Analyzing the logic and evidence that support a claim
Spotting assumptions and the underlying premise
Evaluating two arguments side-by-side
A key skill for getting good marks on the GED RLA test is the ability to analyze arguments. An argument states and supports an opinion regarding an issue that has opposing views. Evidence can be used to both support the stated opinion and call opposing viewpoints into question. Questions on the GED RLA test may ask you to identify or summarize the point the author is trying to make, analyze the logic and evidence used to support the author’s viewpoint, identify an assumption or premise on which the article is based, or compare a certain aspect of two arguments presented side-by-side. Whatever the question may be, it requires you to read a passage closely, extract key concepts, and identify strengths and weaknesses in the argument. In this chapter, we provide the insight and guidance you need to pick apart arguments along with plenty of practice to hone your skills.
Identifying and Summarizing the Main Idea
The main idea of a passage is the central or most important point. In an argument, the main idea is whatever the author of the passage is trying to convince you, the reader, to believe or the action the author wants you to take. To identify the main idea of the passage that presents a certain point of view, take the following steps:
Read the passage from beginning to end.
Write down the main points stated or implied.
Write a list of evidence used to support each point.
Decide which is the main point and which points are used to expand on the main point.
Your finished product provides a bird’s eye view of the passage, which typically reveals the main idea and provides everything you need to summarize the main idea.
Questions on the GED RLA test may not ask you specifically to identify the main idea of a passage. Instead, they may ask what the passage builds up to or ask you to choose the best headline for the passage. Although they don’t ask for the main idea of the passage directly, that’s exactly what they’re after.
Read the following extract from a speech by Barack Obama on March 7, 2015, about the importance of higher education and the Student Aid Bill of Rights:
… In an economy increasingly built on innovation, the most important skill you can sell is your knowledge. That’s why higher education is, more than ever, the surest ticket to the middle class.
But just when it’s never been more important, it’s also never been more expensive. The average undergrad who borrows to pay for college ends up graduating with about $28,000 in student loan debt.
That’s why my administration has worked hard to make college more affordable. We expanded tax credits and Pell Grants, enacted the largest reform to student loan programs in history, and fought to keep interest rates on student loans low. We’ve acted to let millions of graduates cap loan payments at 10 percent of their income so they don’t have to choose between paying the rent and paying back their debt. I’ve sent Congress my plan to bring the cost of community college down to zero — because two years of higher education should be as free and universal as high school is today.
But all of us — elected officials, universities, business leaders, everybody — need to do more to bring down college costs. Which is why this week, I unveiled another way that we can help more Americans afford college. It doesn’t involve any new spending or bureaucracy. It’s a simple declaration of values — what I call a Student Aid Bill of Rights. It says that every student deserves access to a quality, affordable education. Every student should be able to access the resources to pay for college. Every borrower has the right to an affordable repayment plan. And every borrower has the right to quality customer service, reliable information, and fair treatment, even if they struggle to repay their loans.
That’s it. Just a few simple principles. But if we all rally around these principles, there’s a lot that colleges, lenders, and the people you sent to Washington and to your state legislatures can do to realize them across the country.
So if you believe in a Student Aid Bill of Rights that will help more Americans pay for a quality education, I’m asking you to visit WhiteHouse.gov/CollegeOpportunity. Sign your name to this declaration. Tell your families, and your friends, and fellow students. I’m going to ask Members of Congress, and lenders, and as many business leaders as I can find. Because making sure that students aren’t saddled with debt before they even get started in life is in all our interests.
In America, a higher education cannot be a privilege reserved for only the few. It has to be available to everybody who’s willing to work for it… .
If you write down the key points made in this speech, your list should look something like this:
The administration has been working hard to make college more affordable.
Everybody needs to do more to bring down college costs.
You should demonstrate your support for the Student Aid Bill of Rights.
This form of analysis requires you to isolate the points in a text, decide whether they’re main points or expand on other points, and then list them accordingly. You can make the case that two other points in the speech are that 1) higher education is the surest ticket to the middle class, and 2) students are graduating with too much debt. However, these are merely statements — assumptions or premises on which the passage is based. For additional details on identifying the assumptions or premises on which a passage is based, see “Rooting Out Assumptions and the Underlying Premise” later in this chapter. Main points typically have more details to support them.
After identifying the key points, write down the details used to support each point:
The administration has been working hard to make college more affordable:
expanded tax credits and Pell Grants
enacted reforms to the student loan programs
kept interest rates low
helped students cap loan payments
sent Congress plans for zero cost community college education
Everybody needs to do more to bring down college costs:
Elected officials in federal and state government
Universities
Business leaders
Lenders
Student Aid Bill of Rights, four principles
Every student deserves access to quality, affordable education.
Every student should have access to resources to pay for college.
