7th Grade Reading Quiz: Evaluate Speakers Argument And Evidence

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Evaluate Speakers Argument And Evidence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for 7th Grade Reading.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. Add specific, relevant evidence such as how many plastic bottles the school sells or throws away weekly, costs over time, and examples from comparable schools with results. (correct answer)
2. Use stronger emotional language about how terrible plastic is, without adding any numbers that might confuse listeners.
3. Focus on insulting people who buy bottled water so the audience feels pressured to agree.
4. Remove the reasons and just repeat the claim several times so it sounds more confident.

Explanation: This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires identifying weaknesses in evidence (vague, anecdotal, unsupported) and knowing how to strengthen them with specific, relevant data. Priya's argument for water bottle filling stations has good reasons (reduce waste, save money, precedent) but weak evidence: 'plastic bottles are bad' is vague opinion, 'my friend bought three bottles' is one anecdote, and 'saw a video' lacks specifics. Answer A correctly identifies the best revision: add specific, relevant evidence such as quantifiable data (how many bottles the school uses/discards weekly shows the waste problem's scope), cost analysis (comparing bottle purchases to filling station costs over time), and detailed examples from comparable schools with measurable results (reduced waste percentages, cost savings). Answer B is wrong—emotional language without data doesn't strengthen arguments; C is wrong—insulting people is ad hominem fallacy, not evidence; D is wrong—removing reasons and repeating claims weakens arguments. Strong arguments need specific, measurable evidence: instead of 'plastic is bad,' show '500 bottles weekly in our trash'; instead of 'friend bought bottles,' show 'survey found students spend average $15/month on water'; instead of 'saw a video,' cite 'Jefferson Middle reduced plastic waste 40% after installing stations per their sustainability report.'

Question 2

1. The argument is weak because it leans on emotional appeals about student stress and offers little evidence that actually connects to attendance patterns or measurable student needs.
2. The argument is strong because the reasons connect to the claim and the evidence is relevant and varied, drawing on survey data, expert opinion, and a comparable district example. (correct answer)
3. The argument is weak because all three sources point to the same single idea, so the evidence repeats one point rather than supporting different parts of the claim.
4. The argument is weak because the district example is the only real support, and one nearby district's results cannot reasonably apply to the speaker's district here.

Explanation: The best evaluation calls this argument strong because each reason ties directly to the claim and the evidence comes from varied, credible sources that address different parts of the argument. The survey data shows a real problem (rising anxiety), the pediatrician's statement offers expert support that breaks help students, and the nearby district's result shows the policy works in practice. Together they form relevant, sufficient support. The choice saying the argument leans on emotional appeals is wrong because the speaker relies on a survey and expert opinion, not feelings. The choice claiming all three sources make the same point is wrong because each source addresses a different piece of the argument—the problem, the solution, and real-world results—so the evidence is varied, not repetitive. The choice claiming a nearby district's results cannot apply overstates the issue: a comparable district is a reasonable example, and it is not the only support the speaker offers. Only one option correctly weighs both the reasoning and the range of evidence.

Question 3

1. The argument uses a slippery slope and an ad hominem attack instead of focusing on evidence about the festival itself. (correct answer)
2. The argument is flawed mainly because it predicts an unsafe town but never explains exactly how loud a festival must be to count as too loud.
3. The argument is flawed mainly because criticizing the committee president distracts from the stronger point that all loud events are dangerous.
4. The argument is flawed mainly because it lists three reasons when a single, clearly stated reason would have been far more convincing.

Explanation: The best answer names both real problems in the reasoning. The prediction that the festival will grow into an all-night party and make the town unsafe is a slippery slope—it assumes a chain of extreme events without any proof. Saying the committee president 'never listens' is an ad hominem attack: it criticizes a person instead of giving evidence about the festival. Neither move focuses on the festival itself. The choice about not defining exactly how loud the festival is misses the point—the main flaws are the unsupported chain of events and the personal attack, not a missing measurement. The choice that treats 'all loud events are dangerous' as a stronger point is wrong because that claim is itself an unsupported overgeneralization, not a solid argument being distracted from. The choice about using three reasons instead of one is wrong because the problem is the quality of the reasoning, not the number of reasons—more reasons can strengthen an argument when they are sound.

