Cite Multiple Pieces of Textual Evidence
Help Questions
7th Grade Reading › Cite Multiple Pieces of Textual Evidence
Read the passage and answer the question.
A museum is designing an exhibit about ancient trade routes. The curator explains that artifacts can show where people traveled because materials like amber, jade, or certain shells come from specific regions. In one display plan, the museum will feature a necklace made with shells that are “native to warm southern seas,” even though the necklace was found in a colder inland valley. The curator also plans to include clay tablets that list goods such as “salt, copper, and dyed cloth,” and a map-like carving that marks a river crossing. However, the curator warns that artifacts do not tell the whole story: a traded item might have been passed through “many hands,” and some routes changed with seasons or conflicts. The exhibit text uses phrases like “strong clues” and “careful reconstruction,” and it invites visitors to compare multiple objects before deciding what a route “most likely” looked like.
Which choice provides multiple pieces of evidence supporting the claim that the passage presents trade-route knowledge as based on evidence but not perfectly certain?
The passage says the museum will feature a necklace and some clay tablets.
The passage is mostly about how museums build exhibits, not trade.
The passage proves the exact trade routes are known because artifacts come from specific regions.
The passage notes evidence like shells “native to warm southern seas” found in a cold inland valley and tablets listing “salt, copper, and dyed cloth,” but it also warns items could pass through “many hands” and routes changed with seasons or conflicts. Word choices like “strong clues,” “careful reconstruction,” and “most likely” suggest uncertainty.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: shells "native to warm southern seas" found in cold valley, tablets list "salt, copper, and dyed cloth," items could pass through "many hands," routes changed with seasons/conflicts—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (word choices like "strong clues," "careful reconstruction," and "most likely" don't explicitly state uncertainty but these hedging terms imply knowledge isn't definite; warning about "many hands" and changing routes suggests complexity limiting certainty). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one artifact doesn't prove uncertainty), several pieces create pattern (evidence examples + limitations + hedging language—comprehensive support). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (specific artifacts, stated limitations), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding hedging language reveals uncertainty). Choice C correctly provides multiple pieces: notes evidence (shells "native to warm southern seas" found in cold inland valley, tablets listing "salt, copper, and dyed cloth") but also warnings (items could pass through "many hands," routes changed with seasons or conflicts), plus word choices ("strong clues," "careful reconstruction," "most likely") suggesting uncertainty—comprehensive support for claim about evidence-based but not perfectly certain knowledge. Choice A incomplete description, Choice B incorrect certainty claim, Choice D wrong focus—none provide multiple pieces supporting the specific claim about uncertainty despite evidence.
Read the passage and answer the question.
Scientists studying urban heat set up temperature sensors in three neighborhoods: one with many trees, one with mostly pavement, and one with a mix of parks and buildings. During a July heat wave, the tree-heavy area averaged “6°F cooler at noon” than the pavement-heavy area. The mixed neighborhood was “about 3°F cooler” than the pavement-heavy area, especially near a playground shaded by tall maples. A researcher explained that shade lowers surface temperatures, but she also warned that planting trees is not a quick fix because “young trees take years to form a canopy.” The team recommended adding shade structures at bus stops right away and choosing drought-tolerant trees for long-term planting. In an interview, the researcher said the results were “a clear reminder that design choices matter,” and she pointed out that the hottest neighborhood also had “the fewest shaded sidewalks,” making walking there “uncomfortable and sometimes unsafe” for older residents.
Which choice cites multiple pieces of evidence (including both direct statements and details that support an inference) that the passage suggests trees and shade can reduce heat but require planning over time?
The passage says the tree-heavy area averaged “6°F cooler at noon,” the mixed area was “about 3°F cooler” (especially near shaded maples), and the researcher warns that “young trees take years to form a canopy.” The recommendations for “shade structures…right away” and “long‑term planting” reinforce the idea that shade helps but takes planning.
The passage says the hottest neighborhood had “the fewest shaded sidewalks.”
The passage is mostly about how sensors work and where they were placed.
