Evaluate Speaker's Argument and Evidence
Help Questions
7th Grade Reading › Evaluate Speaker's Argument and Evidence
At a student council meeting, Maya argues: “Our school should start 30 minutes later next year.” She gives these reasons and evidence: (1) Teens need more sleep; she cites the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. (2) She says a nearby district moved its start time from 7:45 to 8:30 and reported fewer first-period tardies and better attendance the next semester. (3) She adds that later start times can reduce car crashes involving teen drivers; she references a study summary from the CDC about reduced crash rates after start-time delays. Based on Maya’s reasoning and evidence, which evaluation is most accurate?
Maya’s argument is weak because her claim is only based on opinions, and she gives no sources or real examples.
Maya’s argument is flawed because she uses an ad hominem attack against people who like early start times instead of explaining her reasons.
Maya’s argument is unsound because a recommendation from experts can never be used as evidence for a school policy decision.
Maya’s argument is strong because her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she supports them with relevant evidence from credible organizations and a real-world example.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (is the logic sound? Do reasons support the claim? Are connections clear? No fallacies like bandwagon, slippery slope, or circular reasoning?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports the claim? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types include facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). Maya's argument claims schools should start 30 minutes later, supported by three reasons: teens need more sleep (backed by American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation), a nearby district saw improved attendance after changing start times (real-world example), and later starts reduce teen car crashes (CDC study summary). Choice B correctly identifies Maya's argument as strong because her reasons connect clearly to the claim and she supports them with relevant evidence from credible organizations and a real-world example—the AAP recommendation provides expert testimony, the nearby district offers a comparable example, and the CDC study adds research-based evidence. Choice A fails because Maya does provide sources and real examples, not just opinions; Choice C fails because Maya doesn't attack anyone personally; Choice D fails because expert recommendations are valid evidence for policy decisions. To evaluate arguments effectively, students should identify the claim, examine how reasons support it, and assess whether evidence is sufficient (enough support), relevant (directly connected), and credible (from reliable sources).
In science club, Priya argues: “Our school should install more water bottle filling stations.” Reasons/evidence: (1) “It will reduce plastic waste.” Evidence: Priya says, “I think plastic bottles are bad for the planet.” (2) “It will save students money.” Evidence: “My friend bought three water bottles last week.” (3) “Other schools do it.” Evidence: “I saw a video where a school had one.” Which revision would best strengthen Priya’s argument?
Focus on insulting people who buy bottled water so the audience feels pressured to agree.
Remove the reasons and just repeat the claim several times so it sounds more confident.
Use stronger emotional language about how terrible plastic is, without adding any numbers that might confuse listeners.
Add specific, relevant evidence such as how many plastic bottles the school sells or throws away weekly, costs over time, and examples from comparable schools with results.
Explanation
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires identifying weaknesses in evidence (vague, anecdotal, unsupported) and knowing how to strengthen them with specific, relevant data. Priya's argument for water bottle filling stations has good reasons (reduce waste, save money, precedent) but weak evidence: 'plastic bottles are bad' is vague opinion, 'my friend bought three bottles' is one anecdote, and 'saw a video' lacks specifics. Answer A correctly identifies the best revision: add specific, relevant evidence such as quantifiable data (how many bottles the school uses/discards weekly shows the waste problem's scope), cost analysis (comparing bottle purchases to filling station costs over time), and detailed examples from comparable schools with measurable results (reduced waste percentages, cost savings). Answer B is wrong—emotional language without data doesn't strengthen arguments; C is wrong—insulting people is ad hominem fallacy, not evidence; D is wrong—removing reasons and repeating claims weakens arguments. Strong arguments need specific, measurable evidence: instead of 'plastic is bad,' show '500 bottles weekly in our trash'; instead of 'friend bought bottles,' show 'survey found students spend average $15/month on water'; instead of 'saw a video,' cite 'Jefferson Middle reduced plastic waste 40% after installing stations per their sustainability report.'
At a PTA meeting, a parent says: “Our cafeteria should switch to reusable trays.” Reasons and evidence: (1) The parent says the school uses about 900 disposable trays per week; she explains that’s about 16,200 trays in a 18-week semester. (2) She shares a quote from the city waste department website stating that reducing single-use plastics lowers landfill volume and saves disposal costs. (3) She adds a cost comparison from two vendors showing reusable trays cost more up front but last 5+ years, while disposables must be purchased weekly. Which evaluation best fits the argument’s reasoning and evidence?
The argument is strong because the reasons support the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and comes from appropriate sources.
