- Main idea: Learning a second language can sharpen problem-solving skills.
Which option is the most relevant supporting detail?
Answer: In one experiment, bilingual students completed logic puzzles 20% faster than monolingual peers.
When you encounter a main idea question asking for supporting details, you need to find evidence that directly proves or demonstrates the central claim. The main idea here is that learning a second language can sharpen problem-solving skills, so you're looking for concrete evidence of this cognitive benefit.
Option B provides exactly this type of evidence. The experiment showing bilingual students completed logic puzzles 20% faster than monolingual peers directly demonstrates enhanced problem-solving abilities in second language learners. This is measurable, specific evidence that supports the claim about cognitive sharpening.
Let's examine why the other options don't work. Option A discusses language learning tools (apps with games and pronunciation guides) but doesn't connect these to improved problem-solving skills. Option C mentions travelers using phrase books, which relates to language learning but says nothing about cognitive benefits or problem-solving enhancement. Option D presents a linguistic fact about gendered nouns in some languages, but this grammatical information doesn't support the claim about sharpened problem-solving abilities.
When tackling supporting detail questions on the TACHS, always ask yourself: "Does this option directly prove or demonstrate the main idea?" Look for concrete evidence, statistics, examples, or research findings that specifically connect to the central claim. Avoid options that are merely related to the topic without actually supporting the specific point being made.
- Main idea: Composting can significantly reduce household trash volume.
Which of the following details would best support this main idea?
Answer: A city survey found that families who composted sent 30% less garbage to landfills each week.
When you encounter a question asking you to identify supporting details for a main idea, you need to find evidence that directly proves or demonstrates the claim being made. The main idea here states that composting "significantly reduces household trash volume," so you're looking for concrete evidence showing this reduction.
Option B provides exactly this type of supporting evidence. A city survey showing that composting families sent 30% less garbage to landfills directly demonstrates the volume reduction claimed in the main idea. This is quantifiable proof that composting works to reduce household waste.
Let's examine why the other options don't support the main idea. Option A discusses where people place compost bins, which is about convenience and location rather than trash reduction. Option C focuses on the commercial availability and appearance of composting equipment, but tells us nothing about whether composting actually reduces waste volume. Option D addresses how people learn about composting, which relates to education and awareness rather than the effectiveness of composting in reducing trash.
Notice that options A, C, and D all relate to composting in some way, making them tempting if you're not reading carefully. However, they're about logistics, products, and education respectively—none directly supports the claim about volume reduction.
On reading comprehension questions, always ask yourself: "Does this detail directly prove, explain, or demonstrate the main idea?" Supporting details must connect logically to the central claim, not just relate to the same general topic.
- Main idea: Participating in debate club enhances students' research skills.
Which of the following would best support this main idea?
Answer: Debate members must locate credible sources to build persuasive arguments for weekly tournaments.
When you encounter a question asking which option "best supports" a main idea, you're looking for evidence that directly connects to and reinforces the central claim. Here, the main idea states that debate club specifically enhances research skills, so you need an option that shows students actively developing those skills.
Choice C is correct because it directly demonstrates how debate participation requires research abilities. When students "must locate credible sources to build persuasive arguments," they're actively practicing essential research skills: finding reliable information, evaluating source credibility, and gathering evidence to support their positions. This directly supports the claim about enhanced research skills.
Let's examine why the other options don't work: Choice A describes organizational activities like electing officers and managing funds, which develops leadership and administrative skills rather than research abilities. Choice B mentions that debate topics cover various subjects, but simply having diverse topics doesn't prove that students are developing research skills—it only shows topic variety. Choice D focuses on the competitive structure and timing rules of debates, which relates to presentation skills and time management rather than research capabilities.
Remember that supporting evidence questions require you to find the option that provides the most direct proof of the stated claim. Look for cause-and-effect relationships where the activity described would logically lead to the skill or outcome mentioned in the main idea. Avoid options that describe related but different skills or activities.
- Which statement from the passage best supports the main idea that renewable energy is becoming more practical?
Answer: Improved battery storage now allows surplus power to be saved for nighttime use.
When you encounter questions asking which statement "best supports the main idea," you need to identify evidence that directly proves or demonstrates the central claim, rather than just restating it.
The main idea here is that renewable energy is becoming more practical - meaning it's becoming more feasible and usable in real-world conditions. Choice C provides the strongest evidence for this practicality because it describes a specific technological breakthrough that solves a major limitation of renewable energy. The ability to store surplus power for nighttime use directly addresses one of renewable energy's biggest practical challenges: intermittency. Solar panels don't work at night, and wind doesn't always blow, so improved battery storage makes these energy sources much more reliable and practical for everyday use.
