All questions
Question 1
A group of middle school principals is considering a longer lunch period, from 25 minutes to 40 minutes. The superintendent argues that the change is worth it for three reasons. First, students need enough time to eat without rushing. A local dietitian told the board that most students need at least 30 minutes to get food, sit down, and finish a balanced meal. She said that rushing often causes kids to skip fruits and vegetables. Second, a longer lunch may improve mental health, because it gives students time to talk and relax. In one district that tried a 40-minute lunch, a survey reported a 20 percent drop in students who felt stressed during lunch. Third, students may learn better afterward. In that same district, afternoon quiz scores rose from 78 percent to 83 percent, while morning scores stayed about the same. Because a longer lunch improves nutrition, lowers stress, and supports focus, the superintendent concludes that schools should extend lunch to 40 minutes.
Which choice best traces the argument's structure, including its claim, reasons, and evidence?
- Claim: schools should keep lunch at 25 minutes. Reasons: students eat quickly, stress is already low, and quiz scores are fine. Evidence: the dietitian's 30-minute point, a 20 percent drop in lunch stress, and quiz scores rising from 78 to 83 percent.
- Claim: schools should make lunch 40 minutes long. Reasons: students need time to eat, social time lowers stress, and focus improves after lunch. Evidence: the dietitian's 30-minute point, a 20 percent drop in lunch stress, and quiz scores rising from 78 to 83 percent. (correct answer)
- Claim: schools should make lunch 40 minutes long. Reasons: students need time to eat, morning classes work best, and healthy food matters. Evidence: the morning quiz scores that stayed about the same and a survey about feeling stressed during lunch.
- Claim: schools should make lunch 40 minutes long. Reasons: students need time to eat, social time lowers stress, and food should be healthier. Evidence: the dietitian's point that rushing makes kids skip fruits and a 20 percent drop in lunch stress.
Explanation: To trace an argument, match its main claim to the reasons that support it and the evidence behind each reason. The passage's claim is that schools should extend lunch to 40 minutes. Its three reasons are eating time, lower stress, and better focus, and the evidence is the dietitian's 30-minute point, the 20 percent drop in lunch stress, and quiz scores rising from 78 to 83 percent. The choice matching all three parts is the correct one. The option claiming schools should keep lunch at 25 minutes reverses the passage's claim, so its reasons contradict the argument. The option that lists 'morning classes work best' and cites morning scores and the survey pairs reasons and evidence the passage never uses to build its case. The last option gets the claim right but replaces the focus reason with 'food should be healthier,' which the passage never argues, and drops the quiz-score evidence entirely. Only one choice tracks the claim, all three reasons, and all three pieces of evidence exactly as the passage presents them.
Question 2
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 a guideline from the American School Nutrition Association. It says students should have at least 30 minutes of seat time to eat after getting their food. They point out that long cafeteria lines often cut real eating time to 15 to 20 minutes. Second, they say lunch is one of the few daily chances to talk with friends, which can lower stress. They point to a university study of 12 schools. When lunch grew by 10 minutes, reported lunchtime stress dropped by about 20 percent. Finally, they claim students focus better afterward. In their district's pilot at one school, teachers reported fewer afternoon behavior referrals. Average scores on short weekly quizzes also rose from 78 percent to 83 percent over nine weeks.
Which choice best traces the argument's structure, its claim, reasons, and evidence?
- Claim: students should simply talk more during their lunch period. Reasons: talking is fun and social for everyone. Evidence: teachers reported somewhat fewer afternoon behavior referrals during the pilot.
- Claim: the school cafeteria lines have become much too long. Reasons: students really dislike having to stand and wait in them. Evidence: a university study about lunchtime stress levels.
- Claim: extend lunch to 40 minutes. Reasons: more eating time supports nutrition, social time lowers stress, and a longer lunch improves afternoon focus. Evidence: the 30-minute seat-time guideline, a study showing about 20 percent less stress, and pilot data on fewer referrals and higher quiz scores. (correct answer)
- Claim: the short weekly quizzes should be made even shorter. Reasons: students already feel far too stressed by them. Evidence: quiz scores rose from 78 percent to 83 percent over the pilot.
