SHSAT English Language Arts Quiz: Sentences Needing Evidence

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Sentences Needing EvidenceQuestion 1 of 20

(1) The practice of vertical farming, or growing crops in stacked layers, is often touted as a solution to food shortages in urban areas. (2) These indoor farms can operate year-round, unaffected by weather, and use less water than traditional agriculture. (3) However, the economic viability of these operations is often overstated by their advocates. (4) They can produce fresh vegetables and herbs close to the point of consumption, reducing transportation costs.

Which sentence should be followed by specific financial data or examples to support its claim?

Sentence 1

Sentence 3

Sentence 2

Sentence 4

← Back to quizzes

SHSAT English Language Arts Quiz

SHSAT English Language Arts Quiz: Sentences Needing Evidence

Practice Sentences Needing Evidence in SHSAT English Language Arts with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Sentences Needing Evidence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for SHSAT English Language Arts.

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.

All questions

Question 1

Which sentence should be followed by specific financial data or examples to support its claim?

Sentence 1
Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 4

Explanation: When analyzing argumentative passages, you need to identify claims that make assertions without providing adequate support. Look for statements that present judgments or conclusions that would benefit from concrete evidence. Sentence 3 states that "the economic viability of these operations is often overstated by their advocates." This is a strong claim about financial feasibility that lacks any supporting evidence. To be convincing, this assertion would need specific data such as startup costs, operating expenses, profit margins, or examples of failed vertical farming ventures. Without such concrete information, readers have no way to evaluate whether this economic criticism is valid. Let's examine why the other options don't require additional support: Choice A (Sentence 1) simply defines vertical farming and mentions it's "often touted" as a solution—this is a neutral, factual statement that doesn't need data. Choice C (Sentence 2) lists verifiable benefits like year-round operation and water efficiency, which are well-documented advantages that don't require further proof in this context. Choice D (Sentence 4) describes a logical benefit (reduced transportation costs from local production) that readers can easily understand without needing specific financial figures. Remember that on the SHSAT, questions about supporting evidence often focus on statements that make evaluative claims—particularly those involving economics, effectiveness, or comparative judgments. When you see words like "overstated," "ineffective," or "superior," ask yourself: "What proof would a skeptical reader need to accept this claim?"

Question 2

(1) Fast fashion is a business model characterized by the rapid production of inexpensive clothing in response to the latest trends. (2) While it makes trendy apparel accessible to more consumers, the industry has a significant negative environmental impact. (3) The social consequences for workers in the supply chain are even more concerning. (4) Many garments are made from synthetic fibers like polyester, which is derived from petroleum.

Which sentence needs to be elaborated on with specific details about its subject?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 4

Explanation: When you encounter questions about which sentence needs elaboration, you're being tested on your ability to identify claims that lack sufficient supporting evidence or specific details. Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a strong claim about "social consequences for workers" being "even more concerning" than environmental impacts, but provides no specific details to support this assertion. What are these social consequences? Poor working conditions? Low wages? Safety issues? The sentence leaves readers with questions rather than concrete understanding. Let's examine why the other options don't need elaboration: Sentence A provides a clear, complete definition of fast fashion that stands on its own. Sentence B makes claims about environmental impact but immediately follows with Sentence 4, which begins to provide the specific details (synthetic fibers from petroleum) that support the environmental concern. Sentence D offers concrete, specific information about garment materials and their petroleum origins, giving readers tangible details rather than vague claims. The key difference is that Sentence 3 makes the strongest evaluative claim in the passage ("even more concerning") without backing it up with any evidence or examples. Strong comparative statements like this typically require supporting details to be credible and informative. Remember: When identifying sentences that need elaboration, look for broad claims, especially those using comparative language ("more concerning," "most important," "worse than"), that aren't supported by specific examples, statistics, or concrete details in the surrounding text.

Question 3

(1) The development of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century was a turning point in human history. (2) It allowed for the mass production of books, making knowledge more accessible to the general population. (3) This invention directly fueled the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Age of Enlightenment. (4) Nevertheless, the initial reaction to the printing press by established institutions was overwhelmingly negative.