Every borrower has a right to an affordable repayment plan.
Every borrower has a right to quality customer service from his or her lender.
You should demonstrate your support for the Student Aid Bill of Rights:
Go to WhiteHouse.gov/CollegeOpportunity.
Sign your name.
Tell others.
The three main points give an overview of what the text argues: The administration worked to make college more affordable; everyone needs to do more; you should demonstrate your support for the principles in the Student Aid Bill of Rights (SABR).
Now you can go back over the information and decide on the main idea of the text.
What does all the information in the text build up to?
(A) Lenders need to treat borrowers fairly.
(B) The cost of higher education is too high.
(C) The Student Aid Bill of Rights (SABR) will help more Americans pay for quality education
(D) Higher education cannot be a privilege
Choices (A) and (B) are both correct, but they’re not the key points. Choice (D) is a key point, but the passage argues it only implicitly, not directly. The main thrust of the text is to ask for support for the SABR because of what it will do. That means the best choice is Choice (C), The Student Aid Bill of Rights (SABR) will help more Americans pay for quality education.
Inferring the main idea from details
The main idea isn’t always stated explicitly in a passage. Sometimes, you need to infer it from details in the text. To do so, reduce the text to a series of points and then decide where these points lead. That will be the main idea, stated or not.
Read this excerpt from NASA’s “Climate change: How do we know?”
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Earth has had seven glacial cycles in 650,000 years.
Six of those seven are attributed to orbital variations.
Current global warming trend is unique because it’s likely human-induced.
Current warming is happening at unprecedented rate.
The article builds up to the last two points. The order here is important. The idea that climate change is nothing new is part of the passage, but the flow of ideas moves away from that starting point toward the last two points — the current warming is probably caused by humans and is occurring at an unprecedented rate. The last two then have to be key.
What would be a good headline for this passage?
(A) Climate Change: Nothing New
(B) Rate of Modern Climate Change Unprecedented
(C) Current Climate Change Caused by Humans
(D) New Technology Studies Climate Change
Choice (A) is true but doesn’t present the whole story. Choice (B) is supported in the passage. Although the passage mentions that the current warming trend is probably caused by human activities, the passage doesn’t say that human activity has been proven to be the cause, so you can rule out Choice (C). You can also rule out Choice (D), which may be correct but isn’t supported in the passage. The best choice is Choice (B); it’s one of the two main points and the only option in the answer choices supported by evidence in the passage.
Drawing generalizations and hypotheses from the evidence
A generalization is a broad conclusion drawn from evidence presented. A conclusion based on limited or unsupported evidence is called a hypothesis, which is essentially an educated guess. The GED RLA test expects you to be able to extract information from passages and turn that information into a general statement. The good news is that the test provides you with a passage that contains all of the information you need to draw your conclusion and formulate a fitting generalization or hypothesis. To answer such a question, read the passage closely and jot down the main ideas. One of the main ideas should guide you to the correct answer choice. Here’s an example from the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Emergency Disinfection of Drinking Water:”
Use bottled water that has not been exposed to flood waters if it is available.
If you don’t have bottled water, you should boil water to make it safe. Boiling water will kill most types of disease-causing organisms that may be present. If the water is cloudy, filter it through clean cloths or allow it to settle, and draw off the clear water for boiling. Boil the water for one minute, let it cool, and store it in clean containers with covers.
If you can’t boil water, you can disinfect it using household bleach. Bleach will kill some, but not all, types of disease-causing organisms that may be in the water. If the water is cloudy, filter it through clean cloths or allow it to settle, and draw off the clear water for disinfection. Add teaspoon (or 8 drops) of regular, unscented, liquid household bleach for each gallon of water, stir it well and let it stand for 30 minutes before you use it. Store disinfected water in clean containers with covers.
If you have a well that has been flooded, the water should be tested and disinfected after flood waters recede. If you suspect that your well may be contaminated, contact your local or state health department or agriculture extension agent for specific advice.
The idea of making generalizations from evidence is more than simply making one or two statements that sum up the information presented. The passage is about making water safe to drink, but what is the aim of all that information? What one phrase would summarize the purpose of all these basic points? Try answering the following question:
Which of the following statements most accurately summarizes this passage?
(A) Water must always be purified to make it suitable for drinking.
(B) In an emergency, tap water is not safe to drink.
(C) There are various ways to obtain safe drinking water when tap water is contaminated.
(D) You can make contaminated water safe by boiling it or adding bleach.
The first generalization to draw from all this information is that untreated water isn’t safe to drink. The second generalization is that contaminated water can be made safe, or at least safer, to drink. Choice (C) is the only choice that is both supported in the passage and broad enough to summarize the entire passage. Choice (A) isn’t supported in the passage because the passage discusses drinking water safety only in the context of an emergency, not “always.” Choice (B) is implied in the passage and serves more as an assumption on which the passage is based. Although Choice (D) is true and supported in the passage, it doesn’t accommodate the fact that bottled water is also an option. Choice (C) is the best answer.