The passage says design choices matter, so cities should stop building sidewalks.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: tree-heavy area "6°F cooler at noon," mixed area "about 3°F cooler," "young trees take years to form a canopy"—text says these directly, no inference needed). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (recommendations for "shade structures…right away" and "long-term planting" together imply both immediate and future planning needed—doesn't explicitly state "planning required" but recommendations reveal this need). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one temperature reading doesn't prove pattern), several pieces create pattern (multiple temperature comparisons + warning about time + dual recommendations—comprehensive support). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (temperature differences, time warning), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding dual recommendations imply planning needs). Choice B correctly cites multiple pieces: explicit evidence (tree-heavy area "6°F cooler at noon," mixed area "about 3°F cooler," researcher warns "young trees take years to form a canopy") plus inferential support (recommendations for "shade structures…right away" and "long-term planting" reinforce idea that shade helps but takes planning). Choice A single piece about hottest neighborhood, Choice C incorrect claim about stopping sidewalk construction, Choice D wrong focus on sensors—none provide multiple pieces supporting claim about trees/shade requiring planning.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A town near a windy ridge is considering building a small wind farm with six turbines. The proposal states the turbines could supply “about 40% of the town’s annual electricity,” and the energy committee notes that this would lower pollution from the current gas-powered plant. The committee also admits that the project has challenges: the turbines would cost “$18 million up front,” and construction would require widening a narrow road to bring in large parts. Some residents worry about noise, but a report from a similar wind farm says sound levels were “about as loud as a refrigerator” at the nearest homes. Another concern is reliability: the proposal explains that wind speeds drop some summer evenings, so the town would still need backup power. Even so, the committee calls the plan “a practical step,” and it suggests creating a job-training partnership with the local community college for turbine maintenance.
Which choice cites several pieces of evidence that the text identifies both benefits and challenges of the wind farm proposal?
The passage proves the town should build the wind farm because it is “a practical step.”
The passage states benefits such as supplying “about 40%” of electricity and lowering pollution from the gas plant, and it lists challenges including “$18 million up front,” road widening for construction, and needing “backup power” when wind speeds drop.
The passage says turbines can be loud like a refrigerator.
The passage is only about job training at a community college.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: turbines could supply "about 40%" of electricity, would lower pollution, cost "$18 million up front," require road widening, need "backup power" when wind drops—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text presents benefits and challenges in balanced way—doesn't explicitly state "proposal has both pros and cons" but equal treatment implies balanced assessment; committee calling it "practical step" despite listing challenges suggests weighing both sides). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one benefit or challenge doesn't show balance), several pieces create pattern (multiple benefits + multiple challenges—comprehensive view). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (percentage supplied, costs, infrastructure needs), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding balanced presentation implies text identifies both sides). Choice B correctly cites multiple pieces: states benefits (supplying "about 40%" of electricity, lowering pollution from gas plant) and lists challenges ("$18 million up front," road widening for construction, needing "backup power" when wind speeds drop)—comprehensive evidence showing text identifies both benefits and challenges. Choice A single noise comparison, Choice C assumes advocacy not in text, Choice D wrong focus—none provide multiple pieces showing both benefits and challenges.
Read the passage and answer the question.
In 1914, the city of Riverton built a new water tower to solve frequent shortages. Newspaper reports from the time described residents waiting at pumps “before sunrise” and complained that fires spread quickly because “hydrants ran dry.” The new tower could hold “one million gallons,” and the mayor promised it would provide steady pressure for homes and emergency crews. Within months, a local report stated that water outages had become “rare,” and a hardware store owner said he no longer had to close early to save water for cleaning. Still, some residents disliked the tower’s look, calling it “an iron giant” that blocked views of the river. The city council responded by planting trees around its base and adding a small park bench area, and later articles mention families picnicking nearby on summer evenings.
Which choice provides several pieces of evidence supporting the claim that the water tower improved daily life in Riverton, even though not everyone liked it at first?
The passage says families picnicked near the tower, so the tower must have been beautiful.
The passage says the tower was called “an iron giant,” and the council planted trees.
