Identifying and Creating Arguments
What Identifying and Creating Arguments asks
This domain tests two connected skills. You analyze arguments in reading passages, and you write your own argument in the GED RLA Extended Response. The essay is 45 minutes within the 150-minute RLA test. You read two short passages on the same issue, decide which argument is stronger, and support your judgment with evidence from both passages.
Core rules
- Claim, evidence, reasoning. A claim is a debatable position, not a fact. Evidence is relevant information such as data, examples, quotations, or expert findings. Reasoning explains why that evidence supports the claim.
- Evaluate evidence. Ask whether it is relevant, reliable, and sufficient. A single anecdote is weak support for a broad claim. A small or self-selected sample is weaker than a large, representative one. Correlation does not prove causation.
- Find assumptions. An assumption is an unstated belief the argument needs. If the assumption is questionable, the argument has a gap.
- Address counterclaims. A strong argument acknowledges the opposing view and responds to it rather than ignoring it.
- In the Extended Response, argue, do not summarize. State a clear position, use evidence from both passages, explain the link between evidence and claim, and note the weaker side.
Worked example
Argument: Our school should start at 9 a.m. because attendance improved at one school that made the change. Therefore, later start times raise attendance everywhere.
The claim is that later start times raise attendance everywhere. The evidence is one school's improvement. That evidence is relevant but insufficient: there is no comparison group, no data on other schools, and no check for other causes such as a new bus schedule. The word everywhere overgeneralizes. A strong evaluation would say the argument is suggestive but not convincing, and it would propose better evidence: attendance records from several comparable schools before and after the change.
Traps that cost marks
- Summarizing both passages instead of taking a position.
- Quoting evidence without explaining how it supports the claim.
- Using evidence from only one passage when the prompt requires both.
- Treating emotional language or a vivid story as proof.
- Ignoring a counterclaim, or raising one without answering it.
- Confusing causation with correlation.