Have a look at this passage from An Unsinkable Titanic by John Bernard Walker (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform):
… she [the Titanic] was supposed to be the “last word” in first-class steamship construction, the culmination of three-quarters of a century of experience in building safe and stanch vessels. In the official descriptions of the ship, widely distributed at the time of her launching, the safety elements of her construction were freely dwelt upon. This literature rang the changes on stout bulkheads, watertight compartments, automatic, self-closing bulkhead doors, etc., — and honestly so. There is every reason to believe that the celebrated firm who built the ship, renowned the world over for the high character of their work; the powerful company whose flag she carried; aye, and even her talented designer, who was the first to pronounce the Titanic a doomed vessel and went down with the ship, were united in the belief that the size of the Titanic and her construction were such that she was unsinkable by any of the ordinary accidents to which the transatlantic liner is liable.
Use your evidence list to test the answer choices. Based on the evidence, which is the most valid conclusion you can draw from the passage?
The evidence presented backs up the idea that confidence in the unsinkability of the Titanic was perfectly justified. Remember, the hypothesis is based on the evidence; history proved that the Titanic wasn’t safe, not unsinkable. However, based on this passage, people had good reasons for their confidence in the Titanic. Choice (A) is best. Nothing in the passage supports the notion that reports at the time were intended to mislead people about the Titanic’s safety, so rule out Choice (B). Although the designer of the ship may have made mistakes, nothing in the passages supports this theory, so Choice (C) is wrong. You can also rule out Choice (D), because even though the Titanic may have been a well-built sea vessel, that’s not the main point of the passage; the main point has more to do with people’s confidence in it.
Digging into the Details
Whether an RLA test reading passage tells a story, describes a scene, provides instructions, or presents a certain point of view, it contains details or evidence that you may be asked to summarize or analyze. To answer such questions correctly, you must be able to read closely and with a critical eye on the details. A close look at the details may reveal how effective the passage is at conveying an idea or expressing or supporting a particular point of view.
In this section, we offer guidance to help you read more closely and spot strengths and weaknesses in reading passages.
Summarizing details
Regardless of what type of reading passage you encounter, you’re often required to summarize details to identify the correct answer. Two approaches work well:
Write a list of details presented and then write one sentence that describes them all.
Draw a picture with the main point in the middle surrounded by the details that support it. Figure 6-1 shows a diagram of the main idea and supporting details for the Titanic passage presented in the earlier section “Drawing generalizations and hypotheses from the evidence.”
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Figure 6-1: Draw a diagram of the main idea with supporting details.
If you’re a visual learner, opt for the diagram over the numbered list. Although both approaches can be considered visual, the diagram is more effective at producing a mental image.
Following the train of thought
When writers present an opinion or argument regarding an issue, they typically do so in steps or by introducing one or more main points. Questions on the GED require an ability to read and follow an argument from beginning to end and identify the steps in that argument. To identify the correct response to train of thought questions, jot down the progression of ideas in the passage. You may want to number the steps or use a ladder diagram or flowchart to trace the progression of the argument.
Look again at the NASA passage on climate change presented earlier in this chapter:
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Which of the following statements does not follow logically from the argument presented in the passage?
(A) The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history.
(B) The current climate trend is of particular significance.
(C) The current climate trend is likely human-induced.
(D) None of the above.
To answer this question, draw a flowchart like the one shown in Figure 6-2.
When you map the argument and do a little math, the author’s train of thought becomes clearer; however, you still need to do some work as a reader to make the connection:
Seven previous climate change events occurred over the past 650,000 years. Round the number of years up to 700,000, and that gives you a climate change event every 100,000 years or so.
The last climate change event ended 7,000 years ago. Here’s where your critical thinking comes in. If a climate change event occurs every 100,000 years, and the last event ended 7,000 years ago, then Earth shouldn’t be due for another climate change event for another 93,000 years, give or take a few thousand years.
Human civilization started about 7,000 years ago, coinciding with the “abrupt end” of the previous global cooling event and the start of the current global warming period. This line of reasoning leads logically to the conclusion that the current climate trend is likely to be caused by human activity. Of course, “likely” doesn’t mean that current global warming is caused by human activity, only that the possibility exists.
So the correct answer to the question is Choice (D), none of the above. Choice (A) follows logically from the argument, because the argument states that climate change events have occurred over the past 650,000 years. Choice (B) is also logical because the passage points out two reasons why the current trend is of particular significance: 1) It’s likely to be human induced, and 2) The warming is occurring more rapidly than during past events. You already determined by mapping the argument that Choice (C) follows logically from the argument.
