Evaluate Speaker's Argument and Evidence
Help Questions
7th Grade Reading › Evaluate Speaker's Argument and Evidence
At a school board public comment session, a parent argues: “We should remove all homework from grades 6–8.” Reasons and evidence offered: (1) “Homework causes stress,” followed by “Stress is bad.” (2) “We should remove homework because homework shouldn’t exist.” (3) The parent says, “Studies show homework doesn’t help,” but does not name any studies, authors, or results.
Which choice best evaluates the argument’s reasoning and evidence?
The argument is well-supported because repeating the claim in different words counts as a second piece of evidence.
The argument is strong because it mentions stress and studies, which is enough to prove the claim without details.
The argument is weak because it uses circular reasoning and vague references to “studies” without specific, relevant evidence to support the claim.
The argument is sound because stress is always the only factor schools should consider, so evidence about learning is unnecessary.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). The parent's argument exhibits circular reasoning ('remove homework because homework shouldn't exist'), unsupported claims ('stress is bad' without evidence), and vague references to unnamed studies. Choice B correctly identifies these flaws—circular reasoning provides no actual support, and citing 'studies' without specifics lacks credibility. Choice A wrongly accepts vague mentions as strong; C misrepresents the argument; D incorrectly counts repetition as evidence. Sound arguments require logical reasoning that avoids circularity and specific, verifiable evidence. Vague references to research without details fail to meet standards for sufficient, credible support.
During a class discussion, Jordan says: “We should ban all phones at school, including during lunch.” His reasons and evidence are: (1) “Everyone knows phones are distracting.” (2) “My cousin’s school banned phones and now nobody there ever gets distracted.” (3) “If we don’t ban phones, next students will stop talking in real life, then they won’t make friends, and eventually our whole community will fall apart.”
Which choice best identifies the main problem with Jordan’s reasoning and evidence?
Jordan’s argument is strong because he gives three different reasons, and having more reasons automatically makes an argument sound.
Jordan’s argument relies on weak support, including a single anecdote and a slippery-slope prediction, instead of specific, reliable evidence showing a ban would solve the problem.
Jordan’s argument is sound because his cousin’s experience proves what will happen at every school, so no other evidence is needed.
Jordan’s argument is weak only because he didn’t include exact dates, but his reasoning and evidence are otherwise fully sufficient.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Jordan's argument for banning phones relies on: bandwagon fallacy ('everyone knows'), single anecdote (cousin's school), and slippery slope (phones lead to community collapse). Choice A correctly identifies these weaknesses—the argument lacks specific, reliable evidence and uses logical fallacies instead of sound reasoning. Choice B wrongly equates quantity with quality; C overgeneralizes from one example; D misidentifies the core problem. Weak arguments often substitute fallacies and anecdotes for evidence. Sound arguments need logical reasoning connecting claims to evidence, avoiding bandwagon appeals, slippery slopes, and single examples presented as universal proof.
In a health class presentation, Serena claims: “Our school should add a 10-minute mindfulness break after second period.” Her reasons and evidence: (1) She cites a specific study from a university education department that tracked 6th–8th graders in two similar schools for one semester and found the mindfulness group reported 15% lower stress on a weekly survey and had 20% fewer office referrals for conflicts. (2) She notes the break would replace 10 minutes of homeroom announcements, which could be moved to the end of the day. (3) She includes one student quote: “I focus better after breathing exercises.”
Which choice best evaluates whether Serena’s evidence is sufficient and relevant?
The evidence is irrelevant because stress and office referrals are not connected to school success, so only test scores would count.
The evidence is insufficient because any study is automatically unreliable unless it includes every student in the country.
The evidence is sufficient mainly because one student said it helped, and personal quotes are stronger than research.