The passage states the tower held “one million gallons,” outages became “rare,” and a store owner no longer had to close early to save water (showing improvement). It also notes a drawback: some residents disliked its look, calling it “an iron giant” that blocked views.
The passage says residents waited at pumps “before sunrise,” and hydrants “ran dry,” so the city built a tower.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: tower held "one million gallons," outages became "rare," store owner no longer closed early, residents called it "an iron giant" blocking views—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says store owner "no longer had to close early to save water"—doesn't explicitly state life improved, but ability to maintain normal hours implies improvement; families picnicking nearby later suggests acceptance grew over time despite initial complaints). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one improvement doesn't prove overall benefit), several pieces create pattern (capacity + rare outages + business improvement + aesthetic complaint—balanced view). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (tower capacity, outage frequency, complaints), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding business hours normalization shows practical improvement). Choice C correctly provides multiple pieces: explicit evidence (tower held "one million gallons," outages became "rare," store owner no longer closed early) showing improvement, plus drawback acknowledgment (residents disliked look, calling it "an iron giant" blocking views)—comprehensive support for claim about improvement despite initial dislike. Choice A incomplete citations, Choice B only problem description, Choice D incorrect inference about beauty—none provide sufficient multiple evidence for the specific claim.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A community garden started a compost program to reduce trash and improve soil. The organizer explained that food scraps would be collected in sealed bins and mixed with dry leaves. At first, some neighbors complained about smell, and the organizer admitted that one bin was “too wet” because volunteers added scraps but forgot to add enough leaves. After the group adjusted the mix, the smell was described as “earthy, not rotten,” and the garden posted a weekly schedule so the bins would be turned regularly. By the end of the season, the garden reported producing “over 300 pounds of compost,” which was spread on vegetable beds. Several gardeners said their tomatoes had “fewer cracked skins,” and one wrote that she watered less often because the soil stayed damp longer. The organizer still cautioned that composting takes attention and that “ignoring the bins for weeks” can bring back odors and pests.
Which choice cites several pieces of evidence (explicit and inferential) supporting the claim that the compost program became successful after early problems but still requires ongoing care?
The passage says neighbors complained, so the program should be stopped.
The passage proves composting is easy because the garden posted a weekly schedule.
The passage states an early problem: a bin was “too wet” and neighbors complained about smell. It then reports improvement after adjusting the mix (“earthy, not rotten”), plus results like “over 300 pounds of compost” and gardeners noticing tomatoes with “fewer cracked skins” and soil staying damp longer. It also warns that “ignoring the bins for weeks” can bring back odors and pests (showing ongoing care is needed).
The passage says the bins are sealed and mixed with dry leaves.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: early bin was "too wet," neighbors complained about smell, after adjustment smell was "earthy, not rotten," produced "over 300 pounds of compost," tomatoes had "fewer cracked skins," "ignoring bins for weeks" brings back problems—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says gardener "watered less often because soil stayed damp longer"—doesn't explicitly state compost improved soil, but needing less water implies better moisture retention from compost; progression from problems to positive results implies program became successful through adjustments). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one improvement doesn't prove overall success), several pieces create pattern (initial problems + adjustments + multiple benefits + ongoing care warning—comprehensive narrative). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (wet bin, smell complaints, compost amount, tomato improvement), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding soil moisture improvement and narrative arc). Choice B correctly cites multiple pieces: states early problem (bin "too wet," neighbors complained), reports improvement after adjusting ("earthy, not rotten"), plus results ("over 300 pounds of compost," tomatoes with "fewer cracked skins," soil staying damp longer), and warns "ignoring the bins for weeks" can bring back odors and pests—showing success after problems but ongoing care needed. Choice A just describes process, Choice C incorrect ease claim, Choice D misinterprets complaints as reason to stop—none provide multiple pieces supporting the specific claim about success after problems with ongoing care needs.
Read the passage and answer the question.