Distinguishing between supported and unsupported claims
Assessing the validity of evidence is a critical skill on the RLA test. Newspapers, speeches, and other media constantly bombard people with information and opinions. To formulate a thoughtful opinion on any issue, you must be able to distinguish between supported and unsupported claims. Evidence needs to be more than just a list of statements — it must be clear, detailed, and proven.
You’re likely to encounter questions on the RLA test that challenge your ability to distinguish the difference between supported and unsupported claims. To do so, write down a list of claims made in the passage. Below or next to each claim, write down the evidence given to support it; write “No evidence” if none is provided.
The following passage contains a mixture of supported and unsupported claims:
The union movement has outlived its usefulness. It is based on a model of confrontation suitable for the 19th century but no longer needed in the 21st. The movement assumes that all employers are determined and able to increase their profits at the expense of workers. Whether they are keeping wages low or stripping workers of benefits, the employers are out to get the workers.
However, today labor laws provide protection against corporate excesses. Minimum wage standards, pensions, health insurance managed by the government, and laws governing safety in the workplace are all in place to protect workers. Laws against discrimination and legal procedures for firing workers restrict an employer’s ability to terminate employment unjustly. Laws are even in place to protect workers who file complaints with government agencies against employers.
With all these protections, unionization does little for workers other than add to the workers’ expenses as they support a bloated union bureaucracy.
Which of the following claims has the most support in this passage?
(A) The union movement is based on an outdated model.
(B) Current labor laws protect workers.
(C) Unions do little for workers other than take their money.
(D) Laws protect workers who file complaints against their employers.
To answer this question, write down the list of claims presented in this passage. Your job is half done here, because the answer choices present the claims you need to evaluate:
Claim
Support
The union movement is based on an outdated model.
______________
Current labor laws protect workers.
______________
Unions do little for workers other than take their money.
______________
Laws protect workers who file complaints against their employers.
______________
After reviewing the support for each claim, you should be able to easily narrow down your options to Choices (A) and (B). Choice (C) is an unsupported claim. Choice (D) is evidence to support the claim that current labor laws protect workers. Comparing Choices (A) and (B), you should see that more evidence is presented to support the claim that current labor laws protect workers. Choice (B) is the best answer.
While you’re at it, give yourself some additional practice in analyzing the progression of this argument. The passage opens with the author’s thesis: Unions are no longer needed. The author explains that the union movement is based on a premise that was true in the past but is no longer true.
Note that the wording “out to get the workers” is clearly loaded. It aims to elicit an emotional response rather than convey a reasoned argument, and it reveals the author’s bias against this attitude in those that support modern-day unions.
The second paragraph is accurate. This information is presented in a newspaper style, without bias. Readers can argue whether these government requirements are sufficient, but they do exist. Union members would perhaps add that unions provide protection above what the government agencies provide. The statement that there are minimum wage laws doesn’t address the issue of whether those wages are suitable or adequate, or that unions work to improve wages above the minimum standards set by government.
The final paragraph restates the thesis. However, the last sentence in that paragraph again uses loaded words to denigrate unions — “bloated union bureaucracy” — and phrasing to suggest that workers receive nothing in exchange for the union dues they pay. This biased language may win points with less careful readers, but for sophisticated readers like you, they actually weaken the argument.
Spotting valid and invalid reasoning
On the RLA test, some questions test your ability to identify valid and invalid reasoning. In order for reasoning to be valid, it must lead logically from the premise to the conclusion. Common types of invalid reasoning include the following:
Overgeneralization: An overgeneralization draws a broad conclusion from a limited amount of evidence; for example, “Global warming can’t possibly be caused by humans, because over the past 650,000 years, long before humans started burning fossil fuels, the earth has experienced seven periods of global warming and cooling.”
Illogical conclusion: Correlation doesn’t prove causation. In other words, a conclusion that doesn’t necessarily follow based on the evidence provided is illogical. For example, consider the statement “Since standardized testing became widely used in schools to evaluate academic achievement, classroom performance has declined.” Just because classroom performance started to decline at the same time standardized testing was implemented doesn’t necessarily prove that standardized testing caused the decline.
Personal bias: Personal bias results when a writer bases conclusions on opinion rather than on evidence. For example, “I’m noticing more and more SUVs on the road than ever before. It seems as though people have given up on the idea of conserving energy and reducing pollution.” This particular bias is called selection bias. The writer may have noticed more SUVs on the road because, whether she realizes it or not, she may have become more conscious of them for some reason, perhaps looking for proof to support her belief.
Valid reasoning draws conclusions based on fact. On the test, you may need to spend a few moments thinking about an argument and the evidence used to support it to figure out whether the argument is logical.