Explanation: Tracing structure means matching the real claim to its reasons and evidence. The claim is a 40-minute lunch, the three reasons are eating time, stress, and focus, and each has its own evidence: the seat-time guideline, the stress study, and the pilot data. Choice C lines all of these up correctly, so it is right. Choice A narrows it to talking, Choice B makes it about the lunch line, and Choice D makes it about shortening quizzes, each misstating the parts.
Question 3
An online comment says, "School uniforms are a bad idea, because the principal who backs them is mean." The commenter says the principal once gave a late student detention. The commenter also thinks the principal just enjoys being strict. The comment never asks whether uniforms affect bullying, safety, or distractions. It never answers the principal's own reasons for the rule. Those reasons are cutting down on teasing about clothes. They also include making the dress code easier to follow. So the commenter says the rule must be wrong, only because the principal is mean.
What logical fallacy best describes the commenter's reasoning?
- Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of addressing the policy and its actual reasons. (correct answer)
- False dilemma: assuming the whole uniform question has only two possible sides to consider.
- Hasty generalization: drawing a broad conclusion from just one small example or case.
- Appeal to authority: treating a claim as true only because a strict principal supports it.
Explanation: The commenter never engages the real reasons for the uniform rule—cutting down on teasing and making the dress code easier to follow. Instead, the commenter calls the principal mean and concludes the rule must be wrong. Attacking the person rather than the argument is exactly what the correct choice names. Saying the uniform question has only two possible sides doesn't fit, because the comment never limits the issue to a forced either/or choice. Drawing a broad conclusion from one small example doesn't fit either; the commenter isn't generalizing from a single case, but judging the policy by the person behind it. Claiming the rule is true or false just because of who supports it is closer, but the appeal-to-authority option treats the principal's backing as proof—while the commenter actually does the opposite, treating the principal's supposed meanness as the reason the rule fails. That is still a personal attack, not a fallacy about the answer's real content.
Question 4
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. They also say regular biking increases daily exercise. For evidence, they cite a transportation department report from a nearby city. There, protected bike lanes were added on three major roads, and car traffic on those roads dropped by 9 percent during rush hour. They also cite a public health survey. It showed that residents who biked to school or work at least three days a week were more likely to meet weekly exercise goals. They also mention that a recent poll found most residents said they would bike more if lanes felt safer. 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 transportation report showing that protected bike lanes were followed by a 9 percent drop in rush-hour traffic on those major roads.
- The public health survey showing that frequent bike commuters were more likely to meet their weekly exercise goals throughout the year.
- The historical note that the town's very first bicycle was proudly displayed in a local museum back in the year 1912. (correct answer)
- The local poll finding that most residents said they would bike more often if the town's bike lanes felt safer to use.
Explanation: The group's claim is that bike lanes will reduce traffic and improve public health, so relevant evidence must connect to traffic or health. The city report about a 9 percent traffic drop directly supports the traffic part of the claim. The health survey about commuters meeting exercise goals supports the health part. The poll showing that people would bike more if lanes felt safer supports both, because more riders means less driving and more exercise. The note that the town's first bicycle sat in a museum in 1912 is a fact about local history. It says nothing about whether bike lanes cut traffic or improve health, so it is the most irrelevant evidence. Saying it 'proves biking is part of our history' does not make it support the actual claim. That is why the museum fact is the best answer.
Question 5
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 one caffeine amount and a single story about feeling shaky are enough to prove energy drinks are unsafe for every student under 16.
- 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. (correct answer)
- Sufficient, because the 200-milligram figure and the jittery feeling clearly show that caffeine harms all teenagers who consume it in any form.
- Insufficient, because the argument names a specific caffeine amount but never explains why that number matters more than the caffeine in coffee or soda.
Explanation: The classmate makes a broad claim about all students under 16, but his support is thin: one brand's caffeine number and a single story about his cousin. The best answer points out that this is only a single anecdote and one product example, with no research on how often teens actually have serious health effects and no comparison to other caffeine sources—so the evidence cannot support such a sweeping claim.