Choice A simply restates the prediction without explaining why renewables are becoming practical. Choice B mentions investments and locations but doesn't explain how these developments make renewable energy more practical or functional. Choice D describes where renewable infrastructure is being built but again fails to explain what makes this energy more practical than before.
The key difference is that C identifies a specific technological solution to a real problem, while the other choices describe scale, investment, or location without addressing functionality.
Remember: when questions ask what "supports" a main idea, look for concrete evidence or reasons that prove the claim, not just restatements of the claim itself. Supporting evidence answers "why" or "how" the main idea is true.
- Which detail most clearly supports the notion that volunteerism is linked to improved school engagement?
Answer: Students who logged more than 50 service hours also had higher attendance rates in class.
When you encounter questions asking which detail "supports" a claim, you're looking for concrete evidence that directly demonstrates the connection being made. Here, you need to find which detail shows a clear link between volunteerism and improved school engagement.
The correct answer is D because higher attendance rates represent a direct, measurable indicator of school engagement. When students who volunteer more than 50 hours also show up to class more frequently, this creates a clear correlation between community service and active participation in school. Attendance is a fundamental aspect of engagement—you can't be engaged if you're not present.
Option A is wrong because tracking difficulties don't provide any evidence about the relationship between volunteering and engagement—this detail is about administrative challenges, not student outcomes. Option B might seem supportive since group participation could indicate engagement, but notice this applies to "these same students"—it's describing the already-engaged volunteers rather than showing that volunteering led to increased engagement. Option C is incorrect because a counselor's suggestion represents a hypothesis or theory, not actual evidence. The word "might" signals speculation rather than proof.
For TACHS reading questions about supporting evidence, always distinguish between concrete data and opinions, theories, or administrative details. Look for measurable outcomes that directly relate to the claim being made. Evidence questions reward you for identifying facts that can be observed and quantified, not explanations or speculation about why something might be true.
- Main idea: Taking public transportation reduces individuals' carbon footprints.
Which statement best supports this idea?
Answer: An average bus ride emits 70% less carbon dioxide per passenger than the same trip by single-occupancy car.
When you encounter a question asking which statement "best supports" a main idea, you're being tested on your ability to identify relevant evidence. You need to find the choice that directly connects to and strengthens the given claim about public transportation reducing carbon footprints.
The correct answer is C because it provides concrete, quantitative evidence that directly supports the environmental claim. When a bus emits 70% less carbon dioxide per passenger compared to single-occupancy cars, this specific statistic proves that choosing public transit over driving alone significantly reduces an individual's carbon emissions. This data directly validates the main idea about carbon footprint reduction.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work: Choice A discusses passenger activities like reading or listening to podcasts, which relates to comfort or convenience but has nothing to do with environmental impact. Choice B mentions the frequency of bus service during rush hour, which addresses reliability and accessibility but doesn't connect to carbon emissions. Choice D focuses on the cost benefits of student transit passes, which is about affordability rather than environmental benefits.
When answering "best supports" questions on reading passages, always look for the choice that provides the most direct evidence for the specific claim being made. Eliminate options that discuss related but different topics—even if they're positive aspects of the subject. The strongest support will contain concrete data, examples, or logical reasoning that directly reinforces the main point's central argument.
- Which sentence best supports the idea that the electric buses handled extreme cold more reliably than the old diesel buses?
Answer: Maintenance crews reported a 40 percent decrease in cold-weather breakdowns compared with diesel buses the year before.
When you encounter a question asking for evidence that supports a comparison between two things, look for the answer choice that directly contrasts the performance of both items being compared.
The question asks which sentence best supports that electric buses were more reliable than diesel buses in extreme cold. To prove this claim, you need evidence that directly compares the performance of both types of buses under similar conditions.
Answer choice C provides exactly this type of comparative evidence. The "40 percent decrease in cold-weather breakdowns compared with diesel buses the year before" gives you concrete data showing the electric buses had fewer problems than the diesel buses specifically during cold weather. This numerical comparison directly supports the reliability claim.
Answer choice A mentions that electric buses completed all routes despite cold temperatures, but this only tells you about the electric buses' performance—it doesn't compare them to the diesel buses at all. Answer choice B explains how the electric buses stayed efficient (through battery heaters), but again provides no comparison to diesel performance. Answer choice D isn't even in the original passage and focuses on future plans rather than past performance data.