Which sentence in the paragraph makes a generalization that should be supported by specific examples?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about generalizations, you're looking for broad claims that sweep across many situations without providing the specific evidence needed to support such wide-reaching statements. Sentence 4 contains the generalization that needs support: "the initial reaction to the printing press by established institutions was overwhelmingly negative." This makes a sweeping claim about how all established institutions reacted, using the strong qualifier "overwhelmingly negative." To support this generalization, the author would need to provide specific examples of which institutions reacted negatively and how they expressed this opposition. Let's examine why the other choices don't contain unsupported generalizations. Choice A presents a specific historical claim about one inventor in one century - this is concrete and verifiable. Choice B explains a direct, logical consequence of mass book production, which is a reasonable cause-and-effect statement. Choice C identifies three specific historical periods that were influenced by the printing press, offering concrete examples rather than making a vague generalization. The key difference is that sentence 4 makes a broad claim about the behavior of an entire category of institutions without backing it up. Words like "overwhelmingly," "always," "never," and "all institutions" are red flags that signal generalizations requiring evidence. When you see questions about supporting evidence, scan for sweeping statements that paint with a broad brush. These typically need specific examples, statistics, or concrete evidence to be credible, especially in academic writing contexts.

Question 4

(1) The Komodo dragon is the largest species of lizard, found on a few Indonesian islands. (2) It is a formidable predator, capable of hunting large prey like water buffalo and deer. (3) Its hunting success is aided by a venomous bite that inhibits blood clotting and induces shock. (4) The social behavior of these reptiles is far more intricate than was previously believed by scientists.

Which sentence introduces an idea that needs further explanation or evidence?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing which sentence needs further development, you're looking for claims that make broad or surprising assertions without providing supporting details or evidence. Sentence 4 is correct because it introduces a significant claim about Komodo dragon social behavior being "far more intricate than was previously believed" without offering any specific examples, research findings, or details about what this complexity actually involves. This statement raises natural questions: How is their behavior intricate? What did scientists discover? What specific behaviors were misunderstood? Without this supporting information, readers are left with an incomplete picture. Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 provides clear, factual information about the Komodo dragon's size classification and basic habitat that doesn't require additional explanation. Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 offers concrete examples of the dragon's predatory capabilities by naming specific prey animals (water buffalo and deer), making the claim sufficiently supported. Choice C is incorrect because Sentence 3 explains the hunting mechanism with specific details about how the venomous bite works—inhibiting blood clotting and inducing shock—providing clear evidence for its effectiveness. On SHSAT reading questions about textual development, look for sentences that make sweeping claims about changes in understanding, comparisons to previous beliefs, or complex concepts without backing them up. These often contain phrases like "more than previously thought," "recent discoveries show," or "contrary to earlier beliefs" followed by vague descriptions rather than concrete details.

Question 5

(1) The art of bonsai involves growing miniature trees in containers, a practice originating in Asia. (2) It requires meticulous pruning of both branches and roots to maintain the tree's small size. (3) Many people find the process to be a relaxing and meditative hobby. (4) However, the aesthetic principles guiding bonsai are surprisingly complex and vary greatly across different schools of thought.

Which sentence in the passage should be elaborated on with more specific details?

Sentence 1
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3
Sentence 2

Explanation: When you encounter questions about which sentence needs more elaboration, you're looking for statements that make broad or vague claims without sufficient supporting details. The key is identifying which sentence leaves readers wanting more specific information to fully understand the point being made. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes two significant claims that cry out for elaboration: that bonsai's aesthetic principles are "surprisingly complex" and that they "vary greatly across different schools of thought." Readers naturally want to know how these principles are complex and what specific differences exist between schools. Without examples or details, this sentence feels incomplete and unsatisfying. Choice A (Sentence 1) is incorrect because it provides a clear, complete definition that serves its purpose as an opening sentence. It efficiently establishes what bonsai is and where it comes from without needing additional detail. Choice C (Sentence 3) is wrong because the statement about bonsai being relaxing and meditative is straightforward and doesn't require further explanation—most readers can easily understand this concept. Choice D (Sentence 2) is incorrect because while it could benefit from some elaboration, it's more concrete than Sentence 4, clearly explaining the physical process of pruning branches and roots. On the SHSAT, questions about elaboration often test whether you can distinguish between concrete, self-explanatory statements and abstract claims that need supporting evidence. Look for sentences with vague descriptors like "complex," "greatly," or "surprisingly" that aren't backed up with specifics.