The first choice treats the same limited evidence (one number, one story) as if it were proof for every student, which is exactly the leap the argument fails to justify. The third choice calls the evidence sufficient by claiming it shows caffeine harms all teenagers in any form, but the passage gives no data supporting that absolute conclusion. The fourth choice reaches the right verdict—insufficient—but for the wrong reason: it treats the caffeine number as the flaw, when the real problem is missing comparisons and missing health data, not the fact that a number was given. Only the second choice names the actual gap in the argument.
Question 6
An opinion post argues, "Video games cause poor grades." The writer describes a survey at one school. Students who reported playing video games for more than two hours on school nights had an average GPA of 2.6. Students who played less than one hour had an average GPA of 3.2. The writer concludes that gaming must be the reason grades drop, and suggests banning video games for all students. The post does not discuss other possible reasons. It does not ask whether struggling students use games to relax, whether heavy gamers also have jobs or family duties, or whether the amount of homework differs by course level.
Is the reasoning sound, or does it contain a logical flaw?
- Sound: the two GPA numbers come from a real survey, so the writer can safely rule out every other reason and conclude that games alone drive grades down.
- Unsound: it treats a correlation as proof of causation, and ignores other factors, such as stress or course load, that could explain the GPA gap. (correct answer)
- Sound: because the survey shows a clear gap between the two groups, the pattern by itself is strong enough to prove that gaming causes the lower grades.
- Unsound: it is really an ad hominem, since it builds its case by insulting the character of the students who choose to play games for hours.
Explanation: The post spots that heavy gamers had lower GPAs and jumps straight to blaming games. But two things happening together does not prove one caused the other. The writer never checks other explanations the passage even lists, like stress, jobs, family duties, or a harder course load. Naming this as treating a correlation as causation, and pointing to the ignored factors, is exactly what makes the reasoning unsound, so that answer is correct. Saying the reasoning is sound because the numbers come from a real survey is wrong; real numbers can still be used to draw a bad conclusion, and one survey cannot rule out every other cause. Saying the clear gap between the groups by itself proves gaming caused the drop repeats the same false-cause mistake, treating a pattern as proof. Calling the argument an ad hominem is wrong too, because the writer attacks no one's character or personality; the post argues from statistics, not insults.
Question 7
A student newspaper editorial claims that the school should let students carry reusable water bottles in class. The editorial gives two reasons. First, students stay more hydrated. Second, fewer plastic bottles are thrown away. As evidence for hydration, it cites the nurse's office log. The log showed fewer afternoon headaches during a month-long pilot when bottles were allowed. As evidence for less waste, it cites the custodians' counts. The number of plastic bottles in classroom trash bins dropped by about one-third during that same month. The editorial concludes that the policy should become permanent. It says the policy supports student health. It also cuts waste without hurting learning.
Which choice best evaluates the reasoning of the editorial?
- The reasoning is weak, because the two pieces of evidence do not actually connect to the two reasons the editorial gives.
- The reasoning is mostly sound, because the evidence directly supports both reasons, health and less waste, and the conclusion follows from them. (correct answer)
- The reasoning is weak, because the editorial offers only opinions and gives no real evidence for either of its two reasons.
- The reasoning is weak, because the pilot lasted only one month, which is far too short to notice any real change at all.
Explanation: Reasoning is sound when the evidence lines up with the reasons and the conclusion follows. Here the headache log supports the hydration reason, the bottle counts support the waste reason, and permanence follows from both. Choice B explains that, so it is correct. Choice A says the evidence does not match the reasons, Choice C says there is no evidence at all, and Choice D dismisses a month of data outright, none of which fits the editorial.
Question 8
A student argues, "Homework should be banned for all middle schoolers." As evidence, the student writes, "My friend Jordan gets stressed when there is homework, and last week Jordan stayed up late to finish a worksheet." The student adds that after a long school day, everyone deserves free time, and that teachers could just teach everything during class. The argument does not include any research on how homework affects learning. It does not compare different amounts or types of homework. And it does not consider whether some students benefit from practice at home.
Which choice best evaluates whether the evidence is sufficient to support the claim?
- The evidence is sufficient, because one clear example about a friend is enough to prove that homework harms every single middle school student.
