Evaluating Arguments, Paired Texts & Visual Evidence (R.7, R.8 & R.9)

Assessment Targets R.7, R.8, and R.9 are the most heavily weighted analytical skills on the GED RLA exam because they are tested TWICE: first in multiple-choice and drag-and-drop reading sets, and second in the 45-minute Extended Response essay (where you read two opposing arguments on a public controversy and evaluate which writer makes the better-supported case). Under R.8, you must trace the building blocks of an argument (Claim → Reasons → Evidence), judge whether the evidence is relevant and sufficient (distinguishing empirically supported claims from bare assertions or anecdotes), and expose logical fallacies and unstated assumptions. Under R.7 and R.9, you compare two texts addressing the same topic—either two opposing persuasive passages or two texts in different genres/formats—and analyze how an accompanying table, chart, or timeline extends, clarifies, or contradicts the written passage.

1. Delineating Arguments & Evaluating Evidence (R.8): • Claim (Conclusion): The main position the author wants you to accept. • Evidence: Facts, statistics, controlled studies, historical records, or expert testimony offered to prove the claim. • Relevance vs Sufficiency: Evidence is RELEVANT if it directly bears on the claim; it is SUFFICIENT if the sample size and scope are large enough to justify the conclusion. A single personal anecdote ('My uncle...') or a non-random poll of 5 people is insufficient to prove a nationwide policy claim. 2. Underlying Assumptions & Common Logical Fallacies (R.8): • Underlying Assumption (Premise): An unstated belief that MUST be true for the evidence to prove the conclusion. For example, arguing 'This cereal contains whole oats, so it will lower your cholesterol' assumes that the amount of whole oats in the cereal is sufficient to affect cholesterol and isn't offset by added sugar. • High-Frequency GED Fallacies: - Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion from a tiny or unrepresentative sample. - False Cause (Post Hoc): Assuming that because Event B happened after Event A, A caused B. - False Dilemma (Either/Or): Pretending only two extreme choices exist ('Either we ban all cars downtown or air pollution will never improve'). - Ad Hominem / Straw Man: Attacking the opponent's character or distorting their argument instead of addressing their evidence. - Slippery Slope: Claiming without proof that one modest step will inevitably trigger a chain of catastrophic outcomes. 3. Comparing Paired Texts & Visual Data (R.7 & R.9): • Opposing Arguments (R.9): Ask four comparison questions: (1) On what baseline fact do BOTH authors agree? (2) What is the exact point of disagreement? (3) How does Author 1's evidence type (e.g., economic cost data) differ from Author 2's (e.g., anecdotal case studies)? (4) How would Author 2 respond to a specific claim in Passage 1? • Visual Integration (R.7): Check whether a chart, table, or timeline (a) EXTENDS the text (shows the trend continuing into later years or additional categories), (b) CLARIFIES/SUPPORTS the text (provides exact numbers for a trend described verbally), or (c) CONTRADICTS/QUALIFIES the text (shows an exception where the author's broad claim fails).