Use of Evidence > Evidence
Help Questions
SAT Reading & Writing › Use of Evidence > Evidence
Urban heat islands make summers in dense neighborhoods especially hot, prompting heavy use of air conditioning. A scholar argues that municipal tree-planting programs reduce summertime electricity consumption by cooling neighborhoods and shading building facades. The claim is not merely that green space is pleasant but that planted trees measurably decrease demand for electricity during hot months. According to the scholar, expanded canopy lowers ambient temperatures and blocks direct solar gain on windows and roofs, so households run air conditioners less often or at higher setpoints. Because prior studies have sometimes conflated tree cover with socioeconomic differences, the scholar emphasizes comparisons that isolate the cooling effect of trees themselves, not related factors like income or appliance quality. The question is what evidence would most directly show that planting trees causes a reduction in summer electricity use at the neighborhood level.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
Following a citywide tree-planting campaign, average home sale prices increased compared with nearby cities that did not plant trees.
In matched neighborhoods, those receiving 50 mature shade trees saw a 12% drop in summer electricity use relative to comparable neighborhoods without new trees, after controlling for income, housing age, and appliance efficiency.
On the day trees were planted, hourly electricity use briefly dipped as crews temporarily disconnected equipment.
Neighborhoods with many trees also tend to have higher household incomes and use less electricity during summer months.
Explanation
B isolates the causal impact of planting trees on summer electricity use. A is tangential (property values), C is the wrong timeframe (a momentary dip), and D is correlation without causation (tree cover co-occurs with income).
A nutrition researcher asserts that school garden programs increase children's willingness to eat vegetables, not just their knowledge. The scholar argues that hands-on cultivation demystifies produce and gives students a sense of ownership, both of which translate into actual changes at the lunch table. She acknowledges that gardens can have ancillary benefits—engagement, teamwork, a richer science curriculum—but contends that these outcomes are secondary to the central effect on eating habits. Critics counter that gardens are pleasant but largely symbolic, predicting that children will admire the kale they grow but still discard it. To distinguish enthusiasm from behavior, the researcher calls for evidence that students in garden programs consume more vegetables than comparable peers without access to gardens, ideally measured over months rather than days and across multiple schools rather than a single enthusiastic classroom.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
At participating schools, a post-implementation survey found that students reported enjoying science class more than before.
On the day a celebrity chef visited, students sampled unfamiliar vegetables but returned to usual choices the following week.
In a randomized controlled trial across 20 schools, students at schools assigned garden programs consumed significantly more vegetables at lunch than students at control schools after one year.
Schools with garden programs are disproportionately located in affluent neighborhoods where households already purchase more produce.
Explanation
C provides causal, multi-school evidence that garden programs increase actual consumption over time. A is tangential (engagement, not eating); B is a short-lived event (wrong timeframe); D is correlation with affluence, not evidence of the gardens' effect.
In a short essay, an urban ecologist claims that planting shade trees on the sunniest sides of homes can lower neighborhood electricity use during summer peaks. He argues that while efficient appliances matter, the broad canopy of mature trees blocks radiant heat before it enters buildings, reducing the need for air conditioning on the hottest afternoons. Because shade trees provide localized cooling where demand spikes are greatest, the ecologist expects measurable reductions not just in individual households but across entire circuits that serve residential blocks. He dismisses the idea that tree planting would primarily help in winter, when leaves have fallen and heating loads dominate. The proposal's appeal, he concludes, is that a one-time planting yields recurring benefits for both residents and utilities each summer without requiring behavior change.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
Surveys show most residents feel parks make neighborhoods more livable in July.
In matched neighborhoods, blocks receiving new south- and west-side shade trees saw a significant decline in late-afternoon electricity use each summer compared with treeless controls.
Heating bills fell in several districts after evergreens were added near wind-exposed homes.
Households that signed up for an energy-efficiency rebate also tended to live on streets with mature trees.
Explanation
B directly measures reduced summer peak electricity use across blocks with new shade trees. A is about perceptions, C concerns winter heating, and D confounds trees with a rebate program (correlation without causation).