- The evidence is not sufficient, because it leans mainly on a single story about one friend and offers no broader data about most students or learning. (correct answer)
- The evidence is sufficient, because the argument names a specific person, Jordan, and describes a recent late-night event in detail.
- The evidence is not sufficient, because it mentions stress and free time but never explains how those feelings connect to a ban on homework.
Explanation: To support such a broad claim, the argument would need more than one person's experience—it needs research or data about how homework affects most students. The best answer says the evidence is not sufficient because it rests mainly on a single story about one friend and gives no broader data. One choice claims the evidence is sufficient because one example proves homework harms everyone, but a single case cannot prove a rule about every student. Another claims it is sufficient because it names Jordan and describes a late night in vivid detail; naming a person and adding details does not make weak evidence strong. The last choice does correctly say the evidence is not sufficient, but it picks the wrong reason: it claims stress and free time never connect to a homework ban. Those feelings actually could relate to the argument—the real problem is that one friend's story is not enough support, not that stress is off-topic.
Question 9
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 that many teenagers' bodies naturally fall asleep later and need more morning sleep to feel alert. For evidence, she cites a children's sleep foundation. It states that teens generally need 8 to 10 hours of sleep. She also points to a study from two districts. After start times moved later, average first-period tardies dropped by 25 percent, and students reported feeling more awake. She then argues that safety would improve because sleepy driving would decrease. She cites a county report about car crashes involving teen drivers between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. Those crashes fell by 14 percent 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: the reasons connect logically to the claim, and the evidence is relevant and fairly strong, with expert guidance and data tied to alertness and safety. (correct answer)
- The reasoning is unsound, because the sleep foundation is an outside group with its own interests, so its guidance about teen sleep needs cannot support the claim about learning.
- The reasoning is unsound, because the crash numbers only cover one hour of the morning, so they cannot show that a later start would improve safety overall.
- The reasoning is sound, but the evidence is weak overall, because the tardy and crash figures are only correlations that never fully prove the later start caused the changes.
Explanation: The best answer says the reasoning is sound because each reason connects to the claim and is backed by relevant evidence: the sleep reason supports better learning, the crash reason supports better safety, and both come with expert guidance and real data. The choice that rejects the sleep foundation just for being an outside group is wrong—a respected foundation citing what teens generally need is reasonable expert support, not a biased source. The choice that dismisses the crash numbers because they cover only one morning hour misreads the evidence; that hour is exactly the time teen drivers head to school, so the data fit the safety claim well. The choice that admits the reasoning is sound but calls all the evidence weak overpushes a fair point: while single studies aren't ironclad proof, matching tardy drops and crash drops after later starts is relevant, fairly strong support—not evidence you should throw out. Only the first choice judges the argument fairly, weighing both how the reasons link to the claim and how well the evidence backs them up.
Question 10
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, he says, they will refuse to follow dress rules, and soon teachers will not be able to enforce classroom expectations. As evidence, he says he saw one student wear a hood last week. He also claims everyone knows rules always get worse when you relax them. He does not give examples of schools that allow hats and still keep discipline, and he does not explain why hats would have to lead to breaking other rules.
What logical fallacy best describes the blogger's reasoning?
- Slippery slope: it claims a small change will inevitably trigger a chain of extreme outcomes without proving that each step must lead to the next. (correct answer)
- Hasty generalization: it draws a sweeping conclusion from one tiny sample, treating a single hooded student as proof that a whole pattern must follow.
- False dilemma: it treats the issue as having only two possible outcomes, complete order or total collapse, when many other results could clearly happen instead.
- Circular reasoning: it assumes the very point it is trying to prove, using the claim that discipline will fail as the reason discipline will fail.
Explanation: The blogger says one small step, allowing hats, will automatically cause sunglasses, then broken dress rules, then a total loss of order. He never shows why each step must trigger the next, and he even admits he found no schools where allowing hats ruined discipline. That chain of unproven extreme steps is exactly a slippery slope, so that choice is the best answer. Drawing a sweeping conclusion from one tiny sample names a real flaw, but it is not the main structure here; the seeing of one hooded student is only side evidence, not the core reasoning. Treating the issue as only two outcomes does not fit either, because the blogger describes a whole sequence of results, not a choice between just two options. Assuming the point you are trying to prove does not match him, because he offers separate steps as reasons rather than restating his conclusion as its own proof. Only the slippery slope names the chain-reaction reasoning the blogger actually uses.