The trap here is choosing evidence that sounds positive about electric buses without checking whether it actually compares the two bus types. Remember, when a question asks you to support a comparative claim (X is better than Y), only evidence that directly contrasts X and Y will work—positive information about just one side isn't enough.
- Main idea: School uniforms can reduce peer pressure about fashion.
Which detail best supports this main idea?
Answer: After uniforms were introduced, surveys found that students spent less time choosing outfits before school.
When you encounter main idea and supporting detail questions, you need to find evidence that directly connects to and strengthens the central claim. The main idea here is that school uniforms reduce peer pressure about fashion, so you're looking for a detail that shows this reduction actually happening.
Option D provides the strongest support because it demonstrates a behavioral change that directly relates to fashion pressure. When students spend less time choosing outfits, it suggests they're no longer worried about impressing peers or fitting in through clothing choices. This is concrete evidence that the pressure around fashion has decreased after uniforms were implemented.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work. Option A discusses bulk purchasing discounts, which relates to cost but has nothing to do with peer pressure reduction. Option B focuses on fabric durability and washing requirements—this is about practical maintenance, not social dynamics. Option C mentions parental preferences for casual dress days, which actually suggests some dissatisfaction with uniform policies rather than supporting their benefits regarding peer pressure.
The key difference is that D shows a measurable outcome that logically connects to reduced fashion pressure, while A, B, and C discuss unrelated aspects of uniform policies.
For reading comprehension questions about main ideas and supporting details, always ask yourself: "Does this detail provide evidence that the main claim is true?" Look for cause-and-effect relationships or concrete examples that demonstrate the main idea in action, rather than details that are merely related to the same general topic.
- Which piece of information best supports the claim that the new entrée appealed to customers who normally ate meat?
Answer: Comment cards revealed that even regular steak-orderers enjoyed the earthy flavor and lighter feel.
When you encounter a question asking for evidence that supports a specific claim, you need to find the answer choice that directly proves or demonstrates that claim. Here, the claim is that the new entrée appealed to customers who normally ate meat.
Choice C provides the most direct evidence because it explicitly states that "regular steak-orderers enjoyed" the meatless dish. This directly shows that people who typically choose meat dishes (steak-orderers) found the vegetarian entrée appealing. The phrase "even regular steak-orderers" emphasizes that this was surprising or noteworthy, making it strong evidence for the claim.
Let's examine why the other choices don't support this specific claim. Choice A describes the ingredients and preparation method, but tells us nothing about who ordered the dish or whether meat-eaters liked it. Choice B shows the dish was popular overall by becoming a top-seller, but doesn't specify whether meat-eaters or vegetarians were driving those sales. Choice D mentions future menu plans, which is completely unrelated to whether the current dish appealed to meat-eating customers.
Remember that evidence questions require you to distinguish between general information and specific proof. While choices A and B provide positive information about the dish, only choice C directly addresses the demographic mentioned in the claim. Look for answer choices that contain specific details matching the exact claim being made, rather than just general positive outcomes.
- Main idea: Consistent bedtime routines can improve teenagers' mood.
Which of these is the BEST supporting detail?
Answer: A month-long study found that teens who went to bed at the same time nightly reported 30% fewer incidents of daytime irritability.
When you encounter a main idea question asking for the best supporting detail, you need to find evidence that directly proves or demonstrates the main claim. The main idea here states that consistent bedtime routines can improve teenagers' mood, so you're looking for specific evidence showing this cause-and-effect relationship.
Choice B provides exactly this type of evidence. The month-long study directly connects consistent bedtimes ("went to bed at the same time nightly") with mood improvement ("30% fewer incidents of daytime irritability"). This is concrete research data that proves the main idea's claim about routine bedtimes improving mood.
Choice A discusses teens staying up late on weekends, but this describes inconsistent sleep patterns without connecting to mood outcomes. It's more about what teens do rather than evidence supporting the benefits of consistency.
Choice C mentions device-free bedrooms helping teens fall asleep faster. While sleep-related, this focuses on falling asleep rather than consistent timing, and it doesn't address mood improvements at all.
Choice D provides general sleep recommendations from pediatricians. Though relevant to teen sleep health, it discusses total sleep hours rather than consistent timing, and doesn't mention mood benefits specifically.
Remember: supporting details must directly relate to and prove the specific main idea. Look for evidence that connects the exact cause mentioned (consistent bedtime routines) to the exact effect claimed (improved mood). Avoid details that are merely topic-related but don't prove the specific relationship stated in the main idea.