To identify faulty reasoning, look for the following common signs:
A claim made with few or no facts to support it
A broad conclusion based on too few examples
Correlated events in which the cause-and-effect relationship is claimed but not proven
Statements presented as truths with little or no clear evidence to support them as facts
A statement of opinion presented as a fact
Words such as all, every, none, and nobody, which commonly indicate an overgeneralization
Use an Euler (pronounced “oiler”) diagram to test the validity of any deductive argument (a line of reasoning that leads from premise(s) to a conclusion); for example: “Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.” Obviously, the two premises are correct: Dogs have four legs, and my cat has four legs. Just as obviously, the conclusion is wrong, but why? Use an Euler diagram to find out. Here’s how:
Write down all premises on which the argument is based.
Diagram the premises, using circles to illustrate the groups defined in the premises and/or assumptions of the argument.
If a conclusion is being drawn about an individual in one or both groups, draw an X to mark in which group(s) the individual belongs.
Compare your Euler diagram to the conclusion.
The Euler diagram for the dog and cat argument presented earlier looks like the Euler diagram in upper left of Figure 6-3. The diagram shows that although both dogs and cats fit into the same group of Animals with Four Legs, my cat is clearly not a dog.
The Euler diagram in the upper right of Figure 6-3 proves the following argument: “All primates are mammals. An ape is a primate. Therefore, all apes are mammals.”
The Euler diagram at the bottom of Figure 6-3 disproves this argument: “Some people from Chicago vacation in Michigan. Tina vacations in Michigan, so she must be from Chicago.” In this case, Tina may or may not be from Chicago, so “must be” makes the conclusion wrong.
Euler diagrams are useful only for arguments that take the form of “All Xs have a specific feature. My Y has that feature. Therefore, my Y is an X.
Practice spotting faulty reasoning by looking for it in the following passage:
The Affordable Care Act should be repealed on the grounds that it’s not affordable. Soon after passage of the act, my catastrophic healthcare policy that I was paying $247 a month for was canceled. My insurance company informed me that my policy did not comply with Affordable Care Act regulations. The company offered to upgrade my plan to an affordable option that would cost me $479 a month.
Which of the following statements most accurately assesses the validity of the logic in this argument?
(A) The argument provides sufficient evidence to prove its claim.
(B) The argument fails to define “affordable healthcare.”
(C) The argument is based on an overgeneralization.
(D) The argument incorrectly ties the rise in premium to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
The correct answer is Choice (C). The writer concludes that the Affordable Care Act has made healthcare unaffordable based on a single incident in which his insurance company raised his premium. To prove its claim, the passage would need to present evidence showing that most people were paying more for healthcare, as a total of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, after the passage of the bill than before it. Choice (A) is wrong; this argument isn’t solid. Choice (B) is a fairly good answer; arguments really should define key terms, but this guideline doesn’t apply to the logic of the argument. Choice (D) is wrong because the passage explains that the insurance company linked the policy increase to the Affordable Care Act.
Analyzing the evidence
To perform well on the RLA test, you need to be able to analyze the evidence presented to support an argument. A passage can claim anything in the form of a premise, but unless that premise is generally accepted as being true, the passage needs to present evidence that proves it. For example, in the passage on global warming presented earlier in the chapter, the evidence provided suggests a connection between human activities and global warming. However, it provides no definitive proof; a conclusive argument would need to present additional evidence.
Evidence is simply information that meets a number of criteria. You must analyze the evidence, using the following criteria:
Relevance to the point being argued
Sufficiency to prove the stated claim
Consideration of evidence that may prove the contrary
The following sections address each of these criteria in turn.
Is the evidence relevant?
For evidence to count as proof, it must be relevant to the claim. Writers may use irrelevant evidence intentionally (to mislead the audience) or unintentionally (in the case of poorly written passages). Either way, irrelevant evidence doesn’t count. Here’s a passage that contains both relevant and irrelevant evidence:
We should really do away with daylight saving time (DST). It was started by the Kaiser during WWI as a wartime energy savings measure. The idea was adopted by many countries around the world. Today, it hardly matters. Though giving us an hour more daylight in the evenings is nice, lighting is not the largest component of energy use. We continue to use air conditioning, cook meals, and drive regardless of DST. Factories and offices continue to operate. Large malls and small stores operate with artificial light all the time. Few rely on daylight for illumination. DST saves very little energy. And DST has some downsides. Many people have a hard time adjusting to the time change. For the first week after the time change, accidents of all kinds, especially traffic accidents, increase.
A good way to analyze the evidence is to make a two-column list or table (perhaps similar to Table 6-1) with claims/evidence on the left and relevance of those claims and evidence used to support the argument on the right. Take a few minutes to complete the table below:
The list also shows an additional fact: Points 5 and 6 are really the same point. Businesses in general don’t depend on daylight for illumination.