Question 6

(1) The historical Silk Road was not a single route but a vast network of trade paths connecting the East and West. (2) For centuries, it facilitated the exchange of goods, such as silk, spices, and precious metals. (3) This exchange had a profound cultural impact on all the civilizations it touched. (4) However, the most significant consequence of the Silk Road was its effect on technological development.

Which sentence presents an assertion that requires specific examples to be convincing?

Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 1

Explanation: When you encounter questions asking which statement needs specific examples to be convincing, you're looking for claims that are broad, evaluative, or make strong assertions without supporting evidence. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping evaluative claim: "the most significant consequence of the Silk Road was its effect on technological development." This is a superlative statement ("most significant") that ranks one impact above all others. To be convincing, this assertion would need concrete examples of specific technologies that spread along the Silk Road and evidence showing why technological development was more important than other consequences like economic or cultural changes. Let's examine why the other options don't require examples as urgently. Sentence 1 (D) presents a factual description about the Silk Road's structure that is relatively straightforward and historically accepted. Sentence 2 (B) does mention "goods, such as silk, spices, and precious metals" – notice it actually provides the examples that make it convincing rather than needing them. Sentence 3 (C) makes a broad claim about cultural impact, but it's less absolute than sentence 4's superlative assertion, making it somewhat more acceptable without immediate examples. The key strategy here is to identify statements that make comparative or superlative claims ("most significant," "greatest impact," "primary reason") or present controversial assertions. These types of statements almost always need specific evidence to support their strong claims, while descriptive or factual statements can often stand on their own credibility.

Question 7

(1) The tardigrade, also known as a water bear, is one of the most resilient animals known to science. (2) This microscopic invertebrate can survive extreme conditions, including intense radiation, freezing temperatures, and even the vacuum of space. (3) Its ability to enter a state of suspended animation, called cryptobiosis, is key to its survival. (4) The mechanisms behind this process are far more advanced than those of any other known organism.

Which sentence makes a comparative claim that requires more evidence?

Sentence 1
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3
Sentence 2

Explanation: When you encounter questions about claims that need evidence, look for statements that make broad comparisons or absolute assertions without providing supporting details. Sentence 4 makes the strongest comparative claim by stating that tardigrade mechanisms are "far more advanced than those of any other known organism." This is an extremely broad comparison that would require extensive scientific evidence to support. To prove this claim, you'd need comprehensive data comparing tardigrades to millions of other organisms across various survival mechanisms - a massive undertaking that the passage doesn't provide. Looking at the other options: Sentence 1 (A) calls tardigrades "one of the most resilient animals," which is a more modest claim that's immediately supported by the examples in sentence 2. Sentence 2 (D) lists specific, verifiable conditions tardigrades can survive - these are factual statements that can be tested and observed. Sentence 3 (C) simply describes a biological process (cryptobiosis) and states its importance to survival, which is a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship. The key difference is scope and specificity. Sentence 4 makes a sweeping claim about tardigrades being superior to "any other known organism" without providing the comparative data needed to support such a bold statement. The other sentences either make more limited claims or provide concrete examples. Remember: On the SHSAT, watch for superlative language like "most advanced," "best," or "any other" - these often signal claims that need substantial evidence to be convincing.

Question 8

(1) The shift to remote work has changed the dynamics of many industries. (2) Companies have been able to hire talent from a much wider geographic area. (3) Employees often report a better work-life balance due to the elimination of long commutes. (4) However, this new way of working has introduced some serious drawbacks for company culture.

