The Reading That Would Not Close
A student reads a passage arguing that a town should restore a historic theater rather than demolish it. The passage states: "Restoration would cost $2 million. Demolition and new construction would cost $1.5 million, but the new building would generate an estimated $400,000 more in annual tax revenue." The student concludes the passage supports demolition because it is cheaper. A classmate says the passage actually supports restoration. Neither can point to a sentence that settles it, and the passage never states the author's recommendation.
1. Explain why neither student's conclusion is fully supported, using the numbers in the passage.
Read the worked answer
The passage gives costs and one revenue figure but never states the author's position or a time horizon, so it does not settle the question.
The student's "demolition is cheaper" reading uses only upfront cost ($1.5M vs. $2M). But the passage also says the new building yields $400,000 more per year in tax revenue. Over time that gap can flip the comparison: the $500,000 upfront savings from demolition is offset after about 1.25 years of the extra $400,000/year (500,000 ÷ 400,000 ≈ 1.25). Beyond that point, new construction looks better on the numbers given - but the passage supplies no time frame, no restoration revenue, and no author recommendation, so both conclusions go beyond the text.
The judgment tested: distinguishing what a passage states from what a reader infers, and noticing that a comparison depends on a horizon the text omits.
2. What single piece of information, if added, would most change the analysis, and how should the student revise the conclusion?
Read the worked answer
Most decisive addition: the time horizon over which the town is comparing the options (plus any revenue the restored theater would generate). With a short horizon, demolition's lower upfront cost dominates; over more than about 1.25 years, the $400,000/year advantage of new construction overtakes the $500,000 upfront gap.
Revised conclusion: "The passage presents a trade-off rather than a recommendation: demolition costs $500,000 less upfront, but new construction would recoup that difference in roughly 1.25 years through higher tax revenue. Which option is better depends on the town's time frame and on any revenue a restored theater would bring - neither of which the passage provides."
This replaces an unsupported verdict with a claim the evidence actually bears out.