Question 4

1. The argument is strong because it appeals to protecting victims, and stirring up concern for students is enough on its own to prove the claim is true.
2. The argument is weak because it relies on an unsupported story and includes an unfair personal attack instead of addressing counterarguments. (correct answer)
3. The argument is strong because a real school reportedly saw results, and the speaker’s certainty is a good enough reason to trust the example he gives.
4. The argument is weak because the example comes from a different state, and evidence only counts when it describes events at your own school.

Explanation: The best answer points out two real problems: the speaker’s only evidence is a vague story about “a famous school” with no name or report to check, and instead of answering people who disagree, he attacks them by saying they don’t care about victims. Both of these weaken his case. The choice saying the argument is strong because it stirs concern for students is wrong—making people feel worried does not prove that cameras actually prevent bullying. The choice that trusts the example because the speaker sounds certain is also wrong—confidence is not proof, and an unnamed, unverifiable school is not solid evidence. The last choice correctly calls the argument weak but for a made-up reason: evidence from another state can still count. The real flaw is that the story cannot be checked, not simply that it happened somewhere else.

Question 5

1. The argument is strong because the reasons connect to the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and drawn from credible sources. (correct answer)
2. The argument is weak because the survey data is anonymous, and anonymous responses cannot count as evidence for a school decision like this one.
3. The argument is weak because comparing the two ratios only shows a difference and does not by itself prove that adding a counselor would help students.
4. The argument is strong because the absenteeism study reports a two-year result, and longer studies are automatically more reliable than the other evidence given.

Explanation: The best answer says the argument is strong because each reason clearly supports the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and credible. The three reasons—student stress, an understaffed ratio compared to the state average, and a documented drop in absenteeism—all point toward the need for more counseling, and the numbers, comparison, and named study back them up. The choice about anonymous survey data is wrong: a well-run anonymous climate survey is a legitimate way to gather honest information, so being anonymous does not disqualify it as evidence. The choice claiming the ratio comparison proves nothing on its own is wrong because it dismisses a fair reason; the comparison combines with the study and survey to build support, and evidence works together rather than needing each piece to prove everything alone. The choice praising the two-year study is wrong because it judges strength by length of the study rather than by whether the reasons connect to the claim; a longer study is not 'automatically' more reliable, and that reasoning misses what actually makes an argument sound. Only one choice correctly weighs both the reasoning and the quality of the evidence.

Question 6

1. No; her argument is mostly emotional and doesn’t include any sources or specific evidence to support her reasons.
2. Yes; her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she uses relevant evidence from credible organizations and a concrete example. (correct answer)
3. No; her argument is flawed because she only uses expert opinions, which can never count as evidence in an argument.
4. Yes; any argument about school schedules is automatically sound because students are the ones affected by it.

Explanation: This question tests SL.6.3—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—from reliable sources? Types include facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Maya's argument claims schools should start 30 minutes later, supported by three clear reasons: teens need more sleep (backed by American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation), later starts improve attendance (supported by specific district data showing 12% drop in tardies), and safety improves (citing CDC on sleep and attention). Choice B is correct because Maya's reasons connect logically to her claim and she provides relevant evidence from credible organizations (AAP, CDC) plus a concrete example with specific data. Her argument fails the tests in other choices: it's not mostly emotional (A), expert opinions do count as evidence when from credible sources (C), and arguments aren't automatically sound just because they affect students (D). This teaches students to identify sound arguments: clear claim + logical reasons + sufficient relevant evidence from credible sources, avoiding both unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.

Question 7

1. The evidence is mostly insufficient because it relies on a couple of anecdotes and rumors rather than broader data or verified examples. (correct answer)
2. The evidence is sufficient because one cousin’s stressful experience fairly represents how most students across the school feel about volunteering.
3. The evidence is irrelevant because a student’s stress and other people’s feelings can never connect to whether a graduation rule is fair or effective.
4. The evidence is strong because Luis names a specific person and reports a firsthand rumor, which is enough proof to fully support removing the rule.