At Harborview Middle School, the cafeteria began a “share table” where students can place unopened food for others to take. The principal announced that the goal was to cut waste, noting that the school threw away “about 6 large trash bags of food every day” last year. After the first month, the student council reported that waste was “down by nearly 30%,” and the custodians said the trash bins felt “noticeably lighter” after lunch. However, the cafeteria manager warned that “milk still has to be thrown out if it warms up,” and she added that some students were “confused about what counts as unopened.” To fix this, volunteers taped simple signs to the table and stood nearby during lunch for a week. The following week, the manager said arguments at the table were “rare,” and a 7th grader wrote in the school newsletter that the share table “makes it easier not to feel embarrassed if you forgot your snack.”
Which choice cites several pieces of evidence (explicit and inferential) that support the claim that the share table is helping the school, even though it still has limitations?
The cafeteria manager thinks the program is not working because students were “confused about what counts as unopened.”
The passage says the principal wanted to “cut waste,” and it mentions “6 large trash bags of food every day.”
The passage shows the share table is popular because a 7th grader said it “makes it easier not to feel embarrassed.”
The passage states waste was “down by nearly 30%,” custodians said bins felt “noticeably lighter,” and after signs and volunteers, arguments were “rare” (showing smoother operation). It also notes a limitation: “milk still has to be thrown out if it warms up.”
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: "waste was 'down by nearly 30%'," "bins felt 'noticeably lighter'," "arguments were 'rare'"—text says these directly, no inference needed, reading for stated information). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says custodians noted bins "noticeably lighter"—doesn't explicitly state program working, but lighter bins imply less waste supporting success; mentions limitation about milk but positions it as minor issue—emphasis implies overall success despite small problems). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one statistic doesn't prove overall success), several pieces create pattern (30% reduction + lighter bins + rare arguments + limitation acknowledged—comprehensive view). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (waste reduction percentage, custodian observation, argument frequency), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding that acknowledging limitation while emphasizing successes suggests balanced but positive assessment). Choice B correctly cites multiple pieces: explicit evidence ("waste was 'down by nearly 30%'," bins "noticeably lighter," arguments "rare") and acknowledges limitation ("milk still has to be thrown out"), providing comprehensive support that share table helps school despite limitations. Choice A only cites problem statement, Choice C single piece about popularity, Choice D misinterprets confusion as program failure—all insufficient or incorrect for supporting claim about helping with limitations.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student journalist wrote about a new rule at Pine Ridge School: phones must stay in lockers from first bell to last bell. The article explains that teachers asked for the rule after noticing students “checking screens during group work” and turning in “unfinished assignments.” The principal said the goal was to reduce distractions, and she reported that hallway tardies dropped “by 12%” in the first two weeks because students were not stopping to text. The journalist also interviewed students. One 8th grader complained that lunch felt “too quiet,” while another said it was “easier to actually talk” with friends. The article ends by noting that the school plans to review the policy after one quarter and that the principal invited students to submit feedback forms. The journalist describes the rule as “strict but not unreasonable,” and spends more space describing classroom changes than student complaints.
Which choice includes several pieces of evidence that support the inference that the student journalist leans slightly in favor of the phone rule?
The journalist calls the rule “strict but not unreasonable,” highlights teacher concerns (“checking screens,” “unfinished assignments”) and a reported benefit (tardies dropped “by 12%”), and devotes more space to classroom improvements than to complaints (an emphasis that suggests mild support).
The article quotes an 8th grader saying lunch felt “too quiet.”
The article says phones must stay in lockers from first bell to last bell.