Question 11
In an editorial, a resident makes a claim. The town should expand its recycling program, because recycling helps the environment. The writer gives several facts. Recycling reduces the amount of trash sent to landfills. A state agency reports a striking fact. Recycling aluminum saves a lot of energy. It uses up to 95 percent less than making new aluminum from raw ore. The writer also mentions that many recycling bins are blue. The town first started curbside recycling in the 1970s. Finally, the writer notes what happened in nearby towns. They increased recycling pickup from every other week to weekly. After that, the amount of landfill trash dropped by about 12 percent over six months.
Which piece of evidence is least relevant to supporting the claim that recycling benefits the environment?
- The state agency's report that recycling aluminum saves up to 95 percent of the energy compared with making new aluminum from raw ore.
- The writer's observation that many of the town's recycling bins are painted blue, a color the program chose back when curbside pickup began. (correct answer)
- The statement that recycling keeps a large amount of trash out of the landfills where the town's waste would otherwise be buried.
- The nearby towns' finding that switching to weekly pickup was followed by a 12 percent drop in landfill tonnage over six months.
Explanation: Evidence is relevant only if it connects recycling to helping the environment. The aluminum report shows recycling saves large amounts of energy, so it clearly supports the claim. The point that recycling keeps trash out of landfills gives a direct environmental benefit. The nearby towns' 12 percent drop in landfill tonnage is real evidence that more recycling reduces waste. But the color of the town's bins tells you nothing about whether recycling helps the environment—blue paint has no effect on energy use, landfill trash, or pollution. Even dressed up with a detail about when the program started, it is still just a fact about appearance, not an environmental benefit. That makes the bin-color detail the least relevant support for the claim, and the correct answer.
Question 12
A student argues that the school library should stay open one hour later after school. Her claim is that longer hours would give more academic support and make the school more fair. First, she reasons that many students need a quiet place to work. This is especially true if their homes are crowded or noisy. As evidence, she cites a school survey in which 48 percent 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 full most days. Sign-in data also shows that an average of 60 students try to use the library in the last 20 minutes before it closes. Finally, she claims that fairness improves. Bus riders and students in clubs often cannot reach the library before it closes. She points to club schedules showing that practices end 10 minutes after the library closes on three days each week.
Which choice best evaluates whether the reasons and evidence logically support the claim?
- They do not fully support the claim, because the survey and sign-in data show demand but say little about whether the fairness reason really connects to the evidence.
- They support the claim: the evidence about quiet study space, crowded closing times, and club schedules is relevant and together makes a reasonable case for later hours. (correct answer)
- They support the claim, but mainly because the tutoring table is popular, which shows most students would probably prefer to study inside the library building.
- They do not fully support the claim, because the numbers describe how busy the library is now but cannot predict whether a later hour would actually be used.
Explanation: To evaluate an argument, check whether each reason links to relevant evidence. Here the survey backs the need for quiet space, the sign-in data backs the heavy demand right before closing, and the club schedules back the fairness point, so every piece of evidence supports the matching reason. That is why the choice saying the evidence is relevant and together makes a reasonable case is best. The option claiming the fairness reason does not connect ignores the club schedules, which do connect that reason to real evidence. The option resting mainly on the popular tutoring table narrows the argument to one detail and adds a preference the passage never claims. The option saying the numbers cannot predict future use invents a demand for proof the stem does not require; current demand reasonably supports the claim that later hours would help. Only one choice correctly matches each reason to its evidence.
Question 13
A community poster claims that planting more trees in the neighborhood is worth paying for. The poster gives several reasons. Trees can cool the streets in summer, clean the air, and make walking more pleasant. As evidence, it points to a city report showing that blocks with more tree cover can be several degrees cooler on hot days. It also points to a science website explaining that trees can trap some pollution on their leaves. However, the poster then claims that trees are popular mainly because they look attractive in social media photos. It uses that point as a major reason to believe that trees improve the air quality.