Explanation: The best answer says the evidence is mostly insufficient because it rests on a couple of anecdotes and rumors instead of broader data or verified examples. One cousin’s stress and an overheard rumor about fake signatures cannot show how the whole student body is affected or prove the policy fails. To convince a reasonable audience about a rule that affects everyone, Luis would need wider, checkable information. The choice claiming the evidence is sufficient is wrong because a single cousin’s feelings can’t fairly represent how most students feel—one story is not a reliable sample. The choice calling the evidence irrelevant is wrong because stress actually can relate to a fairness argument; the real problem is that the evidence is too thin, not that it’s off-topic. The choice calling the evidence strong is wrong because naming one person and repeating an unverified rumor is not solid proof; specific-sounding details still aren’t enough support. Strong evidence means enough relevant, credible proof—not isolated stories or hearsay.

Question 8

1. Devon’s argument is strong because his personal experience of feeling good after service is enough proof that the requirement will help every student in the school.
2. 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. (correct answer)
3. Devon’s argument is sound because the claim that colleges like service proves that requiring it will guarantee college acceptance for the whole school.
4. Devon’s argument is flawed only because he never defined the word “selfish,” but the rest of his reasons and evidence are specific, relevant, and reliable.

Explanation: The best answer points out three real problems: Devon uses one personal story (10 hours felt good), which cannot prove a rule is good for the whole school; he claims skipping service will turn students into selfish adults, a slippery-slope leap with no support; and he assumes everyone will benefit without any evidence. The choice calling his argument strong is wrong because one person's good feeling is not enough proof for a school-wide rule. The choice calling his argument sound is wrong because “colleges like service” does not guarantee that every student will be accepted—liking something is not a promise. The last choice is wrong because it names only a small issue (an undefined word) while treating his weak anecdote and slippery-slope reasoning as if they were solid; those are the actual flaws, so his evidence is not specific and reliable. Only one choice names the argument's genuine weaknesses in reasoning and evidence.

Question 9

1. 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. (correct answer)
2. Jordan’s argument holds up well because offering three separate reasons, along with a personal example from a relative, gives it enough support to be convincing on its own.
3. Jordan’s argument is reasonable because one school’s experience with banning phones is typical enough to predict the likely results at other schools without added evidence.
4. Jordan’s argument mainly falls short because he skipped exact dates and figures, though his reasons and the connections between them are otherwise logically sufficient.

Explanation: The best answer points out that Jordan leans on weak support rather than solid evidence. His three reasons are actually fallacies: "everyone knows" is a bandwagon appeal, his cousin's school is just one story, and the claim that phones will make the whole community fall apart is a slippery slope. A strong argument needs specific, reliable evidence that a ban would really fix the problem. The choice saying three reasons plus a relative's example is enough is wrong because more reasons don't help if each one is a fallacy—quantity isn't quality. The choice claiming one school's experience can predict every other school is wrong because a single anecdote can't be treated as typical proof for all schools. The choice saying his only problem is missing dates and figures is wrong because it ignores the real issue: his reasoning itself is flawed, so adding numbers wouldn't repair the faulty logic.

Question 10

1. The evidence is mostly irrelevant because cost and recycling rules have nothing to do with whether students will like the forks.
2. 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. (correct answer)
3. The evidence is insufficient because Alina does not include a story about a student who dropped a fork, which is required for environmental arguments.
4. 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.

Question 11

1. Her reasoning is sound because she connects the claim to clear reasons and uses specific numbers that directly support each reason. (correct answer)
2. Her reasoning is flawed because she never explains how students would refill 200 cups quickly during a busy event, so the alternatives she offers may not actually be practical.
3. Her reasoning is sound because she gathered a lot of numbers, and any argument that includes several statistics automatically counts as well supported.
4. Her reasoning is flawed because comparing $450 to$40 mixes a full-season total with a single weekend, so the cost savings she claims are not really proven.

