Trace and Evaluate Arguments
Help Questions
7th Grade Reading › Trace and Evaluate Arguments
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student blogger argues, “The library should stay open until 6 p.m. every weekday.” The blogger’s main reason is that more open hours would help students finish homework in a quiet place. As evidence, the blogger writes, “I often need a calm place to work, and last Tuesday I couldn’t concentrate at home.” The blogger also adds that “lots of students probably feel the same,” but does not provide attendance numbers, surveys, or information about staffing costs.
Which flaw best describes the evidence used to support the claim?
The blogger uses hasty generalization: one personal experience is not enough evidence to conclude the library should extend hours for all weekdays.
The blogger uses false cause: staying open later would definitely cause students to stop having homework.
There is no flaw because any personal story automatically proves a policy should change.
The blogger uses ad hominem: the blogger attacks the librarian’s character.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Hasty generalization occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence, typically using one or a few examples to make claims about entire groups or policies. The blogger uses only one personal experience (needing a quiet place last Tuesday) to argue for a policy change affecting all weekdays and all students, without any broader data about student needs, usage patterns, or costs. Option A correctly identifies this as hasty generalization because one personal experience cannot support a policy recommendation for the entire library schedule. Options B and C describe different fallacies that don't apply here, while Option D incorrectly suggests personal stories automatically prove policy changes. When evaluating evidence for policy arguments, look for data that represents the affected population rather than isolated personal experiences. Strong policy arguments need evidence like surveys, attendance data, or pilot program results that show broader patterns beyond individual anecdotes.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student argues that the school library should stay open one hour later after school. The claim is that longer hours would increase academic support and make the school more fair. First, she reasons that many students need a quiet place to work, especially if their homes are crowded or noisy. As evidence, she cites a school survey in which 48% of students said they often cannot find a quiet study space at home. Second, she argues that later hours would improve access to help and resources. She notes that the library’s tutoring table is currently full most days, and library sign-in data shows an average of 60 students try to use the library in the last 20 minutes before it closes. Finally, she claims fairness improves because bus riders and students in after-school clubs often can’t reach the library before it closes; she points to club schedules showing practices end 10 minutes after the library closes on three days each week.
Which option best evaluates whether the reasons and evidence logically support the claim?
They support the claim: the evidence about quiet study space, crowded closing-time usage, and club schedules is relevant and collectively makes a reasonable case for later library hours.
They do not support the claim because fairness can never be measured with surveys or schedules.
They support the claim only if every student agrees the library is their favorite place.
They do not support the claim because the argument includes numbers, and numbers are biased.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. This argument demonstrates effective support because each piece of evidence directly connects to the claimed benefits of extended library hours: the survey data (48% lacking quiet study space) supports the academic need, the usage statistics (60 students in final 20 minutes) shows demand exceeds current capacity, and the schedule conflicts prove the fairness issue for certain student groups. Option B correctly recognizes how this evidence collectively builds a reasonable case, while option A wrongly claims fairness cannot be measured, option C sets an impossible standard of unanimous agreement, and option D bizarrely claims all numbers are biased. Well-constructed arguments use multiple types of relevant evidence—surveys for needs assessment, usage data for demand, and schedules for access issues—to build a comprehensive case that addresses different aspects of the claim.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A seventh grader argues, “Homework should be banned for all middle school students.” As support, he says his friend Maya often stays up late finishing assignments and feels stressed the next day. He also mentions that he personally learns better by listening in class than by doing worksheets at home. The student does not include any research about how homework affects learning, does not compare different types of homework (reading vs. projects vs. practice problems), and does not address whether limited homework might help some students review skills.
Is the evidence in the passage sufficient to support the broad claim that homework should be banned for all middle school students?
Yes; personal opinions are stronger than research because they are more honest.
No; the claim is automatically false because homework has existed for a long time.
Yes; one student’s experience is enough to prove what is best for all students.