The journalist is neutral because the school will review the policy after one quarter.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: journalist calls rule "strict but not unreasonable," tardies dropped "by 12%"—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says journalist "spends more space describing classroom changes than student complaints"—doesn't explicitly state support, but emphasis allocation implies what journalist values more; word choice "strict but not unreasonable" uses positive framing—could have said "harsh" or "excessive" if opposed). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one quote doesn't prove overall stance), several pieces create pattern (positive characterization + emphasis on benefits + space allocation—consistent lean). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (direct quote, statistics), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding space allocation and word choice reveal stance). Choice C correctly includes multiple pieces: explicit evidence (journalist calls rule "strict but not unreasonable," highlights teacher concerns about "checking screens" and "unfinished assignments," reports benefit of tardies dropping "by 12%") plus inferential evidence (devotes more space to classroom improvements than complaints—emphasis suggesting mild support). Choice A single complaint quote, Choice B just rule description, Choice D incorrect neutrality claim—none provide multiple pieces supporting inference about journalist's slight favor.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A city library replaced most overdue fines with a new system: instead of paying money, patrons can choose to complete a short “reading review” or attend a free workshop. The library director explained that fines were meant to encourage returns, but they also “kept some families away.” In the first three months, new library card sign-ups increased “by 18%,” and the children’s librarian reported that story-time attendance was “the fullest it’s been in years.” At the same time, the director admitted that a few popular books were still returned late, and she said the staff now spends “extra time” helping patrons fill out reviews. Even so, the director called the change a “fairer approach,” and a local newspaper noted that the library’s announcement focused on access and community benefits, mentioning late returns only briefly near the end.
Which choice identifies several pieces of evidence that best support the inference that the author views the no-fine policy positively?
The passage says the staff spends “extra time” helping patrons fill out reviews.
The passage says “a few popular books were still returned late,” which shows the policy failed.
The director calls the change a “fairer approach,” the passage highlights gains like sign-ups “by 18%” and story-time being “the fullest it’s been in years,” and it notes the announcement emphasized “access and community benefits” while mentioning late returns only briefly (suggesting approval through word choice and emphasis).
The passage explains what the policy is: patrons can complete a “reading review” or attend a workshop.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: director calls change "fairer approach," sign-ups increased "by 18%," story-time "fullest it's been in years"—text says these directly, no inference needed). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says announcement "focused on access and community benefits, mentioning late returns only briefly near the end"—doesn't explicitly state author approval, but emphasis pattern implies positive view; director's word choice "fairer approach" suggests support—loaded positive language rather than neutral). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one quote doesn't prove overall stance), several pieces create pattern (positive quote + statistics + emphasis pattern—consistent positive presentation). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (director's quote, attendance statistics), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding emphasis and word choice reveal author's positive stance). Choice C correctly identifies multiple pieces: explicit evidence (director calls it "fairer approach," gains like sign-ups "by 18%" and story-time "fullest it's been in years") plus inferential evidence (announcement emphasized "access and community benefits" while mentioning late returns only briefly—suggesting approval through word choice and emphasis). Choice A single piece about staff time, Choice B misinterprets late returns as failure, Choice D merely explains policy—none provide multiple pieces supporting author's positive view.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A marine biology class raised oysters in cages attached to a dock to learn how shellfish affect water quality. Their teacher explained that oysters are filter feeders and can remove tiny particles from the water. Over eight weeks, students measured water clarity using a simple disk and recorded that the water near the oyster cages improved from “about 40 cm visibility” to “about 65 cm visibility.” They also counted algae blooms and found “fewer green slicks” near the cages than near an empty dock section. However, a storm broke two cages, and the class lost “nearly a quarter” of the oysters. The students repaired the cages and added stronger rope, and the teacher said the setback was “exactly what real fieldwork feels like.” At the end, the class presented their results to the town council, which voted to fund “two more student-built cages” for the next semester.
Which choice cites multiple pieces of evidence (both explicit and inferential) supporting the claim that the class project produced meaningful results despite setbacks?
The passage says a storm broke two cages.
The passage states visibility improved from “about 40 cm” to “about 65 cm” and there were “fewer green slicks” near the cages (explicit results). It also describes a setback—losing “nearly a quarter” of the oysters—but students repaired cages, and the town council voted to fund “two more” cages (implying the results were taken seriously).
The passage says oysters are filter feeders, and students used a disk to measure clarity.
The passage proves the project failed because the class lost oysters in a storm.