Explanation: The best answer is the one saying her reasoning is sound because she links her claim to clear reasons and backs each with specific numbers. Her three reasons—waste (3,000 bottles), workable alternatives (8 coolers, 200 cups already owned), and cost ($450 for bottles versus$40 to rent a cooler)—each directly support the claim, which is what strong reasoning looks like. The choice claiming the alternatives fail because refilling cups would be too slow is wrong: Leah shows the equipment already exists, and nothing in her argument says refilling is impossible, so this invents a problem she didn't create. The choice saying the argument is sound just because it contains many numbers is wrong because piling up statistics isn't the point—the numbers must actually connect to the reasons, and hers do, but 'more numbers equals better' is a bad rule for judging any argument. The choice saying the cost comparison is unproven because it mixes a season total with one weekend does spot a real detail, but Leah's point is that reusable options are far cheaper overall; even weekly rentals stay well below $450, so the comparison still supports her. That choice uses a true observation to reach a false conclusion. Sound reasoning means each reason clearly backs the claim with relevant, specific evidence—which is exactly what Leah does.

Question 12

1. Student 2 is stronger because it connects hats to student respect, and a popular policy that students like is more likely to succeed than one backed only by numbers.
2. Student 1 is stronger because it uses relevant data and a concrete comparison, while Student 2 relies on weak predictions and anecdotes. (correct answer)
3. Both are equally strong because each student supports the same conclusion, and each one names a real school as evidence for allowing hats in class.
4. Student 1 is stronger because the 84% and 85% quiz scores prove that hats slightly lower learning, which is a fair trade for fewer referrals.

Explanation: Student 1 is the stronger arguer because the evidence directly answers the concern about learning: a class experiment showing nearly identical quiz averages (84% vs. 85%) means hats don’t hurt learning, and the 30% drop in referrals at Lincoln Middle is specific data from a comparable school. That is relevant, measurable evidence tied to the claim. The choice praising Student 2 for connecting hats to respect is wrong because that link is an unsupported prediction (a slippery slope), and popularity doesn’t prove a policy is good—it’s not real evidence. The choice calling them equally strong is wrong because their evidence isn’t equal: Student 1 uses data and a controlled comparison, while Student 2 offers only one anecdote (‘my cousin’s school’), so naming a school isn’t the same as proving a point. The last choice misreads the numbers: 84% versus 85% shows almost no difference, so it does NOT prove hats lower learning—that tiny gap actually supports Student 1’s claim that hats don’t affect learning. A strong argument uses evidence that fits the claim, which is exactly what Student 1 does.

Question 13

1. The reasoning wrongly assumes wearing hoodies causes bad behavior and treats one student's office visit as proof about all hoodie-wearers. (correct answer)
2. The reasoning is solid because seeing two things happen together, like a hoodie and an office visit, reliably shows that one of them caused the other.
3. The reasoning is weak mainly because the student never explains what specific rule the stricter dress code would add or remove for students.
4. The reasoning is fair because a single memorable example usually gives enough information to draw a trustworthy conclusion about a whole group.

Explanation: The best answer points out two real problems: the argument assumes hoodies cause bad behavior with no proof of an actual cause, and it treats one student's trip to the office as evidence about every hoodie-wearer. Both moves are exactly why the reasoning fails. The choice claiming that two things happening together reliably shows one caused the other is wrong—correlation isn't causation, and a hoodie appearing near an office visit doesn't prove it caused anything. The choice saying the main problem is not naming a specific rule misreads the task; the argument's real flaw is its logic, not a missing detail about the dress code. The choice claiming one memorable example is enough to judge a whole group describes a hasty generalization and treats a weakness as if it were a strength. To reason soundly, you need evidence of true cause and enough examples to support a broad claim—neither of which this argument has.

Question 14

1. Jordan relies on bandwagon thinking and a slippery slope, so he never backs up his claim with solid, relevant evidence. (correct answer)
2. Jordan builds a strong case, because a small group agreeing on something is enough proof that a school-wide policy will actually work.
3. Jordan builds a strong case, because his prediction about graduation rates is a reliable statistic that clearly links phones to failing.
4. Jordan builds a mostly solid case, because his only real weakness is that he should add more emotional language to persuade the class.