That is the summary of the evidence, most of it verifiable from the readers’ own knowledge or verifiable outside sources.
Is the evidence sufficient?
To be convincing, evidence must be necessary and sufficient:
Necessary in terms of being relevant and essential to prove the claim
Sufficient in terms of being enough to convince a reasonable person that the claim is true or valid
What constitutes “sufficient evidence”? Whether evidence is sufficient to prove a point is somewhat subjective. The argument presented in the previous section in favor of abolishing daylight saving time is certainly sufficient for supporting the author’s opinion. However, additional evidence may be required to convince readers who have a strong reason to support DST.
Here’s a sample question that tests your ability to determine whether the evidence is sufficient for convincing the reader of the need to abolish DST:
Which of the following statements, if true, would be most likely to undermine the argument presented in the passage?
(A) Daylight saving time extends darkness in the morning hours, making it unsafe for children heading off to school.
(B) Most crimes occur at night, under the cloak of darkness.
(C) Daylight saving time increases revenue for the outdoor sports and recreation industries.
(D) People get confused the two times a year they need to reset their clocks.
To answer this question, you can immediately rule out answer Choice (A), because it supports the argument for abolishing DST. Choice (B) may be true, but without additional details, it’s not very relevant; DST doesn’t change the total number of hours of lightness and darkness. The last two choices both have merit, but Choice (D) is unlikely to be sufficient to convince most people. Choice (C) is the better choice.
What evidence was ignored?
When presenting an argument, the evidence omitted can be as important as the evidence presented. For example, scientists have presented much evidence supporting the climate change hypothesis. Over the last century, ocean temperatures have risen, summer temperatures worldwide have risen, and the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps have shrunk. More extreme weather events, from strong storms to periods of unseasonal cold, have also occurred. All this evidence supports the climate change hypothesis. However, the extreme cold winters recently in some locations has caused doubt. Excluding that fact would certainly raise questions in a reader’s mind. Ideally, such evidence would be included and refuted in order to overcome potential objections in the reader’s mind.
Here’s an example:
A few progressive states, including Colorado and Washington, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Legalizing marijuana makes a lot of sense. It increases state revenue while reducing law enforcement and court costs related to enforcing marijuana laws. As legitimate businesses start producing and selling marijuana, less money flows to drug cartels and other crime organizations. In addition, regulations provide for a safer, more uniform product, keeping more dangerous forms of marijuana off the streets and providing easier access for people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Yes, marijuana has proven to be addictive, but it’s not nearly as addictive as alcohol, heroin, cocaine, or even nicotine cigarettes. Although it does alter perception and leads to increases in vehicle accidents, this particular issue can be addressed, as it is in the case of alcohol, without making marijuana illegal. Some addiction specialists argue that marijuana is a common gateway drug that leads to the use of more serious substances, including cocaine, heroin, and prescription medications, but in some studies, the results are inconclusive. I see absolutely no other reason any intelligent person could possibly think that marijuana should be illegal.
Which of the following is a possible objection to the argument presented in the passage that isn’t addressed in the passage?
(A) Marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug found in impaired drivers.
(B) Ten percent of marijuana users develop a marijuana dependency.
(C) Marijuana users are 2.5 times more likely to abuse prescription medications.
(D) Marijuana use restricts blood flow to the brain and continues to do so for up to seven months of abstinence.
Choices (A), (B), and (C) are all addressed to some degree in the passage, but the passage never mentions any possible health effects on the human body, as presented in Choice (D); therefore, Choice (D) is the only correct answer.
Analyze data, graphs, and pictures used as evidence
The RLA test expects you to be able to extract and analyze information from data, graphs, and pictures. This analysis involves making deductions or inferences from these sources. (A deduction is a logical conclusion that follows from a given set of data. An inference is a generalization that describes a set of data.) Numerical data is often presented in a table, as shown in Figure 6-4, followed by a question that challenges your ability to extract or interpret data presented in the table.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Info used in table from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections, 2014, table 1.)
Figure 6-4: Data to be analyzed presented in a table.
What is the projected population of the United States for 2020?
(A) 334,503
(B) 334,503,000
(C) 337,109
(D) 337,698,000
Reading the table isn’t as easy as it first appears. Choice (A) is tempting. If you go to the Year column and find 2020 and then follow it across to the number in the Population column, you get 334,503. Unfortunately, the fine print near the top of the table indicates that the population numbers, including Natural Increase, Vital Events, and Net International Migration, represent thousands, so 334,503 actually represents 334,503,000, which is answer Choice (B), the correct answer. Choices (C) and (D) are also wrong; the data has been selected from the wrong line or missed a significant detail.
How does the source of population growth change between 2015 and 2025?
(A) The number of deaths declines.
(B) Net international migration is a larger source than natural increase.