Which sentence makes a general statement that needs to be explained with more detail?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about general statements versus specific details, you're being tested on your ability to distinguish between broad claims and concrete evidence or examples. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about "serious drawbacks for company culture" without providing any specific examples or explanations of what these drawbacks actually are. This type of general statement leaves readers wondering: What exactly are these drawbacks? How do they manifest? The sentence introduces a major point but doesn't support it with details. Looking at the wrong answers: Sentence A mentions "changed the dynamics of many industries," which is somewhat general, but the entire passage serves to explain this statement through the specific examples that follow. Sentence B provides a concrete, specific benefit of remote work—access to wider talent pools—that doesn't require further explanation. Sentence C offers another specific example with measurable details about work-life balance and commute elimination. The key difference is that sentences A, B, and C either provide specific information themselves or are adequately supported by the surrounding context. Sentence D, however, introduces a significant claim about cultural problems but leaves it completely unsupported. For SHSAT reading questions, watch for statements that make broad assertions without backing them up with evidence, examples, or explanations. These often appear at the end of paragraphs as topic sentences that would logically be followed by supporting details in a longer piece of writing.

Question 9

(1) The rise of streaming services has fundamentally altered how people consume movies and television. (2) Viewers are no longer tied to traditional broadcast schedules and can watch content on demand. (3) This has led to the practice of 'binge-watching,' where multiple episodes are viewed in rapid succession. (4) Strangely, this viewing habit has a detrimental effect on viewers' long-term enjoyment of a series.

Which sentence presents an opinion that would be more convincing with supporting evidence?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions asking which statement needs supporting evidence, you're being tested on distinguishing between facts and opinions, and recognizing when claims require proof to be convincing. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a broad, evaluative claim about binge-watching having a "detrimental effect on viewers' long-term enjoyment." This is an opinion that asserts a negative judgment without providing any research, studies, or data to back it up. To be convincing, this statement would need evidence like psychological studies, viewer surveys, or expert analysis demonstrating how binge-watching actually reduces enjoyment over time. Choice A is wrong because sentence 1 states an observable fact about streaming services changing consumption patterns - this is widely documented and doesn't require additional proof. Choice B is incorrect because sentence 2 describes the factual reality that on-demand viewing eliminates schedule constraints, which is self-evidently true about how streaming works. Choice C is wrong because sentence 3 simply defines "binge-watching" and notes that this practice exists, which is a verifiable behavioral phenomenon that doesn't need supporting evidence. Remember that opinion statements often contain evaluative language like "detrimental," "beneficial," "best," or "worst." When you see claims that make judgments about effects, consequences, or value, ask yourself: "What proof would I need to believe this?" If the answer requires research or expert testimony that isn't provided, that's your answer.

Question 10

(1) Many cities have implemented bike-sharing programs to promote eco-friendly transportation and reduce traffic congestion. (2) These systems typically allow users to rent a bicycle for a short period from a network of automated docking stations. (3) While popular, the programs have proven to be more problematic than beneficial in the long run. (4) Proponents argue that the health and environmental benefits are worth the investment.

Which sentence in the paragraph needs to be supported by specific examples or data?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 4
Sentence 3 (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about supporting evidence, you need to identify which statement makes a broad claim that readers would naturally question or want verified. Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a sweeping evaluative claim: "the programs have proven to be more problematic than beneficial in the long run." This statement presents a definitive conclusion about bike-sharing programs' overall effectiveness without providing any evidence. Words like "proven," "more problematic than beneficial," and "in the long run" signal that this is a significant claim requiring specific data, studies, or examples to be credible. What problems? How do they outweigh benefits? Which cities experienced these issues? Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply states that many cities have implemented these programs, which is easily verifiable and doesn't make a controversial claim. Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 describes how bike-sharing systems typically work—this is factual information about their basic operation that doesn't require additional support. Choice C is incorrect because Sentence 4 acknowledges that proponents make certain arguments; it's reporting what others believe rather than making its own claim that needs evidence. Notice how Sentence 3 also creates a contradiction within the paragraph—it claims the programs are problematic while other sentences suggest benefits. This tension makes the need for supporting evidence even more critical. Strategy tip: Look for sentences containing evaluative language, superlatives, or definitive conclusions (words like "proven," "always," "never," "most effective"). These broad claims almost always need specific evidence to convince skeptical readers.