No; the argument relies on a small number of anecdotes and does not provide broader data or consider other cases, so it is insufficient for such a general claim.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Sufficient evidence means having enough quality information to reasonably support a claim, especially when making broad generalizations about large groups. The student's argument relies on only two anecdotes (his friend Maya and his own experience) to support a sweeping claim about all middle school students, which is insufficient for such a broad policy recommendation. Option C correctly identifies this weakness—personal stories alone cannot prove what's best for thousands of diverse students with different learning styles, home situations, and academic needs. Options A and B incorrectly suggest anecdotes are sufficient or superior to research, while option D commits the fallacy that tradition alone determines truth. When evaluating sufficiency, consider whether the evidence represents the full scope of the claim—broad claims require broad evidence, not just isolated examples.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student proposes that the school start classes 30 minutes later. The claim is that a later start would improve learning and safety. As a reason, the student says many adolescents’ bodies naturally fall asleep later and need more morning sleep to be alert. For evidence, she cites a pediatric sleep foundation statement that teens generally need 8–10 hours of sleep and a study from two districts showing that after start times moved later, average first-period tardies dropped by 25% and students reported feeling more awake. She also argues that safety would improve because sleepy driving decreases. She points to a county report showing that car crashes involving teen drivers between 7:00–8:00 a.m. fell by 14% the year after one high school shifted to a later start.
Which evaluation best describes the reasoning and evidence in the passage?
The reasoning is sound, but the evidence is irrelevant because it does not mention grades directly.
The reasoning is unsound because any study about sleep is automatically an appeal to inappropriate authority.
The reasoning is sound: the reasons connect logically to the claim, and the evidence is relevant and fairly sufficient because it includes expert guidance and multiple data points tied to alertness and safety.
The reasoning is unsound because the crash data is irrelevant to safety; only opinions can measure safety.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. This argument demonstrates strong reasoning because each component works together logically: the claim about improving learning and safety is supported by reasons grounded in adolescent biology and behavior, which are then backed by relevant evidence from credible sources. The pediatric foundation provides expert guidance on teen sleep needs, the district data shows measurable improvements in tardiness and alertness, and the crash statistics directly support the safety claim with concrete numbers. Option A correctly recognizes this sound structure, while option B incorrectly claims any sleep study is inappropriate authority (when pediatric experts are appropriate for teen health), option C wrongly states crash data is irrelevant to safety, and option D misses that the evidence about alertness and safety directly supports learning even without mentioning grades. Strong arguments align claims, reasons, and evidence in a logical chain where each piece supports the next.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student blogger claims, “If our school allows hats in class, discipline will collapse.” He reasons that once hats are allowed, students will start wearing sunglasses, then they will refuse to follow dress rules, and soon teachers won’t be able to enforce any classroom expectations at all. As evidence, he says he saw one student wear a hood in the hallway last week and that “everyone knows rules always get worse when you relax them.” He does not provide examples of schools that allow hats while maintaining discipline, and he does not explain why hats would necessarily lead to refusing other rules.
What logical fallacy best describes the blogger’s reasoning?
False dilemma: it claims there are only two options, hats or no discipline, while clearly listing several options.
Appeal to inappropriate authority: it relies on a scientist’s opinion about hats.
Slippery slope: it claims a small change (allowing hats) will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes without sufficient evidence.
Ad hominem: it attacks teachers instead of the argument.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone argues that one small change will inevitably lead to a chain of increasingly extreme consequences without providing evidence for why each step must follow. The blogger claims allowing hats will lead to sunglasses, then to refusing all dress rules, then to complete discipline collapse, but provides no logical connection or evidence for why each step would necessarily follow the previous one. Option A correctly identifies this fallacy, while option B (ad hominem) would require attacking people rather than ideas, option C (false dilemma) would need presenting only two choices when more exist, and option D (inappropriate authority) would involve citing unqualified sources. Real-world evidence shows many schools allow certain clothing items while maintaining discipline, contradicting the inevitable slide the blogger predicts. When evaluating arguments, watch for claims that small changes automatically trigger extreme consequences without explaining the logical connections.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A community group argues that the town should build more bike lanes. Their claim is that bike lanes will reduce traffic and improve public health. As reasons, they say safer biking encourages more people to ride instead of drive, and regular biking increases daily exercise. For evidence, they cite a transportation department report from a nearby city where protected bike lanes were added on three major roads and car traffic on those roads decreased by 9% during rush hour. They also cite a public health survey showing that residents who biked to school or work at least three days a week were more likely to meet weekly exercise recommendations. The speaker then adds, “Also, our town’s first bicycle was displayed in a museum in 1912, which proves biking is part of our history.”