Explanation: Jordan's reasoning has two logical fallacies. First, he uses bandwagon thinking: just because everyone at his lunch table agrees does not make phones a proven problem—a small group's opinion isn't solid evidence. Second, he uses a slippery slope: he claims that not banning phones will 'definitely' lead to collapsing grades and no one graduating, an extreme chain of predictions with nothing to support it. The best answer names both problems and points out he offers no relevant evidence. The choice saying a small group's agreement proves a policy will work is wrong because popularity isn't proof that something is true or effective. The choice calling his graduation claim a reliable statistic is wrong because Jordan gives no numbers at all—he only makes a scary prediction. The choice saying his only weakness is needing more emotional language is wrong because more emotion wouldn't fix his broken logic; the real trouble is faulty reasoning and missing evidence. Strong arguments avoid these fallacies and support each claim with sufficient, relevant proof.

Question 15

1. She uses circular reasoning, repeating her claim as its own reason without showing why removing PE would improve learning or scores. (correct answer)
2. She uses solid evidence, showing how boredom in PE leads to lower test scores and proves why test-prep would work better for students.
3. She supports her point with reliable outside sources, quoting research that explains why PE fails to help students learn important material.
4. She reasons carefully, since her personal feelings about being bored give her enough evidence to fairly judge a schoolwide policy change.

Explanation: Look closely at how the speaker connects her ideas. She concludes the school should remove PE "because PE should be removed"—that just restates her claim instead of giving a real reason. This is circular reasoning: the argument uses itself as proof and never explains why replacing PE would actually improve learning or test scores. That is the clearest flaw, so the choice naming circular reasoning is correct. The option praising her "solid evidence" is wrong because she never links boredom to lower scores; she only says PE is boring and gives no data. The option about "reliable outside sources" is wrong because she quotes no research, expert, or study at all—her only support is her own opinion. The option calling her reasoning careful is wrong because personal feelings about being bored are not enough evidence to judge a policy that affects the whole school. A strong argument needs independent reasons that show WHY a claim is true, not just a repeat of WHAT is claimed.

Question 16

1. It uses a slippery slope, jumping from phone use at lunch to extreme outcomes without proving those steps will happen, and the evidence is too limited. (correct answer)
2. It is sound because phones can be distracting, and one clear example is enough to prove a school-wide problem.
3. It is flawed mainly because it attacks students’ character instead of discussing phones, so it is an ad hominem argument.
4. It is strong because it focuses on friendship, which is an important value, so the reasoning does not need additional support.

Explanation: This question tests SL.6.3—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 'everyone does it', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—are facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Jordan's argument claims phones should be banned during lunch because they're distracting, leading to students not talking, then having no friends, then the school community falling apart, supported only by seeing two quiet students on phones yesterday. The correct answer A identifies the slippery slope fallacy—Jordan jumps from phone use to extreme outcomes without proving each step will occur, and his evidence (one observation of two students) is insufficient to support a school-wide policy. Answer B incorrectly accepts one example as proof of a widespread problem; C misidentifies the fallacy as ad hominem when Jordan doesn't attack character; D wrongly suggests that important values don't need evidence. This exemplifies weak argumentation through slippery slope reasoning that assumes extreme consequences without proof, combined with insufficient anecdotal evidence that cannot support broad claims about all students.

Question 17

1. He offers only two options for students, treats disagreement as not caring about health, and assumes one school’s experience proves it will work here. (correct answer)
2. He builds his case on several research studies and lays out a clear plan for how daily PE would fit into this school’s daily schedule.
3. He supports his point with a real-life family example, which is enough to make his reasoning solid and free of any errors.
4. He backs his claim with enough statistics that the argument holds up well, even though he mixes in some emotional language too.

Explanation: The best answer points out three separate reasoning problems. Carlos sets up a false choice by claiming students are only athletes or lazy people, when many other kinds of students exist. He attacks people who disagree by saying they don’t care about health, instead of answering their actual concerns. Finally, he assumes that because his brother’s school has daily PE, it will automatically work here—one example can’t prove that. The choice about research studies and a clear scheduling plan is wrong because Carlos never mentions any studies and never explains how daily PE would fit the schedule. The choice saying a real-life example makes his reasoning solid and error-free is wrong because a single example does not cancel out the fallacies he uses. The choice about statistics is wrong because Carlos gives no statistics at all, so there is nothing to make the argument hold up. Only the first choice correctly names the flawed reasoning in what Carlos actually says.