(C) Natural increase declines.
(D) Births are the largest single source of population growth.
The table projects that the population of the U.S. will increase between 2015 and 2025. Two elements that make up population growth: natural increase and net international migration. Natural increase is the population increase that comes as a result of the existing population producing more births than deaths. If you subtract births from deaths in any given year, you see that the result is the number in the natural increase column. The table shows deaths increasing, so Choice (A) is wrong. It’s also wrong because it doesn’t answer the question; if deaths increase, they can’t possibly be a source of population growth. Choice (C) is true, but again, because natural increase declines, it can’t be a source of population growth. Choice (D) is wrong because births aren’t the same as natural increase. Births contribute to population growth only to the degree in which they exceed deaths and result in a natural increase. The correct answer is Choice (B): Natural increase (net births minus deaths) is declining while net international migration is increasing.
Information is also presented visually, in the form of graphs, as shown in Figure 6-5. Graphs allow the reader to see trends more easily than when data is presented numerically, especially when comparing several items.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (Info used in graph from U.S. Census Bureau)
Figure 6-5: Data to be analyzed presented in a graph.
How has the number of phones imported from China changed in the years 2007 to 2014?
(A) increased
(B) decreased
(C) no change
(D) cannot be determined
The graph shows several trends. The first is that imports of cellular phones climbed steadily from 2007 to 2011, declined slightly in 2012, rose again in 2013, and dropped in 2014. It shows a steady increase in imports from China from 2007 to 2013 and then a slight decline in 2014. Determining China’s proportion of the trade requires more interpretation. In the year 2008, imports of cellular telephones amounted to about $24 billion. Of that, about $9 billion was from China. China’s proportion of the imports was , or 37.5 percent of the total. By 2014, the total imports amounted to about $34 billion. China was the source of about $26 billion of that total. China’s proportion of the trade was , or 76.5 percent of the total. A few more calculations would better reflect the changes over time, but even this limited view shows a trend, making Choice (D) incorrect. The correct answer is Choice (A). China’s proportion of the trade hasn’t declined, so Choice (B) is wrong. A change has occurred, so Choice (C) doesn’t work.
The GED test may also present illustrations or photographs that convey information and challenge you to extract that information from the graphic. A picture is worth a thousand words. That may not literally be true, but pictures certainly add to informational text by providing a great deal of information that can be used as evidence to support arguments.
The photographs shown in Figure 6-6 are of the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico. The image on the left is from June 2, 1994, and the image on the right is from July 8, 2013. The dark area is the lake. The color of the water also is an indicator of the depth; the darker the color, the deeper the water.
Images courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory
Figure 6-6: The GED test challenges you to obtain information from images.
What conclusion does this set of images support?
(A) Satellite images provide excellent overviews of landscape.
(B) Relying on reservoirs for water is a bad idea.
(C) The reservoir has failed.
(D) Local agriculture that depends on irrigation is at risk.
The image clearly shows the reduction in the size of the reservoir. Choice (A) is correct but misses the key point. You could certainly conclude Choice (B) is correct, based on the photograph, but it isn’t the best choice because it overgeneralizes, drawing a broad conclusion from a single instance. Choice (C) is possible, but nothing in the photos supports it; nothing suggests that the structures creating this reservoir failed. The best answer is an extrapolation, a deduction based on the size of the reservoir. Farmers who depend on this reservoir for irrigation water are in trouble, and Choice (D) is the answer you’re after.
Rooting Out Premises and Assumptions
Arguments contain one or more premises on which the argument is based, and you need to be able to tell the difference between the two:
A premise is a statement, presumed to be true, on which an argument is based. For example, “Freedom of speech is the most essential of all freedoms” establishes the writer’s belief. For the argument to be convincing, the reader would need to accept this statement as true as well.
An assumption is an unstated premise. For example, in the statement, “We have a global imperative to reverse global warming,” the assumption is that global warming is harmful in some way, even though that premise isn’t stated explicitly.
Whenever you’re called on to analyze an argument or present an opposing viewpoint, look for the premise or assumption on which the argument is based. One very common and effective way to challenge an argument is to question the premise or assumption or, better yet, prove it to be wrong. It’s the foundation of the argument. Take out the foundation, and the entire building crumbles.
In the following sections, we provide additional guidance and practice in identifying the premise(s) or assumption(s) on which an argument is based.
Finding the premise on which the argument is based
Finding a premise in an argument is easier than finding an assumption, because a premise is a statement included in the argument. It’s even easier to locate if it’s preceded by one of the following conditional words or phrases:
because
due to
for
given that
in that
on the basis of
owning to
since
For example, “Due to the likelihood of attracting biased jurors, the judge should move the trial to another county.” The premise here is that by having the trial in this county, the court is likely to end up with jury members who are biased in favor of or against the person on trial. The conclusion — that the judge should move the trial to a different county — depends on how true the premise is.