Question 11

(1) Chess is a game of strategy with a history spanning over 1,500 years. (2) Its origins can be traced back to an Indian game called chaturanga before the 6th century. (3) The game's rules evolved as it spread through Persia, the Arab world, and eventually to Europe. (4) The modern version of chess is, in many respects, a less intellectually demanding game than its historical predecessors.

Which sentence makes a controversial claim that requires further explanation and evidence?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing claims in a passage, you need to distinguish between statements that present factual information versus those that make judgments requiring evidence. Look for opinions, comparisons, or evaluative statements that go beyond basic facts. Sentence 4 makes a controversial claim by asserting that modern chess is "less intellectually demanding" than historical versions. This is a subjective judgment comparing the intellectual rigor of different chess variants across centuries. Such a claim would require substantial evidence—perhaps studies of game complexity, analysis of strategic depth, or expert testimony—to support it. The phrase "in many respects" signals that this is an evaluative comparison rather than an established fact. Choice A is incorrect because sentence 1 presents widely accepted historical facts about chess being a strategy game with a long history. Choice B is wrong since sentence 2 offers factual information about chess's traceable origins to chaturanga, which is historically documented. Choice C is incorrect because sentence 3 describes the well-documented geographical spread and rule evolution of chess, which represents factual historical progression rather than a controversial opinion. The other sentences present information that could be verified through historical records, but sentence 4 makes a value judgment about intellectual difficulty that would be nearly impossible to prove definitively. Strategy tip: On reading comprehension questions about controversial claims, look for evaluative language, subjective comparisons, or statements that go beyond what can be directly observed or historically documented. Words like "better," "more/less," or value judgments often signal claims needing additional support.

Question 12

(1) Circadian rhythms are the 24-hour cycles that are part of the body's internal clock. (2) Running in the background, they carry out essential functions and processes, like regulating the sleep-wake cycle. (3) Light is the most powerful external cue that influences these rhythms. (4) Disrupting these natural cycles through things like shift work or jet lag leads to a surprising number of health problems.

Which sentence makes a general claim that requires specific examples to be fully understood?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3

Explanation: When you encounter questions about claims requiring examples, you're looking for statements that make broad assertions without providing the specific details needed to fully understand their scope or impact. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim about "a surprising number of health problems" without specifying what those problems actually are. To fully grasp this statement, you'd need concrete examples like insomnia, depression, diabetes, or cardiovascular issues. The phrase "surprising number" is particularly vague—it could mean three problems or thirty. This generality makes the claim incomplete without supporting details. Let's examine why the other choices don't fit. Sentence 1 (A) provides a clear, specific definition of circadian rhythms—it's complete as stated and doesn't need examples to be understood. Sentence 2 (B) gives a concrete example right within the sentence itself ("regulating the sleep-wake cycle"), so it's already supported with specifics. Sentence 3 (D) makes a straightforward factual claim about light being the most powerful cue, which is specific enough to stand alone. Watch for this pattern on the SHSAT: questions testing your ability to identify unsupported claims often feature sentences with vague quantifiers like "many," "numerous," or "surprising number of" followed by broad categories like "problems" or "benefits." These signal that specific examples would strengthen understanding. Always ask yourself: "Would I need to know more details to fully grasp what this sentence is claiming?"

Question 13

(1) The discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928 revolutionized medicine. (2) As the first true antibiotic, it could effectively treat many bacterial infections that were previously life-threatening. (3) However, the widespread use and misuse of antibiotics has led to a major global crisis: antibiotic resistance. (4) This problem is now more dangerous than many well-known diseases.

Which sentence makes a comparative claim that needs to be supported by data or expert opinion?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4 (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing argumentative writing, you need to identify claims that require evidence to be credible. Comparative claims—statements that rank or compare things—are particularly vulnerable because they make assertions about relative importance, danger, or effectiveness that readers can't simply accept at face value. Sentence 4 states that antibiotic resistance "is now more dangerous than many well-known diseases." This is a direct comparative claim asserting that one health threat ranks higher than others in terms of danger. To be convincing, this statement would need statistical evidence (mortality rates, infection numbers) or expert medical opinions to support the comparison. Without such backing, it's merely an unsupported assertion. Choice A presents a historical fact about Fleming's 1928 discovery, which can be verified through historical records rather than requiring comparative data. Choice B describes penicillin's medical properties—its status as the first antibiotic and its effectiveness—which are established scientific facts, not comparisons requiring additional support. Choice C identifies antibiotic resistance as a "major global crisis," but while this uses strong language, it's not making a comparative claim against other specific threats. The key pattern to remember: look for statements that explicitly or implicitly rank things against each other using words like "more than," "less than," "better than," or "worse than." These comparative claims almost always need concrete evidence to be credible in academic or persuasive writing.