The evidence is sufficient and relevant because it includes a clearly described study with results tied to stress and behavior, plus a practical scheduling plan; the quote is supportive but not the main proof.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Serena provides specific university research (tracked students, measured outcomes: 15% lower stress, 20% fewer conflicts), practical scheduling solution, and supportive anecdote. Choice A correctly identifies this as sufficient and relevant—the study directly measures stress and behavior impacts with clear methodology, while the quote adds minor support without being primary evidence. Choice B sets impossible standards; C misunderstands relevance; D reverses evidence hierarchy. Strong health proposals cite specific studies with measurable outcomes, address implementation logistics, and may include testimonials as supplementary support. Serena's evidence meets standards through credible research with relevant metrics and practical planning.
In an environmental club presentation, Alina claims: “Our cafeteria should switch from disposable plastic forks to reusable metal forks.” Her reasons and evidence: (1) The school uses about 900 plastic forks per day; she cites cafeteria purchase records from the last semester. (2) She estimates this equals about 162,000 forks per school year (180 days), which would reduce trash volume. (3) She quotes the county waste department website stating that most small plastic utensils are not accepted in local recycling. (4) She presents a cost comparison: buying plastic forks costs about $0.03 each ($27/day), while a set of 1,000 stainless forks costs $1,200, and the dishwasher already runs after lunch.
Which choice best evaluates whether Alina’s evidence is sufficient and relevant to her claim?
The evidence is mostly irrelevant because cost and recycling rules have nothing to do with whether students will like the forks.
The evidence is insufficient because Alina does not include a story about a student who dropped a fork, which is required for environmental arguments.
The evidence is sufficient and relevant because it includes specific school usage data, local recycling information, and a cost comparison that directly relates to feasibility and impact.
The evidence is irrelevant because the claim is about plastic, and Alina mentions dishwashers and budgets instead of describing plastic’s chemical structure.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Alina's argument provides specific usage data (900 forks/day from cafeteria records), environmental impact (162,000 yearly, county recycling limitations), and cost analysis ($27/day vs. $1,200 one-time with existing dishwasher). Choice B correctly recognizes this evidence as sufficient and relevant—each piece directly supports feasibility and environmental benefits. Choice A wrongly dismisses practical considerations; C invents irrelevant requirements; D misunderstands relevance. Strong environmental arguments combine specific data about current usage, verified information from authorities (county waste department), and practical implementation details. Alina's evidence directly addresses environmental impact, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness with concrete numbers and sources.
At a student council meeting, Maya argues: “Our school should start 30 minutes later.” She gives these reasons and evidence: (1) Teens need more sleep; she cites the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending middle and high schools start at 8:30 a.m. or later. (2) When a nearby district moved its start time from 7:45 to 8:30, it reported a 12% drop in tardies and a 9% drop in first-period failing grades the next year (she names the district and says the data was posted in the district’s annual report). (3) She suggests adjusting bus routes by shifting elementary routes earlier and keeping after-school activities the same, noting the district already staggers buses by 20 minutes.
Which choice best evaluates Maya’s argument for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence?
The argument is unsound because it focuses on attendance and grades instead of school spirit, which is the only valid reason to change a start time.
The argument is sound and supported: her reasons connect to the claim, and she uses relevant evidence from a credible medical group and a specific district report to back up likely benefits.
The argument is mostly opinion because Maya doesn’t describe her personal morning routine, so the reasoning is weak and the evidence is irrelevant.
The argument is flawed because it assumes that if school starts later, students will definitely get more sleep, so the evidence cannot be used at all.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Maya's argument claims schools should start 30 minutes later, supported by: teen sleep needs (AAP recommendation), attendance/grade improvements (specific district data), and practical implementation (bus route adjustment). Choice B correctly identifies this as sound—her reasoning logically connects to the claim, and she provides relevant, credible evidence from a medical authority and specific district reports with measurable outcomes. Choice A incorrectly calls it opinion; C wrongly assumes the argument is flawed; D misrepresents the focus. Strong arguments use logical reasoning with sufficient, relevant evidence from credible sources, as Maya demonstrates through medical recommendations and district data supporting her feasible proposal.