The argument is unsound because using math to estimate tray totals automatically makes the conclusion false.
The argument is flawed because it attacks students who like disposable trays instead of discussing the policy.
The argument is weak because it only uses one personal story and does not explain any cause-and-effect connection.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (is the logic sound? Do reasons support the claim? Are connections clear?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types include facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). The parent's argument claims the cafeteria should switch to reusable trays, supported by three pieces of evidence: mathematical calculation of disposable tray usage (900/week = 16,200/semester), expert testimony from the city waste department about environmental and cost benefits, and a vendor cost comparison showing long-term savings. Choice B correctly identifies the argument as strong because the reasons support the claim and the evidence is specific, relevant, and comes from appropriate sources—the math provides concrete numbers, the waste department offers expert perspective, and the vendor comparison addresses practical costs. Choice A fails because the parent uses calculations and official sources, not just one personal story; Choice C fails because there's no personal attack; Choice D fails because using math to support claims is valid reasoning. Strong arguments combine different types of evidence (statistics, expert opinions, comparisons) that directly support the claim. Students should recognize when speakers use specific, verifiable evidence from credible sources rather than vague assertions or personal anecdotes alone.
At a community meeting, a parent argues: “The town should build a new skate park.” Reasons/evidence: (1) “Kids need more safe places to exercise.” (2) “Skateboarding is popular.” Evidence given: “I saw a lot of kids skating in the grocery store parking lot last Saturday, and my nephew says he’d go every day.” Evaluate the evidence in this argument.
The evidence is strong because it includes a clear cause-and-effect study showing skate parks reduce injuries by 50%.
The evidence is insufficient because it relies mostly on a brief observation and an anecdote, with no broader data about demand, safety, or cost.
The evidence is sufficient because one busy Saturday and one student’s opinion show the whole town needs a skate park.
The evidence is irrelevant because exercise and popularity can never be used to support building public facilities.
Explanation
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (logic sound? reasons support claim?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough to support each reason? relevant—directly supports? credible—facts accurate, sources reliable?). The parent's argument claims the town should build a skate park, with reasons about safe exercise places and skateboarding's popularity, but provides only anecdotal evidence: seeing kids skating one Saturday and a nephew's opinion. Answer B correctly identifies the evidence as insufficient because it relies on a brief observation and one person's anecdote without broader data about actual demand (how many kids would use it?), safety concerns (accident rates in parking lots?), or costs (construction, maintenance, staffing?). Answer A is wrong—the evidence isn't sufficient because limited observations can't represent town-wide need; C is wrong—exercise and popularity are relevant factors for public facilities; D is wrong—no cause-and-effect study is mentioned. Sufficient evidence means having enough credible information to reasonably support a claim, not just one or two personal observations that might not represent the broader situation.
At a school board meeting about adding mental health days, a speaker claims: “The district should allow two excused mental health days per semester.” Reasons/evidence: She cites (1) the state youth risk survey showing a rise in reported anxiety symptoms among middle schoolers over the past five years, (2) a local pediatrician’s statement that short breaks can help students reset and return to routines, and (3) a nearby district’s policy that reported fewer unexcused absences after adding mental health days. Which evaluation is most accurate?
The argument is flawed because it presents a false dilemma, claiming the only options are mental health days or no education at all.
The argument is weak because it uses only emotional language and provides no evidence connected to attendance or student needs.
The argument is strong because the reasons connect to the claim and the evidence is relevant and varied (survey data, expert opinion, and a comparable district example).
The argument is unsound because evidence from another district can never apply to this district under any circumstances.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (connections clear?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient, relevant, credible from varied sources). The speaker's argument claims the district should allow two excused mental health days per semester, supported by: state youth risk survey showing rising anxiety in middle schoolers (relevant data), pediatrician's statement about breaks helping students reset (expert medical opinion), and nearby district reporting fewer unexcused absences after implementing the policy (comparable real-world example). Choice B correctly identifies the argument as strong because the reasons connect to the claim and the evidence is relevant and varied—survey data establishes the problem, medical expertise supports the solution's effectiveness, and the district example shows practical results. Choice A fails because the argument uses data and expert opinion, not just emotion; Choice C fails because no false dilemma is presented; Choice D fails because evidence from similar contexts can be relevant. Strong arguments combine different types of evidence (statistics, expert testimony, comparable examples) that work together to support claims. Students should recognize when speakers effectively use varied, credible sources that address different aspects of their argument—problem identification, solution effectiveness, and real-world implementation.