Which statement best evaluates how relevant the poster's evidence is to its reasons?
- The temperature and pollution facts are relevant to the cooling and air-quality reasons, but the social-media photo point is mostly irrelevant to proving air quality. (correct answer)
- All of the evidence is equally relevant, because any nice thing said about trees helps prove every single benefit listed.
- The city report should be ignored, because reports that come from a city government cannot really be trusted.
- The social-media point is actually the strongest evidence, since popularity online shows that the air is getting cleaner.
Explanation: Evidence is relevant when it actually backs the reason it is attached to. The cooling data supports the cooling reason, and the pollution point supports the air-quality reason, so those fit. But a tree's popularity in online photos says nothing about whether it cleans the air. Choice A explains this correctly, so it is the best answer. Choice B wrongly treats every nice comment as proof, Choice C wrongly rejects the city report just for its source, and Choice D wrongly calls the social-media point strong evidence.
Question 14
A student writes, "Our school should remove all vending machines." Her claim is that vending machines cause students to eat unhealthy snacks. As evidence, she says that on days when she buys chips from the machine, she eats fewer fruits and vegetables at lunch. She also notes that the vending company's logo is bright red, which she says makes students crave sugar. Finally, she argues that if the vending machines disappear, students will automatically choose healthier foods. She does not give school-wide data about what students buy. She does not consider whether students might bring snacks from home. And she does not show that removing the machines actually changes what students eat overall.
Which choice best identifies a problem with the argument's reasoning or evidence?
- The argument is mostly solid because the writer honestly describes her own lunch habits, though it could be stronger if it also mentioned how the bright logo affects each individual student's daily cravings.
- The argument is weak because it bases a big conclusion on one person's experience, points to an off-topic detail about the logo color, and assumes removing machines will fix everyone's eating. (correct answer)
- The argument is fairly reasonable because personal experience like the writer's shows a real pattern, and school-wide data would only repeat the same point she already makes about herself.
- The argument is weak mainly because it forgets to mention the cafeteria food, since the writer's other points about logo color and student choices are each carefully supported.
Explanation: A strong argument needs evidence that actually fits its claim. This one does not. It jumps from one student's own snacking to a conclusion about the whole school, it leans on an unrelated detail—the logo's color—as if that proves cravings, and it simply assumes that removing the machines will change what everyone eats. The choice that names all three of these problems is correct. The option calling the argument 'mostly solid' is wrong because one person's honest habits still can't stand in for school-wide proof, and the logo point is off-topic, not a fixable gap. The option that treats personal experience as showing a 'real pattern' is wrong because a single person's routine isn't a substitute for data about many students. The option that blames only the missing cafeteria food is wrong because it praises the logo and 'automatic choice' claims as 'carefully supported' when those are exactly the weak, unproven parts of the argument.
Question 15
A student council flyer makes a claim. It says that recycling at school helps the environment, so the school should add recycling bins to every hallway. The flyer lists several statements. First, recycling paper can reduce the number of trees cut down for new paper. Second, recycling aluminum uses much less energy than making new aluminum from raw ore. Third, recycling plastic keeps a lot of waste out of landfills and rivers. Fourth, the new bins would come in the school colors and feature the school mascot on the side. The flyer ends by saying that adding more bins would reduce waste and save resources.
Which statement is irrelevant to supporting the claim that recycling helps the environment?
- Recycling paper can reduce the number of trees that must be cut down to make brand-new paper.
- Recycling aluminum uses far less energy than producing new aluminum from freshly mined raw ore.
- The new recycling bins would come in the school colors and feature the school mascot on the side. (correct answer)
- Recycling plastic keeps a large amount of waste out of local landfills and nearby waterways.
Explanation: To support the claim that recycling helps the environment, a statement has to give a real environmental reason. The point about bins coming in school colors and showing the mascot is only about how the bins look, not about any benefit to the environment, so it does nothing to back the claim—that makes it the irrelevant one. Cutting down fewer trees is a genuine environmental benefit, so that statement does support the claim. Using far less energy than making aluminum from raw ore is also a real environmental reason, so it supports the claim too. Keeping waste out of landfills and waterways is another true environmental benefit, so it belongs with the supporting evidence. Only the statement about the bins' appearance fails to connect to helping the environment.