During a discussion about dress codes, a student speaker argues: “We should remove the dress code entirely.” Reasons and evidence: (1) “Dress codes are unfair,” because “they’re unfair.” (2) “Other schools don’t have dress codes, so we shouldn’t either.” (3) The speaker adds, “If you disagree, you’re just trying to control people,” but gives no examples of current rules or how they are enforced.
Which choice best identifies the speaker’s reasoning problem?
The speaker’s reasoning is strong because calling the policy unfair automatically proves it is unfair.
The speaker’s reasoning is flawed due to circular reasoning, bandwagon thinking, and an ad hominem attack instead of evidence about the actual dress code’s effects.
The speaker’s reasoning is flawed only because they did not include statistics, but the personal attack makes the argument more convincing.
The speaker uses sound deductive reasoning because copying other schools is always the best way to make policy.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). The speaker uses circular reasoning ('unfair because unfair'), bandwagon fallacy ('other schools don't'), and ad hominem attack ('you're controlling') without evidence about actual dress code effects. Choice B correctly identifies these multiple reasoning flaws—circular logic provides no support, bandwagon appeals lack logical connection, and personal attacks substitute for evidence. Choice A wrongly validates bandwagon; C accepts circular reasoning; D misunderstands ad hominem's role. Sound policy arguments require logical reasoning explaining why changes benefit students, specific examples of current problems, and evidence of outcomes. Avoiding fallacies and personal attacks while providing concrete examples strengthens arguments about school policies.
Two students give short arguments about cafeteria food:
Student 1: “We should add a vegetarian main option every day.” Reasons/evidence: (a) The cafeteria manager reports that about 14% of students select the vegetarian option on days it is offered. (b) A survey of 300 students found 38% would choose a vegetarian main at least once a week if available daily. (c) The student suggests rotating three recipes already used on Meatless Monday to avoid extra training.
Student 2: “We should add a vegetarian main option every day because vegetables are healthy.” Evidence: “My friend started eating salads and now never gets sick.”
Which choice best compares the strength of the two arguments?
Student 2’s argument is stronger because it makes a broader claim, and broader claims need less evidence.
Student 1’s argument is stronger because it uses multiple relevant pieces of evidence (records and survey results) and addresses feasibility, while Student 2 relies on a single anecdote.
Both arguments are equally strong because they both mention health, so evidence quality does not matter.
Student 2’s argument is stronger because a personal example is more reliable than survey data and cafeteria records.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Student 1 provides cafeteria usage data (14% current selection), survey results (38% would choose), and implementation plan (rotate existing recipes), while Student 2 offers only general claim and single anecdote. Choice B correctly identifies Student 1's argument as stronger—multiple relevant evidence pieces address demand and feasibility, versus Student 2's unsupported generalization and anecdote. Choice A wrongly prioritizes anecdotes; C ignores evidence quality; D misunderstands claim-evidence relationship. Strong arguments use multiple types of relevant evidence: usage data shows current demand, surveys predict future behavior, and practical details demonstrate feasibility. Single anecdotes cannot support school-wide policy changes requiring resource allocation.
A student named Devon argues in a debate: “Our school should require every student to complete 40 hours of community service to graduate.” His reasons and evidence: (1) “Colleges like service,” so “it will help everyone get into college.” (2) “I did 10 hours last summer and it felt good.” (3) “If we don’t require service, students will become selfish adults.”
Which choice best identifies the flaw in Devon’s argument?
Devon’s argument is flawed only because he didn’t define the word “selfish,” but his evidence is otherwise specific and reliable.
Devon’s argument is sound because colleges always accept every student who completes service, so the conclusion is guaranteed.
Devon’s argument is flawed because it relies on a personal anecdote and an unsupported slippery-slope claim, and it assumes the requirement will benefit all students without evidence.