During a town hall, a resident argues: “We should stop the annual spring festival.” Reasons/evidence: (1) “The festival is loud.” (2) “If we allow it this year, next year it will be even bigger, then it will turn into an all-night party, and eventually our town will become unsafe.” (3) “Also, the festival committee president never listens to anyone.” Which statement best identifies the flawed reasoning?
The argument is sound because loud events always lead to unsafe towns, so the conclusion follows logically.
The argument uses a slippery slope and an ad hominem attack instead of focusing on evidence about the festival itself.
The argument is flawed mainly because it does not mention recycling or environmental impacts.
The argument is strong because criticizing the committee president is the best way to prove the festival is harmful.
Explanation
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING for logical fallacies like slippery slope ('if X then definitely Y'), ad hominem (attacking the person not the issue), bandwagon, or circular reasoning. The resident's argument claims the town should stop the annual spring festival, but uses severely flawed reasoning: (1) 'The festival is loud' provides minimal evidence, (2) classic slippery slope fallacy predicting an extreme chain reaction (festival → bigger → all-night party → unsafe town) without evidence for these connections, and (3) ad hominem attack on the committee president's listening skills rather than addressing the festival itself. Answer A correctly identifies both the slippery slope fallacy and ad hominem attack as the main flaws—the argument attacks a person and predicts extreme consequences without focusing on actual evidence about the festival's impacts. Answer B is wrong—loud events don't automatically make towns unsafe; C is wrong—personal attacks don't prove anything about the festival; D is wrong—the flaw isn't about missing environmental topics. Sound arguments focus on the issue itself with evidence, not on attacking people (ad hominem) or predicting extreme chain reactions without proof (slippery slope).
In a presentation about recycling at school, a student claims: “We should add more recycling bins in hallways.” Reasons: (1) Students throw recyclable bottles in the trash because bins are too far away. (2) More bins will increase recycling rates. Evidence: She says, “I saw three bottles in the trash yesterday,” and “Recycling is important for the Earth.” Which choice best describes what would most strengthen her evidence?
Remove the reasons and just repeat the claim more times so the audience remembers it.
Add school-specific data, like a weeklong trash audit showing how many recyclables are thrown away and evidence from similar schools that more bins increased recycling.
Add more opinions from her friends saying recycling feels important, because feelings are stronger than numbers.
Include facts about animals in the ocean even if the school does not recycle plastic bottles, because any environmental fact supports any recycling claim.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires identifying when evidence is insufficient (not enough support) or too vague ("important for Earth"). The student's argument claims more recycling bins are needed, but evidence consists only of seeing three bottles in trash yesterday (limited anecdote) and stating "recycling is important" (vague assertion without specifics). Choice A correctly identifies what would strengthen the evidence: school-specific data like a weeklong trash audit showing how many recyclables are thrown away and evidence from similar schools that more bins increased recycling—this would provide systematic data rather than one observation and comparable examples showing the solution works. Choice B fails because opinions aren't stronger than data; Choice C fails because repetition doesn't strengthen evidence; Choice D fails because irrelevant facts don't support specific claims. Sufficient evidence requires systematic observation over time (not just "yesterday"), specific data (not just "important"), and relevant comparisons showing proposed solutions work. Students should understand that strengthening arguments means adding specific, relevant, verifiable evidence that directly supports both the problem (recyclables in trash) and the solution (more bins increase recycling).
At a town meeting, a community member says: “We should install more streetlights near the middle school.” Reasons and evidence: (1) The police department’s public log shows 18 reports of vandalism within three blocks of the school between 6–10 p.m. over the past 6 months. (2) A city planning report from last year found that blocks with improved lighting in a nearby neighborhood had a 22% decrease in nighttime property damage reports after installation. (3) The speaker also says, “The area feels scary,” and several neighbors nod.
Which choice best evaluates the overall strength of the speaker’s argument?
The argument is weak because vandalism reports prove that only streetlights can fix the problem, so the reasoning is too cautious.
The argument is weak because any mention of feelings makes all statistics automatically invalid and irrelevant.
The argument is strong because it uses relevant local data and a comparable report to support a reasonable cause-and-effect claim, with feelings as minor extra support.
The argument is unsound because it compares two neighborhoods, and comparisons can never be used as evidence.
