to identify the most relevant and complete evidence for that claim.
Sentence 3 claims that drive-in theaters declined due to "several new technologies and social changes" - notice the plural "several," indicating multiple causes. To best support this claim, you need to find the answer choice that acknowledges this multiplicity of factors.
Choice A is correct because it recognizes that sentence 5 provides "an economic reason that contributed to the decline" - the key word being "contributed," which implies this was one factor among others. This phrasing aligns perfectly with the claim that multiple factors caused the decline.
Choice B is wrong because sentence 2 describes what made drive-ins popular, not what caused their decline. It doesn't support the claim about decline at all.
Choice C is wrong because while it correctly identifies that sentence 4 mentions new technology, it only acknowledges one factor (technology) rather than supporting the claim about multiple factors.
Choice D is wrong because sentence 1 establishes when drive-ins were popular, not why they declined. Like choice B, it doesn't address the decline claim.
Strategy tip: When a passage claims something happened due to "several" or "multiple" factors, look for answer choices that use language acknowledging contribution or partial causation (like "contributed to") rather than single-factor explanations. The word "contributed" signals that this is one piece of a larger puzzle.
- The claim in sentence 3 that the Age of Exploration was a 'significant turning point' for cartography is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 4 explains that exploration created a new, practical need for accurate maps.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence for claims, you need to identify which statement provides the most direct logical connection to the claim being made.
The passage claims that the Age of Exploration was a "significant turning point" for cartography. To support this claim, you need evidence showing what changed and why this change was important. Choice D does exactly this by explaining that exploration "created a growing demand for maps that were navigationally precise." This directly explains why the Age of Exploration marked a turning point—it fundamentally changed what people needed from maps, shifting the entire purpose and direction of cartography.
Choice A is incorrect because it only provides a general definition of cartography without connecting to the specific turning point claim. Choice B describes what maps were like before the Age of Exploration, which provides context but doesn't explain why this period was specifically a turning point—it just shows the "before" picture. Choice C discusses the technical innovations that resulted from this turning point, but these are consequences rather than the reason why the period was significant in the first place.
The key distinction is between cause and effect. While choices B and C provide relevant context and consequences, only choice D identifies the underlying cause that made the Age of Exploration transformative for cartography.
For evidence questions, look for the choice that creates the strongest logical bridge to the claim. Supporting evidence should explain why or how something happened, not just describe what came before or after.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 1 that the discovery of antibiotics 'revolutionized medicine'?
Answer: Sentence 5 points to major, society-wide health outcomes like increased life expectancy.
When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which detail most directly proves or demonstrates the main claim being made.
The claim in sentence 1 is that antibiotics "revolutionized medicine" — meaning they completely transformed medical practice and outcomes. To support this revolutionary impact, you need evidence of major, widespread changes that affected medicine as a whole.
Sentence 5 provides exactly this type of evidence by describing two massive transformations: a "dramatic increase in life expectancy" (affecting entire populations) and making "complex surgeries much safer" (transforming surgical practice). These are society-wide changes that demonstrate how antibiotics fundamentally altered medicine's capabilities and outcomes.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A describes the problems that existed before antibiotics, but showing what was wrong doesn't prove that antibiotics revolutionized anything — it just sets up the context. Choice B gives historical facts about Fleming's discovery, but knowing when and who discovered penicillin doesn't demonstrate revolutionary impact. Choice C explains how antibiotics work mechanically, but understanding their mechanism doesn't prove they revolutionized medicine — a tool can work effectively without being revolutionary.
Remember that "support" questions ask you to find evidence that proves or demonstrates a claim, not just relates to it. Look for the answer choice that shows concrete results or outcomes that match the scope of the original claim. Revolutionary changes require revolutionary evidence — in this case, society-wide health improvements rather than just background information or technical details.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 5 that the theory 'unified many separate observations'?
Answer: Sentence 4 gives examples of different geological events that are explained by the single theory.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "supports" a particular claim, you need to look for concrete evidence or examples that demonstrate the claim in action, not just restatements of it.
Sentence 5 claims that plate tectonics "unified many separate observations in geology into a single coherent framework." To support this claim, you need evidence showing how one theory actually explains multiple different geological phenomena. Sentence 4 does exactly this by providing specific examples: it shows how the single theory of plate tectonics explains both mountain formation (where plates collide) and seafloor creation (where plates pull apart). These are two completely different geological processes that the theory brings together under one explanatory framework, directly demonstrating the "unification" mentioned in sentence 5.
Choice A simply restates that the theory is "comprehensive" but doesn't show what separate observations it unified. Choice B explains the basic mechanism of plate tectonics but doesn't demonstrate how it connects different geological phenomena. Choice D mentions that the theory was "revolutionary" but this describes its impact rather than providing evidence of unification.
The key trap here is confusing descriptive statements about the theory with actual supporting evidence. Words like "comprehensive" and "revolutionary" describe the theory's qualities, but only concrete examples of multiple phenomena explained by the same theory actually prove unification occurred.
Remember: when a question asks for supporting evidence, look for specific examples or details that demonstrate the claim, not general descriptions that merely echo it in different words.