Explanation
Tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: visibility improved from "about 40 cm" to "about 65 cm," "fewer green slicks" near cages, lost "nearly a quarter" of oysters—text says these directly). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says town council voted to fund "two more" cages—doesn't explicitly state results were meaningful, but funding expansion implies council saw value in results; teacher's comment about setback being "exactly what real fieldwork feels like" frames loss as learning experience not failure). Multiple pieces strengthen analysis: single evidence weak (one measurement doesn't prove meaningful results), several pieces create pattern (improved clarity + reduced algae + setback handled + future funding—comprehensive view). Comprehensive citing uses both explicit and inferential: explicit grounds analysis in stated facts (visibility measurements, algae observations, oyster loss), inferential shows deeper reading (understanding council funding implies results taken seriously). Choice C correctly cites multiple pieces: explicit results (visibility improved from "about 40 cm" to "about 65 cm," "fewer green slicks" near cages), describes setback (losing "nearly a quarter" of oysters), but notes students repaired cages and council voted to fund "two more" cages—implying results were taken seriously despite setback. Choice A single storm fact, Choice B explains method not results, Choice D misinterprets setback as failure—none provide multiple pieces supporting meaningful results despite setbacks.
Read the passage and answer the question.
Passage: In 1912, a small coastal town built a seawall after two storms flooded the market district. The town council wrote that the wall would “protect homes and shops from future tides,” but it also raised taxes to pay for the project. Some fishers complained that construction blocked access to the beach for months, and the newspaper reported that “boats were dragged farther” to reach the water. After the wall was finished, the council celebrated with a parade and printed posters calling it “a modern victory over the sea.” Yet, the same year, the mayor quietly asked engineers to study whether the wall might cause sand to collect in the harbor. The engineers’ notes warned that changing currents could increase the need for dredging.
Question (Combine Explicit and Inferential): Which choice cites both explicit and implied evidence supporting the claim that town leaders were proud of the seawall but also worried about unintended effects?
The seawall was built after two storms flooded the market district, so it was necessary and had no downsides.
Leaders showed pride by holding a “parade” and printing posters calling the wall “a modern victory over the sea,” but concern is suggested because the mayor “quietly asked engineers to study” sand buildup, and the engineers warned currents could increase dredging.
Fishers said “boats were dragged farther,” which proves the wall caused sand to collect in the harbor.
The passage says taxes were raised, and fishers complained about beach access, so the project was unpopular with everyone.
Explanation
This question tests citing several pieces (multiple, not single) of textual evidence to support analysis of what informational text says explicitly (directly stated) and inferences drawn from text (implied meanings requiring reasoning from details, word choices, emphasis). Supporting analysis requires multiple textual evidence: Explicit evidence comes from direct statements in text (facts clearly stated: "Installation costs for solar panels are high," "80% of students participated," "The experiment produced expected results"—text says these directly, no inference needed, reading for stated information). Inferential evidence comes from implications requiring reasoning from clues (text says "team celebrated after experiment"—doesn't explicitly state success, but celebration implies success; text uses words "promising approach" and "addresses concerns effectively"—doesn't say "I support this," but positive language implies author favor; text spends three paragraphs on benefits, one sentence on costs—emphasis implies author values benefits more, probably supports—inference from textual clues even though not directly stated). Analytical claim: Town leaders were proud of the seawall but also worried about unintended effects. Supporting evidence (explicit and inferential): Pride evidence (explicit)—"parade" held and "posters calling it 'a modern victory over the sea'"—explicit celebratory actions showing pride. Concern evidence (inferential)—mayor "quietly asked engineers to study"—word "quietly" implies trying to avoid public attention, suggesting worry about findings; engineers warned about currents and dredging—fact that mayor commissioned study implies concern about potential problems. Multiple pieces combining explicit (parade, posters) and inferential (quietly, commissioning study) evidence support complex claim about both pride and worry. Choice B correctly cites both explicit and implied evidence supporting the claim by providing specific examples of pride (parade, posters) and concern (quietly asking, engineers' warnings). Choice A error: wrong evidence—citations don't support the specific claim about leaders' feelings. Choice C error: only explicit or only inferential—misses that both types available and needed for comprehensive support. Choice D error: cites single piece when multiple required—one quote insufficient for pattern. Citing evidence effectively requires recognizing both explicit statements (directly stated facts like parade and posters) and inferential evidence (implications from word choices like "quietly" and actions like commissioning studies), then combining both types to support complex analytical claims about attitudes or perspectives.