Question 16
A seventh grader argues that 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 says that he personally learns better by listening in class than by doing worksheets at home. The student does not include any research on how homework affects learning. He does not compare different types of homework, like reading, projects, or practice problems. And he does not consider whether a small amount of homework might help some students review their skills.
Is the evidence in the argument enough to support the broad claim that homework should be banned for all middle school students?
- Yes, because Maya's stressful late nights and the writer's own learning style are firsthand experiences, and firsthand experiences can stand in for what is true across all middle schools.
- Yes, because the writer names a specific stressed student and describes his own class experience, and two concrete examples like these are enough to settle a general question.
- No, because the argument leans on a couple of personal stories and gives no broader data or other cases, so it cannot support such a general claim. (correct answer)
- No, because a claim about banning all homework can never be judged fairly until someone first surveys every single school in the country.
Explanation: A claim about all middle schoolers needs broad evidence, not just a story or two. This argument rests on one friend's late nights and the writer's own preference, with no research and no look at different kinds of homework. The correct answer explains why a couple of personal stories cannot support such a sweeping, general claim. The choice that says firsthand experiences can stand in for what is true everywhere is wrong because one or two people's experiences do not show what happens across all schools. The choice that says two concrete examples settle a general question is wrong because a general claim needs a wide range of evidence, not just two cases. The choice that demands surveying every single school sets an impossible standard instead of naming the argument's real gap: it does have too little evidence, but you do not need to survey everyone to see that.
Question 17
A student columnist claims, "Video games cause poor grades." As proof, she points to a chart from the school's counseling office. It shows that students who report playing video games more than 3 hours on school nights have an average GPA of 2.4, while students who report playing less than 1 hour have an average GPA of 3.1. She argues that because the lower-GPA group plays more games, gaming must be the reason their grades are worse. She adds that if the school limited gaming, grades would rise. However, the counseling report also notes that the survey did not measure study time, sleep, or whether students played games after finishing homework. It also mentions that some students said they play games to relax when they are already struggling in classes. Even so, the columnist concludes the school should treat gaming as the main cause of low grades.
Is the reasoning sound, or does it contain a logical flaw?
- Sound reasoning: the GPA gap between the two groups clearly proves that video games directly cause students to earn worse grades.
- Unsound reasoning: it treats a correlation between gaming and GPA as proof of cause, while ignoring other factors like sleep and study time. (correct answer)
- Sound reasoning: because the report itself lists other possible factors, the columnist's conclusion about gaming must be trustworthy and correct.
- Unsound reasoning: it relies on a single survey, so the sample of students was clearly too small to support any conclusion about grades.
Explanation: The columnist notices that heavy gamers have lower GPAs and jumps to saying gaming causes the low grades. But a link between two things does not prove that one causes the other. The report itself lists untested factors like sleep and study time, and notes that struggling students may game to relax, so the cause could even run the other way. The choice that names this false-cause flaw and points to the ignored factors is correct. The first choice wrongly calls the reasoning sound and treats a GPA gap as direct proof of cause. The choice claiming the argument must be trustworthy because the report mentions other factors gets it backward: those extra factors actually weaken the columnist's case, not strengthen it. The last choice does spot that the argument is unsound, but it blames the wrong problem: the passage never says the survey was too small, and sample size is not the real flaw here. The true weakness is confusing correlation with cause while ignoring alternative explanations.
Question 18
A community blog claims that planting more trees along city streets will lower summer heat in the neighborhood. The writer gives two reasons. Trees provide shade, and they cool the air by releasing water vapor. As evidence, the blog points to a city planning report. That report says shaded sidewalks can be 10 to 15 degrees cooler than sidewalks in full sun. The blog also points to a university study. That study found that neighborhoods with more trees had lower surface temperatures during heat waves. This was true even after the study accounted for how crowded the buildings were. The writer says the city should fund a street-tree program to make summer walking safer and more pleasant.