- Which detail from the passage best supports the main idea that the new library successfully attracted teenagers?
Answer: The building recorded over two thousand teen visits in the first month.
When you see a question asking which detail "best supports the main idea," you need to identify evidence that directly proves the central claim. Here, the main idea is that the library successfully attracted teenagers.
The correct answer is C because "over two thousand teen visits in the first month" provides concrete, measurable evidence of success. This specific data point proves teenagers were actually drawn to the library, and the phrase "far exceeding projections" emphasizes how successful this attraction was. Numbers don't lie—two thousand visits is solid proof of the library's appeal to its target demographic.
Let's examine why the other choices fall short. Choice A describes a feature of the game room (latest consoles) but doesn't prove teenagers actually came to use them. Choice B states the city's original hope or goal, but hopes aren't evidence of success—they're just intentions. Choice D mentions comfortable couches, which is another feature description that doesn't demonstrate actual teen attendance or success.
Notice the difference between describing what the library offers versus proving people actually used it. Features and goals are just setup; actual visitor numbers are results.
For reading comprehension questions about supporting evidence, always look for concrete data, statistics, or observable outcomes rather than descriptions of intentions or features. The strongest support for "success" claims will be measurable results that can be verified, not just appealing amenities or stated goals.
- Main idea: Practicing mindfulness meditation can lower stress hormone levels.
Which piece of evidence is LEAST helpful in supporting this idea?
Answer: Meditation apps offer guided breathing sessions lasting five to ten minutes.
When evaluating evidence for a main idea, you need to distinguish between information that directly supports the claim versus information that's merely related to the topic. The main idea here is specifically about mindfulness meditation's effect on stress hormone levels, so look for evidence that demonstrates this biological connection.
Choice B is correct because it provides no evidence about stress hormones at all. While meditation apps with guided breathing sessions are related to mindfulness practice, this information tells you nothing about whether such practice actually reduces stress hormone levels. It's simply describing a tool or method without connecting it to the claimed outcome.
The other choices all provide direct evidence supporting the main idea. Choice A offers concrete data showing a 15% cortisol reduction in daily meditators after six weeks—this directly demonstrates the hormone-lowering effect. Choice C strengthens the argument by showing that people who didn't meditate had no significant hormone changes, proving meditation was the key factor. Choice D provides additional evidence by linking mindfulness practice to reduced adrenaline (another stress hormone) during high-stress situations like exams.
When you encounter "least helpful evidence" questions, ask yourself: does this choice actually prove or support the specific claim being made? Sometimes answer choices will provide interesting background information or related facts, but if they don't directly address the main idea's core components, they're not useful evidence. Focus on the precise wording of the main idea and match evidence to those exact elements.
- Which statement from the passage provides the strongest supporting detail for the claim that the bag bans benefit marine life?
Answer: Fewer sea turtles were found with plastic in their stomachs during rescue operations.
When you encounter questions asking for the "strongest supporting detail," you need to identify which piece of evidence most directly proves the main claim. Here, the claim is that bag bans benefit marine life.
The correct answer is C because it provides direct evidence of improved health outcomes for marine animals. Finding fewer sea turtles with plastic in their stomachs during rescue operations shows a clear, measurable improvement in the well-being of marine life. This is concrete proof that the animals themselves are healthier as a result of the bag bans.
Let's examine why the other choices fall short: Choice A simply states that bans occurred but provides no evidence of their impact on marine life. It's the action, not the result. Choice B shows reduced plastic debris on reefs, which is environmental improvement but doesn't directly prove marine animals are healthier—debris reduction is one step removed from actual animal welfare. Choice D mentions that monitoring occurred but provides no supporting evidence about outcomes at all.
The key distinction is between indirect and direct evidence. While reduced debris (B) suggests potential benefits, fewer animals with plastic in their stomachs (C) demonstrates actual benefits to the creatures themselves.
Remember: when questions ask for the "strongest" supporting detail, look for evidence that most directly connects to the main claim. Prioritize concrete outcomes over general conditions, and direct effects over indirect ones. The strongest support typically involves measurable changes in the specific subject being discussed.
- Main idea: Recycling electronic devices prevents harmful chemicals from entering landfills.
Which choice would be the least effective supporting detail?
Answer: Some people erase personal data before donating laptops to schools.
When you encounter questions about supporting details, you need to identify which piece of information best reinforces the main argument. Here, the main idea focuses on how recycling electronics prevents harmful chemicals from contaminating landfills.
