Reading Comprehension - Informational and Argumentative Texts
What this domain tests
The informational and argumentative strand asks you to read articles, opinion pieces, posters, and short essays, then extract explicit information, follow an argument, and evaluate how evidence supports a position. You must distinguish fact from opinion, identify the thesis, and recognize persuasive strategies.
Core rules and concepts
- Text organizers: titles, subtitles, lead paragraphs (chapeau), bulleted lists, and captions carry meaning; use them to predict and then confirm content.
- Thesis (thèse): the position the author defends, usually stated early and restated at the end. Opposing views may be presented as thèse adverse.
- Argument structure: a claim (argument) supported by evidence (statistics, examples, expert testimony, anecdotes). Ask whether the evidence actually supports the claim.
- Persuasive strategies: rhetorical questions, repetition, appeals to emotion or authority, inclusive nous, and loaded vocabulary.
- Fact vs. opinion: facts are verifiable; opinions contain value judgments, modals (devrait, il faut), or evaluative adjectives.
- Connectors: cependant, donc, en effet, par conséquent signal contrast, conclusion, or justification. Misreading them reverses the argument.
Worked example
Consider: « Les écrans devraient être interdits avant 16 ans. En effet, une étude de 2022 montre que les adolescents passent en moyenne quatre heures par jour devant un écran, et plusieurs pédiatres signalent des troubles du sommeil liés à cette pratique. »
A question asks: Quelle est la thèse de l'auteur et sur quels arguments s'appuie-t-elle?
Reasoning: the modal devraient être interdits marks the thesis: screens should be banned before age 16. En effet introduces justification. Two arguments follow: a statistical one (four hours daily, 2022 study) and an expert one (pediatricians report sleep problems). Note that the statistics describe screen time, not the effects of a ban; a strong answer can flag that the evidence supports the problem but not directly the proposed solution.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating a quoted opposing view as the author's thesis.
- Calling a statistic an opinion because it feels persuasive; verifiability decides.
- Missing a concession introduced by certes or bien que, which may soften the thesis.
- Confusing the topic with the thesis: the topic is les écrans; the thesis is a debatable position.
- Ignoring the source and date of a statistic when asked about reliability.