In debates about how to boost adolescent literacy, one proposal stands out for its simplicity: give students time to read what they choose, every day, with minimal accountability beyond showing up and reading. The scholar advancing this proposal argues that daily free-reading time strengthens comprehension by increasing both reading volume and stamina, thereby improving students' performance on standardized measures. She emphasizes that the benefit should be detectable within a single semester and should not depend on expensive programs or extensive teacher training. Critics counter that free-reading mostly affects attitudes, not skills, and that any gains are too small to measure. The scholar responds that attitudes and skills move together only when students actually spend more minutes reading complex text, which the dedicated time guarantees.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
At one magnet middle school, two students who read silently each day reported higher English grades by the end of the year.
In a district randomized trial, classes assigned 15 minutes of daily free reading outscored control classes on a common comprehension exam after 12 weeks, with no other schedule changes.
A national survey found that schools with larger libraries tended to have higher average reading scores.
A longitudinal study of high school seniors found that teens who reported pleasure reading in ninth grade were more likely to major in the humanities.
Explanation
B provides causal, semester-length evidence that daily free reading improves comprehension. A is too small in scope, C is correlation without causation, and D is the wrong timeframe and outcome.
Reviewing early twentieth-century factory records, historian Lina Mercado argues that Fairhaven's 1910 ordinance limiting shifts to eight hours did not shrink total weekly output. According to Mercado, the policy increased per-hour productivity enough to offset the reduction in hours, because rested workers made fewer mistakes and machines experienced less downtime. She adds that employers, facing a fixed-hour cap, reorganized tasks to minimize bottlenecks and staggered maintenance to keep lines moving. Critics contend that any observed stability in production came from the era's rapid mechanization, not from the ordinance itself. Mercado replies that the mechanization trend was gradual across the decade, whereas the city policy created a sharp, date-specific change. If per-hour productivity rose immediately after implementation, she claims, the ordinance likely caused it.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
Within six months of the ordinance, Fairhaven added three new factories, increasing total capacity by 10%.
Company payroll and production logs show that, immediately after enforcement began, average output per worker-hour rose by 15% while weekly output did not decline.
Employee satisfaction surveys in 1925 reported fewer complaints about fatigue compared with 1905.
In neighboring Riverport, which imposed no hour limits, weekly output also held steady during 1910–1911.
Explanation
B directly shows an immediate rise in per-hour productivity with stable weekly output, matching the causal claim. A is a capacity change (tangential), C is the wrong timeframe, and D suggests confounding rather than supporting causation.
In discussing retention in contemporary urban labor markets, one scholar argues that commute length is not a trivial perk but a primary causal factor in whether employees remain with a firm. The claim is that long daily travel elevates stress and erodes time for rest and family, pushing workers to quit even when wages are competitive. By contrast, a short commute, the scholar contends, lowers daily strain and enables routines that make staying put more attractive. The argument explicitly distinguishes commute effects from other job features, insisting that the observed link between commute time and retention persists when considering common confounders such as pay and managerial style. If true, the claim has practical implications: firms might boost retention more by relocating offices or adjusting schedules than by raising salaries alone.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
In a multi-firm survey, workers with subsidized gym memberships reported higher job satisfaction but did not remain longer than peers without the benefit.
A 1976 factory study reported that employees with access to carpools had lower quit rates than those without, though wages were not recorded.
A matched-sample study of 20,000 urban employees found those commuting under 30 minutes were 25% more likely to remain one year than peers with similar pay, roles, and managers.
Across large cities, shorter average commutes coincide with higher retention and higher wages, especially in high-cost metros.
Explanation
Choice C isolates commute time by matching on pay, roles, and managers, directly supporting a causal link to retention. A is adjacent (satisfaction, not retention), B is the wrong timeframe and lacks controls, and D is correlation confounded by wages.
In Harbor City, bike commuting rose 35% over three years. Transportation scholar Liao argues that the surge stems less from marketing campaigns than from the strategic placement of bike-share docks near major employment clusters. According to Liao, when docks are within a short walking distance of offices, workers are more likely to adopt bike-share for daily travel; advertising may build awareness, but convenience drives habit formation. Liao points to neighborhoods where dock density increased and commute patterns shifted, suggesting proximity reduces first/last block friction that typically deters new riders. He rejects explanations centered on weather anomalies or a general cultural turn toward fitness, noting that rates among recreational riders barely changed. The claim is that physical access—not messaging—was the decisive factor in converting potential riders into regular bike commuters.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
A citywide advertising campaign achieved a record recall rate among residents, with 82% recognizing the bike-share brand jingle.