Which statement is the most irrelevant evidence for the group’s claim?
The nearby city’s report that protected bike lanes were followed by a 9% decrease in rush-hour traffic on those roads.
The reason that safer biking can encourage people to ride instead of drive.
The health survey showing frequent bike commuters are more likely to meet weekly exercise recommendations.
The statement that the town’s first bicycle was displayed in a museum in 1912.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Relevant evidence must directly support the specific claim being made—in this case, that bike lanes will reduce traffic and improve public health. The historical fact about a bicycle in a museum in 1912 (option C) has no connection to modern traffic reduction or health benefits; it's merely a historical curiosity that doesn't prove anything about current transportation or health impacts. Options A and B provide directly relevant evidence: traffic data showing measurable reduction and health survey data about exercise benefits. Option D is a reason explaining the mechanism, not evidence itself. When identifying irrelevant evidence, look for information that might be interesting or true but doesn't actually help prove the specific claim—historical trivia rarely supports claims about current policy benefits.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A student council member argues, “Video games cause poor grades.” She explains that at her school, students who report playing video games more than two hours on school nights have an average GPA of 2.6, while students who play less than one hour have an average GPA of 3.2. Because the lower-GPA group plays more games, she concludes that gaming is the reason their grades are worse. She adds that if the school limits gaming by assigning more homework, grades will automatically improve. She does not discuss other possible differences between the groups, such as how much time they spend studying, whether they have after-school jobs, or whether some students play games because they are already struggling and want a break.
How sound is the reasoning in this argument?
Unsound, because it treats correlation as causation and ignores other plausible explanations (like study habits, jobs, or gaming as an escape).
Sound, because any difference between two groups proves that the factor that differs (gaming) caused the outcome (grades).
Unsound, because it uses irrelevant evidence; GPA is unrelated to grades.
Mostly sound, because the GPA numbers are specific and therefore guarantee a cause-and-effect relationship.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Sound reasoning means the logic flows correctly from evidence to conclusion without logical fallacies, while unsound reasoning contains errors in logic even if the facts are accurate. The student's argument commits the correlation-causation fallacy: just because two things occur together (gaming and lower grades) doesn't mean one causes the other. The argument ignores alternative explanations like students with jobs having less study time, struggling students seeking escape through gaming, or different study habits between groups. Option C correctly identifies this flaw, while option A incorrectly claims any difference proves causation, option B wrongly suggests specific numbers guarantee cause-and-effect, and option D misunderstands that GPA directly relates to grades. When evaluating arguments, always ask whether the evidence truly proves the claimed cause or if other explanations exist.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A classmate argues, “Energy drinks should be banned for students under 16.” He says energy drinks are dangerous because they contain caffeine. As evidence, he mentions that one popular brand has 200 milligrams of caffeine per can, and he adds that his cousin felt shaky after drinking one before basketball practice. He concludes that because caffeine is a stimulant and can make people feel jittery, banning energy drinks will prevent health problems for all students. He does not compare energy drinks to other caffeinated products students may already consume (like coffee or soda), and he does not provide data on how often serious health effects occur for teens.
Which choice best assesses whether the evidence is sufficient to support the claim?
Sufficient, because any amount of caffeine is always medically dangerous for teenagers.
Insufficient, because the argument relies mainly on a single anecdote and one product example without broader research on teen health outcomes or comparisons to other caffeine sources.
Insufficient, because caffeine content numbers are irrelevant to health arguments.
Sufficient, because one example of feeling shaky proves energy drinks are unsafe for all students under 16.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Evaluating evidence sufficiency requires considering whether the provided support adequately covers the scope and complexity of the claim being made. This argument makes a broad health and safety claim about all students under 16 but provides minimal evidence: one caffeine amount from one brand and a single anecdote about feeling shaky. Option B correctly identifies these weaknesses—the argument lacks comprehensive research on teen health outcomes, doesn't compare energy drinks to other caffeine sources teens consume, and doesn't establish how often serious problems occur. Option A wrongly suggests one example proves universal danger, option C makes an unsupported absolute claim about caffeine, and option D incorrectly states caffeine content is irrelevant to health discussions. When making policy recommendations affecting many people, evidence must be proportionally comprehensive, not just isolated examples or single data points.