- The claim in sentence 2 that sleep is an 'active period for the brain' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 5 describes a physiological cleaning process that happens in the brain during sleep.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "best supports" a claim, you're being tested on your ability to identify the strongest, most specific evidence for that claim.
The claim in sentence 2 states that sleep is an "active period for the brain," which directly contradicts the old view that sleep is just inactivity. To support this claim effectively, you need evidence showing the brain actively doing something important during sleep.
Choice B is correct because sentence 5 describes a specific, active physiological process—a system that "flushes out metabolic waste products" during sleep. This cleaning process is something the brain actively does while we sleep, providing concrete evidence that sleep involves active brain function, not just rest.
Let's examine why the other choices fall short: Choice A describes the historical misconception about sleep but doesn't provide supporting evidence for the new understanding—it's actually the opposite view. Choice C, while mentioning memory consolidation during sleep, is less detailed about the active process compared to the waste-flushing system described in sentence 5. Choice D makes a general statement about brain tasks during sleep, but it's too vague to serve as the strongest support—it doesn't give specific evidence of what those tasks actually involve.
On reading comprehension questions, look for the most concrete, specific evidence when asked what "best supports" a claim. General statements are often trap answers, while detailed examples or processes typically provide stronger support.
- Which sentence best supports the claim in sentence 5 that the longship's design gave the Vikings a 'significant strategic advantage'?
Answer: Sentence 4 explains that the design allowed them to access inland areas that other ships could not reach.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "supports" a claim, you're being tested on your ability to identify evidence that directly backs up a statement with specific details or examples.
The claim in sentence 5 states that the longship's design gave Vikings a "significant strategic advantage." To support this claim, you need evidence that shows how this advantage worked in practice. Sentence 4 provides exactly that evidence by explaining the practical benefit: the shallow draft design "allowed the Vikings to navigate not only open seas but also shallow rivers, enabling them to travel far inland to raid or trade in areas inaccessible to other ships." This sentence demonstrates the strategic advantage by showing how the design feature gave Vikings unique access that their enemies and competitors lacked.
Choice A mentions the ship was a "technological marvel," but this is too general and doesn't explain what strategic advantage this gave them. Choice C identifies the shallow draft feature, but simply naming a design element doesn't show how it created an advantage. Choice D doesn't support the claim at all—it is the claim, just restated using "versatility" instead of "design."
Only choice B explains the cause-and-effect relationship: specific design → unique capability → strategic advantage over others.
Remember that "support" questions require concrete evidence or examples, not general statements or restatements of the claim. Look for the answer that shows how or why the claim is true through specific details.
- Which sentence best supports the author's claim that the braille system was 'far superior' (sentence 5)?
Answer: Sentence 5 explains that the system's design enabled faster reading by touch.
When you encounter questions asking which sentence "supports" a claim, you're looking for evidence that directly backs up or proves the stated assertion. The key is finding concrete details that justify why the claim is true.
The author claims that the braille system was "far superior" to previous reading systems for the blind. To support this claim, you need evidence showing specific advantages or benefits of braille over earlier methods. Choice C identifies the exact sentence that provides this evidence: sentence 5 explains that braille's design "enabled faster reading by touch" because the small cells could be perceived as a single unit under a fingertip. This directly proves the superiority claim by showing a measurable improvement.
Choice A is incorrect because sentence 1 only establishes that earlier systems had problems - it doesn't explain what made braille better. Choice B is wrong because sentence 2 describes the flaws of old systems but doesn't demonstrate braille's advantages. Choice D is incorrect because sentence 4 simply describes braille's structure without explaining why that structure makes it superior.
The key distinction is between describing problems with old systems versus explaining specific benefits of the new system. While knowing that earlier methods were flawed provides context, it doesn't prove braille's superiority. Only sentence 5 gives concrete evidence of braille's advantage: faster reading speed.
Remember: when questions ask for "support" or "evidence" for a claim, look for the sentence that provides specific benefits, advantages, or proof - not just background information or descriptions of problems with alternatives.
- The claim in sentence 2 that the railway had 'profound consequences' is best supported by which sentence?
Answer: Sentence 5 lists several major, large-scale impacts the railway had on the nation's unity and economy.
When you encounter a question asking which sentence "best supports" a claim, you need to identify which piece of evidence most directly proves or demonstrates that claim. Here, sentence 2 claims the railway had "profound consequences" - meaning deep, significant, far-reaching effects.
Sentence 5 provides the strongest support because it directly lists the major impacts the railway actually had: it "unified the country, enabled the settlement of Siberia, and allowed for the exploitation of its immense natural resources." These are exactly the kind of large-scale, transformative effects that would qualify as "profound consequences." This sentence shows the results and outcomes that prove the claim true.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A (sentence 1) only gives a statistic about the railway's length - impressive, but this describes the railway itself, not its consequences or impacts. Choice B (sentence 3) explains why the government wanted to build the railway, describing motivations and goals rather than actual consequences that occurred. Choice D (sentence 4) describes conditions before the railway existed, which provides useful context but doesn't demonstrate what profound effects the railway actually produced.
Remember that "support" questions require you to find evidence that proves or demonstrates the claim. Look for sentences that show results, outcomes, or effects rather than background information, reasons, or descriptions of the subject itself. The supporting evidence should directly connect to the key terms in the claim - in this case, "profound consequences."