Question 14

(1) The ancient city of Machu Picchu, perched high in the Andes Mountains of Peru, is a testament to the architectural skill of the Inca Empire. (2) Its stone structures were built with such precision that mortar was not necessary. (3) The purpose of the site remains a subject of debate among historians, with theories ranging from a royal estate to a religious sanctuary. (4) What is certain, however, is that its construction caused irreparable damage to the surrounding mountain ecosystem.

Which sentence presents an assertion that needs to be backed up by evidence?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3

Explanation: When you encounter questions about assertions and evidence, you're being asked to identify which statement makes a claim that requires factual support rather than presenting established facts or acknowledging uncertainty. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a definitive claim about environmental damage that would need scientific evidence to support it. The phrase "caused irreparable damage" presents a strong factual assertion about ecological impact that requires data, studies, or expert analysis to substantiate. Without evidence, this is merely an unsupported claim. Let's examine why the other options don't require additional evidence: Sentence 1 (A) states well-documented historical facts about Machu Picchu's location and architectural significance that are widely accepted and verifiable. Sentence 2 (B) describes an observable, verifiable characteristic of Incan construction techniques that can be directly witnessed at the site. Sentence 3 (D) explicitly acknowledges uncertainty by stating the purpose "remains a subject of debate" and presents theories rather than making definitive claims. The key distinction is between statements that present observable facts, acknowledge uncertainty, or describe established historical consensus versus statements that make definitive claims about complex issues. Environmental impact claims, in particular, require scientific backing because they involve measurable effects that aren't immediately observable. When you see questions about evidence and assertions, look for statements that make strong, definitive claims about debatable topics—especially those involving cause-and-effect relationships, environmental impacts, or complex social issues. These typically require more support than straightforward factual descriptions.

Question 15

(1) The art of origami, the Japanese tradition of paper folding, transforms a flat sheet of paper into a finished sculpture. (2) Most forms of origami are created using a single square of paper with no cuts or glue. (3) The mathematical principles behind some complex origami designs are surprisingly advanced. (4) In fact, the creations of modern origami masters are often too complex for the average person to appreciate.

Which sentence expresses an opinion that needs to be supported with further explanation or examples?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3

Explanation: When you encounter questions about distinguishing facts from opinions, look for statements that make judgments or evaluations that reasonable people could disagree about, especially those using subjective language. Sentence 4 is correct because it contains the opinion that modern origami creations "are often too complex for the average person to appreciate." The phrase "too complex...to appreciate" expresses a subjective judgment about people's ability to value or understand art. This claim would need supporting evidence, such as surveys of public reactions, examples of specific works that confuse viewers, or expert analysis of complexity levels. The word "appreciate" is particularly subjective since different people appreciate art differently. Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 provides factual definitions. Origami is objectively "the Japanese tradition of paper folding" and does literally "transform a flat sheet into a finished sculpture" - these are verifiable facts about the process. Choice B is wrong because Sentence 2 states factual information about origami's typical materials and methods. You can verify whether most origami uses single squares of paper without cuts or glue by examining actual origami techniques. Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 3, while mentioning that principles are "surprisingly advanced," primarily states that mathematical principles exist behind origami designs. The mathematical complexity can be objectively demonstrated through geometric analysis and mathematical proofs used in origami design. Remember: Opinion statements often contain evaluative words like "too," "best," "should," or phrases about what people think or feel. Facts can be verified through observation or research, while opinions require subjective judgment.

Question 16

(1) The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American prairies during the 1930s. (2) The phenomenon was caused by a combination of severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion. (3) The government's response to this crisis, while well-intentioned, ultimately made the situation worse for many farming families. (4) Many people were forced to abandon their farms and migrate to other regions.