Which choice best assesses how relevant and sufficient the evidence is for the claim?
- The evidence is irrelevant, because temperatures on sidewalks and surfaces are not the same thing as how hot people actually feel while walking in the summer heat.
- The evidence is relevant and fairly sufficient, because it directly measures temperature differences tied to shade and tree cover, and it uses more than one credible source. (correct answer)
- The evidence is insufficient, because the study only measured surface temperatures and never checked whether more trees really made a whole neighborhood cooler overall.
- The evidence is relevant but insufficient, because two sources showing a link cannot prove that planting new trees would actually cause the summer heat to drop.
Explanation: Good evidence has to fit the claim and give enough support. The claim is that street trees will lower summer heat, and the blog backs this with a planning report showing shaded sidewalks run 10 to 15 degrees cooler and a university study finding lower surface temperatures where there are more trees—even after accounting for how crowded buildings were. That data measures temperature tied directly to shade and tree cover, and it comes from more than one credible source, so calling it relevant and fairly sufficient is the best assessment. The choice that calls it irrelevant is wrong because sidewalk and surface temperature clearly relate to how hot a neighborhood gets. The choice claiming the study 'never checked' neighborhood cooling misreads the passage, which says surface temperatures were lower across neighborhoods with more trees. The choice demanding absolute proof of cause sets the bar too high; the stem asks only about relevance and sufficiency, and strong, converging evidence can be sufficient without being airtight proof.
Question 19
A student council member argues that video games cause poor grades. She explains that at her school, students who play video games more than two hours on school nights have an average GPA of 2.6. 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 assigns more homework to limit gaming, grades will automatically improve. She does not discuss other differences between the groups. She does not consider how much they study, whether they have after-school jobs, or whether some students game because they are already struggling and want a break.
How sound is the reasoning in this argument?
- Sound, because when two groups differ on one habit and on their grades, that habit must be what caused the difference in their results.
- Mostly sound, because the exact GPA figures she reports are detailed enough to lock in a real cause-and-effect link between gaming and grades.
- Unsound, because it treats a correlation as a cause and ignores other likely explanations, like study habits, jobs, or gaming as an escape. (correct answer)
- Unsound, because it never checks the opposite pattern, where weaker students might raise their grades by gaming more to relax before studying.
Explanation: The member notices that heavier gamers have lower GPAs and jumps to saying gaming causes the low grades. But two things going together does not prove one caused the other. She never rules out study habits, after-school jobs, or the chance that struggling students game to relax. The correct answer names exactly that flaw: it treats a correlation as a cause and skips other likely explanations. The first choice states the correlation-equals-cause mistake as if it were a valid rule, so it is wrong. The second choice claims that precise numbers guarantee cause and effect, but specific data still cannot prove causation. The last choice actually contradicts the passage's evidence, since heavier gamers had lower grades, not higher ones, so its claim does not fit the argument. Only the choice that identifies the correlation-versus-cause error and the missing explanations fully evaluates the reasoning.
Question 20
A student council flyer makes a claim. It says, "Recycling at our school helps the environment, so we should add more recycling bins in the hallways." The flyer gives three pieces of information. First, recycling paper can cut down the number of trees that are used, because old paper can be made into new paper. Second, recycling cans uses much less energy than making new metal from scratch. Third, the school's current recycling bins are blue and have the school mascot printed on the side. The flyer ends by saying that because recycling helps nature, the school should put a bin near every set of lockers.
Which piece of information is irrelevant to the claim that recycling helps the environment?
- Recycling paper can cut down the number of trees that are used to make new paper.
- Recycling cans uses much less energy than making brand-new metal from scratch.
- The school's current recycling bins are blue and have the school mascot printed on the side. (correct answer)
- Old paper can be turned into brand-new paper products for people to use again.
Explanation: To support the claim that recycling helps the environment, a detail has to connect to an environmental benefit. Saving trees and using less energy both do that, so those points are relevant. The color of the bins and the mascot on the side have nothing to do with the environment. Choice C names that irrelevant detail, so it is correct. Choices A, B, and D all describe real environmental benefits, which means they support the claim rather than being off-topic.