The correct answer is C because erasing personal data before donating laptops addresses privacy concerns, not environmental protection from harmful chemicals. While this is a responsible practice, it doesn't support the argument about preventing chemical contamination in landfills.
Let's examine why the other choices work as strong supporting details: Choice A directly illustrates the main idea by naming specific toxic substances (lead and mercury) that can leak into soil from landfilled electronics. Choice B supports recycling as an alternative to landfilling by explaining how specialized facilities process e-waste safely. Choice D provides concrete evidence of recycling effectiveness, showing that substantial amounts of electronics (18 tons) can be diverted from landfills through organized collection programs.
Notice how A, B, and D all connect directly to either the harmful chemicals or the prevention of landfill contamination, while C shifts to an entirely different concern—data security.
Strategy tip: When evaluating supporting details, ask yourself whether each choice directly relates to the main idea's key components. Look for details that might be true and relevant to the general topic but don't actually strengthen the specific argument being made. These "related but irrelevant" details are common distractors on reading comprehension questions.
- Which detail best supports the idea that the restored painting increased museum revenue?
Answer: Gift-shop sales of postcards featuring the painting tripled during the first month.
When you see a question asking which detail "best supports" a specific idea, you need to find the most direct evidence for that exact concept. Here, you're looking for evidence that the restored painting specifically increased museum revenue—meaning money coming in.
Choice C is correct because it provides the clearest connection to increased revenue. When gift-shop sales of postcards featuring the painting "tripled," this directly shows more money being generated. Sales figures are concrete financial evidence of increased revenue tied specifically to the restored painting.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work as well. Choice A mentions visitors crowding the gallery, which suggests popularity but doesn't directly indicate increased revenue—people could be looking without paying extra admission fees. Choice B states that weekday attendance doubled, which implies more ticket sales but doesn't explicitly connect to revenue (some museums have free or discounted admission). Choice D describes long weekend ticket lines, which suggests demand but again doesn't directly prove increased revenue—lines could indicate slower processing rather than more sales.
The key distinction is that gift-shop sales in choice C represent a measurable increase in actual purchases, making it the most direct evidence of increased revenue. The other choices show increased interest or attendance but require you to make assumptions about how that translates to money.
On reading comprehension questions, look for the answer choice that most directly supports the specific claim being made. Avoid choices that seem related but require additional logical steps to connect to the main idea.
- Which detail best supports the conclusion that the new code made the car safer?
Answer: During trial runs, the car stopped smoothly before every barrier, avoiding any collisions.
When you encounter questions asking which detail "best supports" a conclusion, you're being tested on evidence evaluation. You need to identify which piece of information most directly proves the stated claim.
The conclusion here is that the new code made the car safer. Option B provides the strongest evidence because it shows the actual safety outcome: the car stopped smoothly before every barrier and avoided all collisions. This is direct proof that the safety improved - zero accidents versus previous accidents demonstrates measurable safety enhancement.
Let's examine why the other choices are weaker evidence. Option A tells us about the technical change (detecting obstacles three meters sooner) but doesn't prove this change actually improved safety - it's just the method, not the result. Option C mentions previous problems (clipping cones twice) which establishes a safety baseline but doesn't demonstrate that the new version is actually better. Option D describes the judges' recognition, but their award could be based on the technical innovation itself rather than proven safety improvements.
The key distinction is between potential safety improvements and demonstrated safety improvements. While A describes what should make the car safer in theory, and C and D provide context, only B shows concrete evidence that safety actually improved through the elimination of collisions.
For TACHS reading questions about supporting evidence, always look for the choice that most directly demonstrates the claim being made, rather than choices that merely suggest it or provide background information.
- Which detail most strongly supports the idea that the bilingual production reached a new audience?
Answer: A follow-up survey revealed that many attendees had never visited the theater before this production.
When you encounter a question asking which detail "most strongly supports" an idea, you're looking for the most direct evidence that proves the claim. Here, you need to identify which detail best demonstrates that the bilingual production reached a new audience.
The correct answer is D because a survey directly measuring whether attendees had visited the theater before provides concrete evidence about reaching new audiences. If "many attendees had never visited the theater before," this explicitly confirms that the production attracted people who weren't previously theatergoers—the very definition of reaching a new audience.
Let's examine why the other options don't provide as strong support. Choice A mentions surprising ticket demand, but high demand could come from regular theatergoers excited about something different—it doesn't necessarily indicate new audience members. Choice B describes bilingual conversations in the lobby, which shows the production attracted a diverse crowd but doesn't prove these people were new to the theater. Choice C notes that families lingered to meet actors, suggesting engagement and enjoyment, but again doesn't indicate whether these were first-time visitors or returning patrons having a particularly good experience.