Which sentence presents a claim that requires specific evidence to be credible?

Sentence 1
Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 4

Explanation: When you encounter questions about claims and evidence, you need to distinguish between statements that are widely accepted facts versus those that present debatable assertions requiring proof. Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a controversial claim that the government's response "ultimately made the situation worse for many farming families." This is a debatable assertion that would need specific evidence—such as data on failed programs, testimonies from affected families, or analysis of policy outcomes—to be credible. Without supporting evidence, readers have no way to evaluate whether this claim is true. Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 presents well-documented historical facts about the Dust Bowl's timing and effects. These are established facts that don't require additional evidence in this context. Choice C is wrong because Sentence 2 describes the scientifically established causes of the Dust Bowl—drought and poor farming practices. These causes are widely accepted by historians and scientists based on extensive research. Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 4 states a well-documented consequence of the Dust Bowl. The mass migration of families (including the famous "Okies") is a historical fact supported by census data and countless personal accounts. Remember this pattern: Look for statements that make evaluative judgments (like "made worse") or controversial assertions rather than those presenting established historical facts or widely accepted cause-and-effect relationships. Claims involving judgment words like "better," "worse," "successful," or "failed" typically need specific evidence to convince readers.

Question 17

(1) The Victorian era in Britain, from 1837 to 1901, was a time of immense industrial, cultural, and scientific change. (2) It saw the expansion of the British Empire and the rise of the middle class. (3) Despite the era's reputation for strict social codes and formality, it was actually a period of significant social rebellion. (4) The literature of the time, from authors like Charles Dickens, often highlighted the social problems of the day.

Which sentence presents a main idea that requires specific examples for support?

Sentence 1
Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 4

Explanation: When analyzing reading passages, you need to distinguish between statements that are self-evident and those that make claims requiring proof or examples to be convincing. Sentence 3 is correct because it makes a counterintuitive claim that directly contradicts common knowledge. The statement "Despite the era's reputation for strict social codes and formality, it was actually a period of significant social rebellion" presents a main idea that challenges what most people believe about the Victorian era. To convince readers of this surprising assertion, the author would need to provide specific examples of rebellious movements, figures, or events from that time period. Without concrete evidence, this claim remains unsupported and unconvincing. Choice A is incorrect because Sentence 1 simply states well-established historical facts about the Victorian era's timeframe and general characteristics. These are widely accepted truths that don't require additional proof. Choice C is wrong because Sentence 2 also presents commonly known historical facts about British imperial expansion and middle-class growth during this period. Choice D is incorrect because Sentence 4 makes a straightforward observation about Victorian literature and even provides a supporting example (Charles Dickens), making it adequately supported rather than requiring additional evidence. Remember this pattern: Look for statements that make surprising, controversial, or counter-intuitive claims. These "despite what you might think" statements almost always need specific examples to be credible. Factual statements about dates, locations, or widely accepted historical events typically stand on their own.

Question 18

(1) Desalination plants, which remove salt from seawater to produce fresh water, are becoming increasingly common in arid regions. (2) The most prevalent method is reverse osmosis, which uses high pressure to force water through a semipermeable membrane. (3) This process is highly effective at producing potable water. (4) Unfortunately, the technology creates more problems for the marine environment than it solves for humans.

Which sentence makes a strong claim that is not adequately supported in the paragraph?

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 4 (correct answer)
Sentence 3

Explanation: When analyzing arguments in reading passages, you need to distinguish between claims that are well-supported by evidence and those that make bold assertions without adequate backing. Sentence 4 is correct because it makes a sweeping claim that "the technology creates more problems for the marine environment than it solves for humans" without providing any supporting evidence. This is a strong comparative statement that would require substantial proof—specific examples of marine environmental damage, quantified impacts, or detailed explanations of how these problems outweigh the benefits to humans. The paragraph offers none of this evidence. Let's examine why the other choices are adequately supported: Sentence A states that desalination plants "are becoming increasingly common in arid regions," which is a factual observation that doesn't require extensive proof within this context. Sentence B describes reverse osmosis as "the most prevalent method" and explains the basic process—this is presenting factual information about the technology. Sentence D claims the process is "highly effective at producing potable water," which logically follows from the explanation of how reverse osmosis works and aligns with the established fact that these plants are becoming common (suggesting they work). The key difference is that Sentence 4 makes a value judgment comparing environmental costs to human benefits without providing the evidence necessary to support such a significant claim. Strategy tip: Look for sentences that make broad comparative claims or strong value judgments—these typically require more evidence than simple factual statements or process descriptions. Unsupported claims often use words like "more than," "worse than," or definitive statements about complex issues.