Devon provides strong, sufficient evidence because personal feelings are the best proof for what a whole school should do.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Devon's argument relies on unsupported generalization ('colleges like service' without evidence), personal anecdote (10 hours feeling good), and slippery slope fallacy (no service leads to selfish adults). Choice B correctly identifies these flaws—personal experience doesn't prove universal benefit, and the slippery slope lacks logical connection. Choice A wrongly validates anecdotal evidence; C makes false claims; D misidentifies the problem. Sound policy arguments need evidence showing broad impact, not individual experiences. Avoiding slippery slope reasoning and providing data about actual outcomes (college acceptance rates, student benefits) would strengthen arguments for school-wide requirements.
A student argues: “Our dress code should be stricter.” Reason: “Students who wear hoodies are trying to hide something, so hoodies cause bad behavior.” Evidence: “I once saw a student in a hoodie get sent to the office.” Which choice best identifies the flaw in the reasoning?
The reasoning is sound because one example is enough to prove what causes behavior at a whole school.
The reasoning is strong because it includes a clear statistic from a reliable study about hoodies and discipline.
There is no flaw; clothing choices always directly reveal a person’s intentions.
The reasoning shows a faulty cause-and-effect claim and a hasty generalization based on a single example.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires identifying faulty cause-and-effect claims and hasty generalizations. The student's argument claims dress codes should be stricter because "students who wear hoodies are trying to hide something, so hoodies cause bad behavior," supported only by "I once saw a student in a hoodie get sent to the office." Choice A correctly identifies two flaws: faulty cause-and-effect (assuming hoodies cause bad behavior without evidence) and hasty generalization (concluding from one example that all hoodie-wearers misbehave). Choice B fails because one example cannot prove causation for a whole school; Choice C fails because no statistics or studies are mentioned; Choice D fails because clothing choices don't automatically reveal intentions. Sound reasoning requires evidence of actual causation, not just correlation or coincidence, and sufficient examples to support general claims. Students should recognize that seeing two things together (hoodie + office visit) doesn't prove one caused the other, and that broad claims about groups need more than isolated observations.
At a student council meeting, Maya argues: “Our school should start 30 minutes later next year.” She gives these reasons and evidence: (1) Teens need more sleep; she cites the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. (2) She says a nearby district moved its start time from 7:45 to 8:30 and reported fewer first-period tardies and better attendance the next semester. (3) She adds that later start times can reduce car crashes involving teen drivers; she references a study summary from the CDC about reduced crash rates after start-time delays. Based on Maya’s reasoning and evidence, which evaluation is most accurate?
Maya’s argument is unsound because a recommendation from experts can never be used as evidence for a school policy decision.
Maya’s argument is flawed because she uses an ad hominem attack against people who like early start times instead of explaining her reasons.
Maya’s argument is weak because her claim is only based on opinions, and she gives no sources or real examples.
Maya’s argument is strong because her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she supports them with relevant evidence from credible organizations and a real-world example.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (is the logic sound? Do reasons support the claim? Are connections clear? No fallacies like bandwagon, slippery slope, or circular reasoning?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports the claim? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types include facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Maya's argument claims schools should start 30 minutes later, supported by three reasons: teens need more sleep (backed by American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation), a nearby district saw improved attendance after changing start times (real-world example), and later starts reduce teen car crashes (CDC study summary). Choice B correctly identifies Maya's argument as strong because her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she supports them with relevant evidence from credible organizations and a real-world example—the AAP recommendation provides expert testimony, the nearby district offers a comparable example, and the CDC study adds research-based evidence. Choice A fails because Maya does provide sources and real examples, not just opinions; Choice C fails because Maya doesn't attack anyone personally; Choice D fails because expert recommendations are valid evidence for policy decisions. To evaluate arguments effectively, students should identify the claim, examine how reasons support it, and assess whether evidence is sufficient (enough support), relevant (directly connected), and credible (from reliable sources).