Question 18

1. Ben’s is stronger because what he personally observes at his lunch table is a more reliable guide to student demand than survey numbers or outside guidelines.
2. Aisha’s is stronger because she uses relevant data and policy information, while Ben relies on limited anecdotes that don’t represent the whole school. (correct answer)
3. Ben’s is stronger because he states his claim directly, while Aisha piles on so many separate facts that her main point becomes harder to follow.
4. Both are equally strong because each speaker backs a clear claim with at least one piece of supporting evidence to justify the position they take.

Explanation: The argument for adding vegetarian dishes is stronger because it rests on evidence that actually represents the whole school: a cafeteria survey (38% of students), USDA policy allowing plant proteins, a concrete menu example, and another school’s real results. That mix of data and outside information is relevant and hard to dismiss. The choice that trusts one student’s lunch-table observations over survey numbers is wrong because a single table can’t reveal what hundreds of students want—that’s a hasty generalization. The choice claiming that listing several facts makes Aisha’s point harder to follow is wrong because well-chosen, relevant evidence strengthens an argument rather than clouding it. The choice calling both equally strong ignores a key idea: strength depends on whether evidence is sufficient and representative, and one anecdote is not equal to survey data, policy, and a comparison case. Only the answer naming Aisha’s use of relevant, representative evidence correctly evaluates both the reasoning and the evidence.

Question 19

1. It is convincing because it uses relevant statistics and explains how the design changes connect to the safety claim while responding to a counterargument. (correct answer)
2. It is convincing because it repeats the safety claim several times, and stating a point often enough is what makes an argument persuasive to listeners.
3. It is not convincing because the injury report and the travel survey come from different sources, so their statistics cannot support the same claim together.
4. It is not convincing because the argument would only be sound if every single student at the school actually planned to bike there each day.

Explanation: The best evaluation notices that the resident connects real evidence to her claim: an official injury report and a survey showing 28% of students live within biking distance both support the idea that a bike lane makes students safer, and she even answers a traffic concern with the lane-and-drop-off plan. That is sound reasoning backed by relevant evidence. The choice praising repetition is wrong because saying something many times does not prove it—persuasion comes from evidence, not repetition. The choice claiming two different sources can't work together is wrong because using varied credible sources actually strengthens an argument, not weakens it. The last choice sets an unfair standard: the argument never says every student will bike, only that biking becomes a realistic, safer option for many, so universal participation isn't required for it to hold up. Only the first evaluation judges the argument by how well its evidence and reasoning support the safety claim.

Question 20

1. The evidence is sufficient because the phrase “studies show” signals real research, and the friend’s example gives a concrete case that backs up the general point Sam is making.
2. The evidence is relevant but insufficient because it is vague about research and relies mainly on a single anecdote. (correct answer)
3. The evidence is relevant and mostly strong because the research reference connects to the anxiety claim, though Sam could add one more example to make his case fully complete.
4. The evidence is irrelevant because a personal story about one friend cannot support a claim about the whole school, and unnamed studies say nothing about scheduling.

Explanation: The best answer notices two problems at once: the research reference is too vague to check (no source, date, or findings), and the only concrete support is one friend’s experience. Because the evidence does connect to the anxiety claim, it is relevant—but relevant is not the same as enough, so it stays insufficient. The choice calling the evidence sufficient is wrong because the words “studies show” do not prove anything when no study is named, and a single example can’t stand in for solid support. The choice calling it “mostly strong” is tempting but wrong: it treats vague, unnamed research as a real connection and assumes one extra example would fix things, when the deeper problem is that neither piece of evidence is verifiable or representative. The choice calling the evidence irrelevant goes too far—Sam’s points actually do relate to anxiety and PE; the real issue is that they are weak and unsupported, not off-topic. Only the keyed answer names both flaws accurately: relevant in aim, but insufficient in substance.