Question 19

(1) Bioplastics are plastics derived from renewable biomass sources, such as vegetable fats, corn starch, or microbiota. (2) They are often promoted as a more environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based plastics. (3) This claim of being 'eco-friendly' is, in many cases, misleading to consumers. (4) Some bioplastics, for example, are designed to be compostable under specific industrial conditions.

Which sentence makes a claim that needs more elaboration to be fully convincing?

Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 1
Sentence 4

Explanation: When evaluating argumentative writing, you need to identify claims that lack sufficient supporting evidence or explanation. Strong claims require adequate backing to be convincing to readers. Sentence 3 states that the claim of bioplastics being "eco-friendly" is "in many cases, misleading to consumers." This is a significant assertion that challenges a widely accepted belief, but the author provides no statistical data, research studies, or detailed examples to support this sweeping statement. The word "misleading" is particularly strong and demands concrete evidence to be convincing. Let's examine why the other choices don't need as much elaboration. Sentence 1 (C) simply defines bioplastics and lists factual examples of their sources - this is straightforward definitional information that doesn't require further proof. Sentence 2 (B) describes how bioplastics are "often promoted" as environmentally friendly, which is an observable fact about marketing practices rather than a claim requiring evidence. Sentence 4 (D) provides a specific example supporting the author's argument by explaining that some bioplastics require special industrial composting conditions - this actually serves as partial evidence for the claim in sentence 3. The author does attempt to support sentence 3 with sentence 4, but one limited example isn't sufficient to justify such a broad claim about bioplastics being misleading "in many cases." For SHSAT questions about argumentative writing, look for statements that make broad generalizations or strong judgments without adequate supporting evidence. Claims that challenge popular beliefs especially need robust backing to be persuasive.

Question 20

(1) The International Space Station (ISS) is a modular space station in low Earth orbit, a collaborative project among five space agencies. (2) It serves as a microgravity and space environment research laboratory in which crew members conduct experiments in a variety of scientific fields. (3) The scientific breakthroughs that have resulted from ISS research are often exaggerated. (4) Its primary purpose has always been more political than scientific, fostering cooperation after the Cold War.

Which sentence should be followed by specific examples to support its argument?

Sentence 1
Sentence 3 (correct answer)
Sentence 2
Sentence 4

Explanation: When you encounter questions asking which statement needs supporting examples, look for claims that make strong assertions without providing evidence. These statements typically contain opinions, judgments, or controversial points that readers would naturally question. Sentence 3 states that "scientific breakthroughs that have resulted from ISS research are often exaggerated." This is a bold claim that directly challenges the perceived value of ISS research. To be convincing, this statement would need specific examples showing how particular discoveries were overstated or misrepresented in the media or scientific community. Without concrete evidence, readers have no way to evaluate whether this criticism is valid. Let's examine why the other options don't require examples. Choice A (Sentence 1) simply provides factual, objective information about what the ISS is—this descriptive statement doesn't need supporting examples. Choice C (Sentence 2) describes the ISS's function as a research laboratory, which is a straightforward factual claim about its purpose. Choice D (Sentence 4) does make an argumentative claim about political versus scientific purposes, but it's presented as a general interpretation rather than a specific accusation that demands proof. The key difference is that Sentence 3 makes a negative judgment about exaggeration that directly contradicts common assumptions about space research achievements. Such claims require substantiation to be credible. Strategy tip: Look for statements containing evaluative language like "exaggerated," "overrated," or "ineffective"—these opinion-based claims almost always need specific supporting evidence to be persuasive in academic writing.