Badge-swipe and trip data from 200 large offices show a 28% rise in morning bike-share dockings at new docks placed within 150 meters of entrances, while similar offices without nearby new docks show no increase.
A year after the study period, weekend recreational rides doubled following a fitness influencer partnership with the bike-share operator.
Neighborhoods with the most coffee shops also saw the largest increase in bike commuting during the same period.
Explanation
B links proximity of docks to workplaces with increased commuting while ruling out areas without nearby docks. A is tangential (marketing), C is the wrong timeframe and audience, and D is a correlation without causation.
In debates over retail worker turnover, some analysts argue that the main lever is scheduling predictability rather than pay. Economist Liao, however, claims that raising base hourly wages directly reduces turnover by lowering financial instability that pushes workers to juggle multiple jobs. Liao points to interviews in which employees describe declining anxiety after pay increases, but acknowledges that anecdotes cannot isolate causation. She proposes that if higher wages are the key mechanism, firms that lift pay while holding scheduling rules constant should see improved retention relative to similar firms that do not. By contrast, if scheduling drives retention, pay increases without schedule reform should have little effect. Liao further predicts that gains will be concentrated among lower-paid, part-time staff, for whom small wage changes meaningfully affect budgets.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
Across the retail sector, customer satisfaction scores rose during the same quarter that many chains announced wage increases.
In a yearlong trial, a subset of stores randomly assigned to raise base pay by 15 percent, without changing schedules, experienced significantly lower turnover than matched control stores.
At one flagship location, a highly paid department manager remained with the company for a decade despite multiple outside offers.
Industrywide, chains that pay more also tend to offer more stable schedules and better benefits than low-wage competitors.
Explanation
B isolates the effect of wages by random assignment while holding schedules constant, directly supporting the causal claim. A is tangential, C is wrong scope (one individual), and D is correlation without causation.
Public libraries have long relied on overdue fines to encourage timely returns, but some scholars argue that fines do more harm than good. One librarian-scholar contends that eliminating late fees increases the return of long-overdue materials by removing a psychological barrier: patrons who fear embarrassment or mounting penalties avoid the library altogether. According to this view, a fee amnesty signals that the institution values access over punishment, inviting lapsed borrowers to reengage. The scholar maintains that the effect is most pronounced among patrons who have held items for months or years, not among those a few days late, because the accumulation of debt and shame matters more than the fine's initial size. The claim implies that, if fee forgiveness is the cause, we should observe returns from precisely those patrons who had been avoiding the library and evidence that reduced anxiety explains their behavior.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
After the fee policy changed, new library card registrations rose, especially among recent neighborhood arrivals.
In the year before the policy change, overdue items had already declined by 15% across the system.
In a randomized pilot, patrons with items overdue by more than six months who received fee forgiveness returned 68% of items within four weeks, compared with 22% in a control group; surveys cited reduced embarrassment as the main reason.
Following a summer reading campaign, a nearby city saw a modest increase in total circulation, though no fine policy changed.
Explanation
C directly ties fee forgiveness to increased returns by long-overdue patrons and identifies reduced embarrassment as the cause. A is tangential (registrations), B is the wrong timeframe, and D offers correlation with another program, not the fine change.
Many undergraduates hold jobs that occupy afternoons and early evenings, leaving little time for on-campus study before night. A campus librarian argues that extending library closing time from 10 p.m. to midnight will primarily benefit these working students and measurably increase their visits during late hours. The claim is not that overall library popularity will rise for every student, but that the extension specifically unlocks access for those whose schedules previously prevented them from coming. The librarian notes that online resources already serve students who prefer to study from home, so the projected growth should appear in physical entries late at night. To evaluate the claim, the most relevant evidence would directly compare late-night traffic before and after the policy change and show that the increase is concentrated among students who work during the day.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the scholar's claim?
After closing moved from 10 p.m. to midnight, door-swipe counts between 9 p.m. and midnight rose 40 percent, with nearly all of the increase attributable to students reporting at least 20 hours per week of paid daytime work.
Two years before the policy change, a campus poll found that most respondents preferred morning study hours to late-night options.
In an interview, a single student who works evenings said the earlier closing time had rarely been an obstacle to library use.
The same semester hours were extended, the library added a free coffee station near the entrance, and late-night entries increased noticeably.
Explanation
A directly shows a late-night increase specifically among working students. B is the wrong timeframe, C is the wrong scope (one student), and D offers correlation without isolating the cause.