Explanation
This question tests SL.7.3—delineate argument/claims, evaluate for sound reasoning and sufficient relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments: REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies: bandwagon 'everyone does', slippery slope 'if X then definitely Y', circular 'should because should'?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—facts accurate, sources reliable? Types: facts/statistics, examples, expert testimony, research). The speaker provides police data (18 vandalism reports), comparable city planning research (22% decrease with lighting), and community sentiment as supplementary support. Choice A correctly evaluates this as strong—the reasoning shows logical cause-and-effect supported by relevant local data and comparable outcomes, with feelings as minor additional context. Choice B wrongly dismisses all evidence; C misinterprets the claim; D rejects valid comparison evidence. Strong community arguments combine official data (police logs), relevant research (city planning reports), and acknowledge community concerns while prioritizing verifiable evidence. The speaker effectively uses local statistics and comparable situations to support reasonable safety improvements.
A community member speaks at a town meeting: “The city should build more bike lanes near schools.” Reasons and evidence: (1) Safety: she cites city crash data showing 18 bike/pedestrian crashes within 1 mile of schools last year, and notes a state transportation report finding protected bike lanes reduce injury crashes on similar roads. (2) Traffic: she references a pilot at one school where adding a bike lane and bike racks increased student biking from 6% to 14% (reported in the school newsletter with counts from two ‘bike-to-school’ weeks). (3) Health: she cites a local hospital’s community health report encouraging active commuting.
Which statement best evaluates the strength of her argument?
The argument is weak because school newsletters can never contain any accurate information, so all evidence is invalid.
The argument is weak because it includes three reasons; strong arguments should focus on only one reason.
The argument is strong because the reasons are logically connected to the claim and supported by specific, relevant data and credible reports.
The argument is strong mainly because bike lanes are popular, so the city should follow what most people want.
Explanation
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (logic sound? Reasons support claim? Connections clear? No fallacies?) AND EVIDENCE (sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—accurate facts, reliable sources?). The community member's argument claims the city should build more bike lanes near schools, supported by three logically connected reasons with strong evidence: safety (18 crashes from city data plus state report on protected lanes reducing injuries), reduced traffic (pilot program data showing biking increased from 6% to 14%), and health benefits (local hospital's community health report). Choice B is correct because the reasons logically connect to the claim and each is supported by specific, relevant data from credible sources—government crash data, measured pilot results, and medical authority recommendations. The argument isn't weak for having three well-supported reasons (A), school newsletters can report accurate pilot program data (C), and the strength comes from evidence-based reasoning, not popularity (D). This teaches students that strong arguments use multiple credible sources (government data, pilot program results, expert recommendations) with specific numbers and clear connections between evidence and claims, demonstrating how comprehensive evidence from various authorities strengthens an argument.
At a school assembly, a speaker says: “We should install more security cameras in hallways because cameras prevent bullying.” Reasons: “Bullies won’t bully if they know they’re being watched.” Evidence: He states, “A famous school in another state added cameras, and bullying disappeared.” He does not name the school or provide any report. He also adds, “If you disagree, you probably don’t care about victims.”
Which choice best evaluates the speaker’s reasoning and evidence?
The argument is weak because it relies on an unsupported story and includes an unfair personal attack instead of addressing counterarguments.
The argument is weak mainly because it does not include statistics about camera prices, even though price is the only thing that matters.
The argument is sound because cameras always stop bullying, and the speaker’s confidence shows the evidence is credible.
The argument is strong because it appeals to protecting victims, and emotional urgency is enough to prove the claim.
Explanation
This question tests SL.6.3—delineate a speaker's argument and specific claims, evaluating them for sound reasoning and sufficient, relevant evidence. Evaluating arguments requires checking REASONING (is logic sound? Do reasons support claim? Are connections clear? No fallacies like bandwagon, slippery slope, circular reasoning?) AND EVIDENCE (is it sufficient—enough to support each reason? Relevant—directly supports? Credible—are facts accurate, sources reliable?). The speaker argues for more security cameras to prevent bullying, reasoning that bullies won't act if watched, supported by claiming 'a famous school in another state' eliminated bullying with cameras (no school name or report provided), then adding that disagreement means not caring about victims. The correct answer B identifies two major flaws: relying on an unsupported story (vague reference without specifics or verification) and including an unfair personal attack (ad hominem) suggesting those who disagree don't care about victims rather than addressing counterarguments substantively. Answer A wrongly accepts emotional appeals as sufficient; C incorrectly claims cameras always work; D focuses on irrelevant price concerns. This exemplifies weak argumentation through unverifiable anecdotal evidence and attacking opponents' character rather than their arguments—strong arguments would provide specific, verifiable examples and address opposing views respectfully with evidence.