Read the passage and answer the question.
In an editorial, a resident claims the town should expand its recycling program because recycling benefits the environment. The writer gives several facts: recycling reduces the amount of trash sent to landfills, and the state environmental agency reports that recycling aluminum saves up to 95% of the energy needed to make new aluminum from raw ore. The writer also mentions that many recycling bins are blue and that the town first started curbside recycling in the 1970s. Finally, the writer notes that when nearby towns increased recycling pickup from every other week to weekly, landfill tonnage dropped by about 12% over six months.
Which piece of evidence is least relevant to supporting the claim that recycling benefits the environment?
The fact that many recycling bins are blue.
The state agency’s report that recycling aluminum saves up to 95% of the energy compared with making new aluminum from raw ore.
The statement that recycling reduces the amount of trash sent to landfills.
The nearby towns’ experience that weekly pickup was followed by a 12% drop in landfill tonnage over six months.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Relevant evidence directly connects to and supports the claim being made, while irrelevant evidence may be true but doesn't help prove the argument. The claim here is that recycling benefits the environment, so relevant evidence must show environmental impacts like energy savings, reduced landfill use, or conservation of resources. Option B (the color of recycling bins) is completely irrelevant because bin color has no connection to environmental benefits—it's merely a descriptive detail. Options A, C, and D all provide relevant evidence: energy savings show resource conservation, landfill reduction shows waste management benefits, and the tonnage data provides measurable environmental impact. When evaluating evidence relevance, ask yourself: "Does this fact help prove the specific claim being made?" If not, it's irrelevant regardless of whether it's true.
Read the passage and answer the question.
A group of middle school students is asking the principal to extend lunch to 40 minutes. Their claim is that a longer lunch would improve students’ health and learning. First, they argue that many students need more time to eat a full meal instead of rushing. They cite the American School Nutrition Association’s guideline that students should have at least 30 minutes of “seat time” to eat after getting their food, and they point out that long cafeteria lines often cut actual eating time to 15–20 minutes. Second, they say lunch is one of the only daily chances to talk with friends, which can lower stress. They reference a university study of 12 schools showing that when lunch increased by 10 minutes, reported lunchtime stress dropped by about 20%. Finally, they claim students focus better afterward. In their district’s pilot at one school, teachers reported fewer afternoon behavior referrals, and average scores on short weekly quizzes rose from 78% to 83% over nine weeks.
Which option best traces the argument’s structure (claim, reasons, and evidence)?
Claim: Schools should extend lunch to 40 minutes; Reasons: more time to eat supports nutrition, social time reduces stress, and longer lunch improves afternoon focus; Evidence: nutrition guideline about 30 minutes of seat time, study showing ~20% stress drop with longer lunch, and pilot data showing fewer referrals and quiz scores rising from 78% to 83%.
Claim: Weekly quizzes should be shorter; Reasons: students are stressed; Evidence: quiz scores rose from 78% to 83%.
Claim: Students should talk more at lunch; Reasons: it is fun and social; Evidence: teachers reported fewer referrals.
Claim: Cafeteria lines are too long; Reasons: students dislike waiting; Evidence: a university study about stress.
Explanation
This question tests tracing argument structure (identifying claim, reasons, evidence) in informational texts and evaluating whether reasoning is sound (logical without fallacies) and evidence is relevant (supports claims directly) and sufficient (adequate quality and quantity) to support claims. Tracing an argument means identifying its three key components: the main claim (what the author wants you to believe), the reasons (why you should believe it), and the evidence (facts, data, or examples that support the reasons). In this passage, option C correctly identifies all three components: the claim is that schools should extend lunch to 40 minutes, the three reasons explain how this helps (nutrition, stress reduction, and focus), and the evidence includes specific data supporting each reason (nutrition guidelines, stress study results, and pilot program data). Option A incorrectly identifies the claim and provides vague reasons with mismatched evidence. Options B and D present unrelated claims that don't match the passage. When tracing arguments, look for the main assertion first, then find the supporting reasons, and finally identify the specific facts or data backing up those reasons.