When answering "supports the idea" questions on reading tests, look for evidence that directly addresses the specific claim being made. Avoid answers that are merely related to the topic or show positive outcomes. The strongest support will explicitly connect to the key concept—in this case, definitively showing that the audience included people who hadn't attended before.
- Main idea: Urban community gardens foster stronger neighborhood connections.
Which of the following is the best supporting detail?
Answer: Weekly harvest nights bring residents of all ages together to share recipes and swap produce.
When you encounter a main idea question asking for supporting details, you need to find evidence that directly connects to and reinforces the central claim. The main idea here focuses on how community gardens strengthen social bonds between neighbors.
Choice B is correct because weekly harvest nights create exactly the kind of social interaction the main idea describes. When residents gather regularly to share recipes and exchange produce, they're building relationships and community connections through the garden. This directly supports how gardens "foster stronger neighborhood connections."
Choice A focuses purely on agricultural technique—how to grow cucumbers using trellises. While this might be useful gardening information, it has nothing to do with bringing people together or strengthening social bonds. Choice C discusses watering requirements, which is another technical gardening detail unrelated to community building. Choice D provides timing information about the growing season, but again fails to address the social aspect that's central to the main idea.
The key trap here is getting distracted by gardening facts that sound relevant to community gardens but don't actually support the specific claim about neighborhood connections. All four choices relate to gardens, but only one relates to the community-building aspect.
When tackling supporting detail questions, always ask yourself: "Does this evidence directly prove or illustrate the main point?" Eliminate any details that are factual but off-topic, even if they relate to the general subject matter.
- Which detail from the passage best supports the conclusion that watering at a different time solved Clara's problem?
Answer: After switching schedules, Clara noticed the leaves stayed firm and green.
When you encounter a question asking for evidence that supports a conclusion, you need to look for direct proof that shows the outcome actually happened, not just background information or explanations.
The conclusion here is that changing watering times solved Clara's problem. To support this conclusion, you need evidence showing the problem was actually resolved. Choice C provides exactly this: "After switching schedules, Clara noticed the leaves stayed firm and green." This directly demonstrates that the solution worked—the wilting stopped and the plants became healthy again.
Let's examine why the other choices don't support the conclusion. Choice A tells us about Clara's original watering routine, but this describes the problem period, not the solution. Choice B explains the neighbor's reasoning for the suggestion, which provides the theory behind why the change might work, but doesn't prove it actually did work. Choice D simply restates that there was a problem initially, again providing no evidence that switching schedules solved anything.
The key distinction is between explaining why something might work versus proving it did work. Choices A, B, and D all relate to the setup and reasoning, but only C shows the actual positive result after the change was implemented.
For reading comprehension questions about supporting evidence, always look for the choice that directly demonstrates the stated outcome rather than just providing background information or theoretical explanations. The strongest support comes from observable results, not preliminary conditions or logical reasoning.
- Main idea: Reading aloud to young children accelerates vocabulary growth.
Which detail provides the strongest support?
Answer: Toddlers whose parents read nightly stories recognized 300 more words on average by age three.
When you encounter a question asking which detail provides the strongest support for a main idea, you need to find evidence that directly demonstrates or proves the claim being made. The main idea here is that reading aloud accelerates vocabulary growth, so you're looking for concrete evidence showing this cause-and-effect relationship.
Choice C provides exactly this type of evidence. It presents specific, measurable data: toddlers whose parents read nightly stories recognized 300 more words on average by age three. This directly demonstrates that reading aloud (the cause) leads to accelerated vocabulary growth (the effect) with quantifiable results.
Let's examine why the other choices don't provide strong support. Choice A describes library story-time activities but doesn't connect these events to vocabulary growth outcomes. Choice B mentions picture book features like colorful illustrations, but this detail relates to book design rather than the impact of reading aloud on vocabulary development. Choice D discusses children selecting bedtime books, which is about reading preferences and routines, not vocabulary acceleration.
The key distinction is that C provides empirical evidence with measurable results, while A, B, and D offer related but indirect information that doesn't prove the main claim.
For reading comprehension questions about supporting evidence, always look for details that contain specific data, measurable outcomes, or direct cause-and-effect relationships. Avoid choices that are merely related to the topic but don't actually prove or demonstrate the main point being made.
