What this deck covers
This deck focuses on Supporting Evidence, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for SSAT Upper Level Reading.
Study Supporting Evidence in SSAT Upper Level Reading with focused flashcards that help you recognize the idea, recall the key rule, and apply it in practice-style prompts.
0% Complete
Identify the best evidence for: "The company is struggling financially." A) profits dropped 15% B) it launched a new logo.
Tap card or press Space to flip
A) Profits dropped 15%. Declining profits provide measurable financial evidence, unlike cosmetic changes such as a new logo which are unrelated.
How well did you know it?
Card 1 / 25
Space to flip · ← / → to move · once flipped, → Got it · ← Still learning
This deck focuses on Supporting Evidence, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for SSAT Upper Level Reading.
Work through these flashcards in short sessions. Try to answer each prompt before flipping the card, then revisit any cards you miss until the explanation feels automatic.
Answer: A) Profits dropped 15%. Declining profits provide measurable financial evidence, unlike cosmetic changes such as a new logo which are unrelated.
Answer: Loaded or evaluative word choice that signals approval, disapproval, or irony. Word choices convey the author's subjective stance, providing direct insight into tone beyond neutral facts.
Answer: The character's stated reasons, choices, and consequences shown in the text. Explicit depictions of reasons and outcomes reveal underlying drives, offering concrete textual backing for motivational inferences.
Answer: Locate the conclusion in the question and restate it precisely. Precisely restating the conclusion ensures focused searching for matching textual details that directly validate it.
Answer: A specific detail that directly justifies the stated inference or claim. This definition emphasizes the need for precise textual support that logically validates the inferred conclusion without extraneous interpretation.
Answer: A stated causal link or sequence showing one event leads to another. Explicit connections or sequences in the text establish causality, providing stronger support than mere correlations.
Answer: Cross out choices that are irrelevant, too broad, or contradict the conclusion. Systematic elimination focuses on options that align closely with the conclusion, ensuring accurate evidence selection.
Answer: A) Polls show 30% approval. Low approval ratings quantitatively demonstrate unpopularity, unlike neutral actions such as giving a speech.
Answer: A) Accidents fell from 50 to 20. Numerical decline in accidents directly links the policy to reduced incidents, unlike subjective feelings which are indirect.
Answer: The one that matches a passage detail without adding new claims. Options that mirror passage content offer reliable support, whereas those introducing new ideas risk distortion or irrelevance.
Answer: A detail that directly points to the inference with minimal extra assumptions. Direct pointers minimize interpretive leaps, ensuring the evidence logically and efficiently supports the inference.
Answer: A) The author calls her "brilliant". Positive descriptors like 'brilliant' reveal admiration, unlike factual details such as birth year which remain neutral.
Answer: Conclusion is an inference; evidence is the text detail that proves it. Conclusions are derived interpretations, while evidence consists of explicit textual elements that substantiate those interpretations.
Answer: A) "He donated his savings". Specific actions like donating savings directly illustrate generosity, whereas vague descriptions lack concrete proof.
Answer: A) The dialogue includes insults. Insulting dialogue reveals conflict, contrasting with neutral interactions like sharing a meal that suggest harmony.
Answer: It overclaims beyond what the passage actually states. Extreme language often exaggerates or misrepresents the passage's content, weakening its validity as evidence.
Answer: A) A quote that directly shows the claim. Direct quotes substantiate claims precisely, whereas unrelated truths fail to connect to or support the specific conclusion.
Answer: A) The author calls it "unproven". Dismissive terms like 'unproven' indicate doubt, unlike neutral listings that lack evaluative judgment.
Answer: A) It defines key terms. Defining terms indicates an explanatory purpose, contrasting with literary devices like metaphors that suggest figurative intent.
Answer: A) The narrator contradicts earlier facts. Factual contradictions undermine credibility, serving as key evidence of unreliability unlike irrelevant descriptions.
Answer: A specific quoted detail from the passage. Quoted details provide direct, verifiable support from the text, making them stronger than paraphrased or generalized statements.
Answer: A) "Sirens wailed nightly". Auditory details like wailing sirens evoke danger, contrasting with neutral descriptions like sky color that do not imply threat.
Answer: A single precise fact anchored in the text. Precise facts tied to the text provide targeted support, unlike vague generalizations that lack specificity and direct linkage.
Answer: Details repeated or emphasized across the passage, especially in topic and concluding lines. Repeated and positioned details highlight central themes, forming the foundation for main idea conclusions.
Answer: A) Only one variable changed. Changing only one variable ensures controlled conditions, isolating effects, unlike unexpected results which do not confirm control.