Try your hand at identifying the premise in the following example:
Healthcare costs are out of control because doctors make too much money. According to an article in Forbes magazine, 21.5 percent of physicians in the United States are in the top 1 percent of income earners. In addition, the average physician in the United States earns $250,000 a year, while the average physician in the United Kingdom earns $114,000 annually.
Which of the following statements, if true, would work toward disproving the premise of this argument?
(A) Out of pocket expenses for people who enroll in Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have dropped from $1,463 to $34 per year.
(B) Physicians in the Netherlands earn on average $286,000 annually.
(C) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 75 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare in the U.S. goes toward treating largely preventable chronic illnesses.
(D) In the healthcare system, doctors are paid for doing more rather than having their compensation tied to how effective they are in treating patients.
Don’t feel bad if you picked Choice (B), (C), or (D), which are all wrong. This is kind of a trick question. Remember, the premise is stated but presumed to be true. The premise in this passage is that healthcare costs are out of control, not that doctors make too much money. If the fact that doctors make too much money were presumed to be true, the writer would not have given evidence to try to support that conclusion. Correct answer: Choice (A), the only evidence that challenges the premise that healthcare costs are out of control.
Identifying assumptions
Spotting assumptions is a little more difficult than spotting premises because you’re asked to see what’s not there, what’s not stated. To find the hidden assumption, look between the conclusion and the evidence used to support the conclusion. The assumption usually requires the reader to make a leap from evidence to conclusion without providing any rational link between the two. Consider the following argument:
She was a wonderful teacher. All of her students received As and Bs.
What is the underlying assumption?
(A) Students who receive high grades have effective teachers.
(B) Great teachers give great marks.
(C) Students learn better from great teachers.
(D) Student grades are an accurate indicator of a teacher’s effectiveness.
Look for an “if–then” statement implicit in this sentence. The underlying assumption is that a connection exists between the teacher’s status as wonderful and all students’ receiving great marks. If the students received great marks, then the teacher is wonderful. Choice (A) is incorrect because although the passage implies a connection that a wonderful teacher improves student performance, it doesn’t imply that students can’t achieve high grades without an effective teacher. Choices (B) and (C) are general statements that may or not be correct, but they don’t relate to this specific example. Choice (D) is correct because the passage assumes that high student grades reflect a teacher’s performance. The only reason the teacher is wonderful is because she gave everyone great marks.
Here’s another example:
Real men don’t eat quiche, but Robert loves quiche and eats it at every opportunity.
What is the assumption in this sentence?
(A) Robert eats too much quiche.
(B) Quiche makes men.
(C) Quiche does not make real men.
(D) Robert is not a real man.
You can rephrase this info as an “if–then” statement. If Robert doesn’t eat quiche, he is a real man, or if Robert eats quiche, he isn’t a real man. Because Robert loves quiche, he isn’t a real man (according to the example; we have nothing against quiche). Choice (D) is the correct answer. Choice (A) is irrelevant, and you can discard it. Choices (B) and (C) get no support from the text. Of course, if you were asked to provide an opposing view, your option would be to attack the premise. What’s the premise? The premise is “Real men don’t eat quiche.”
Try your hand at one more sample question:
Many social workers and community groups have been urging employers in the service sector to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The struggle has been largely unsuccessful. The only solution may be new government-enforced minimum wage laws.
Identify the underlying assumption.
(A) Only legislation will improve minimum wages.
(B) Community groups are largely ineffective.
(C) Service sector workers need unions.
(D) Employers have no desire to raise minimum wages.
This example is more complicated. The basis of this passage is that wages need to improve and laws may be the only solution. Community groups had no effect and laws may be required because why? That “why” is your underlying assumption. It comes in two possible variations: Employers have no desire to raise minimum wages, or employers have to be forced to raise minimum wages. The only option stated in the answer choices is “Employers have no desire to raise minimum wages,” Choice (D) is the correct answer. You can ignore Choice (C) because no basis for that argument exists in the passage.
Comparing Two Arguments
When you’re taking the RLA test, you can count on having at least one question that challenges you to compare two arguments, especially in the Extended Response portion of the test. The passages may use evidence in different ways, interpret the same evidence differently, or draw very different conclusions on the same issue. Specifically, questions that challenge you to compare two arguments expect you to be able to analyze the arguments in the following four ways:
Analyze differences in interpretation and use of evidence
Synthesize two arguments to formulate a third approach
Draw new conclusions based on evidence provided in both arguments
Take what you know from the two arguments and apply it to other situations
In the following sections, we introduce each skill and give you the opportunity to hone your skills through practice.
Analyzing differences in interpretation and use of evidence
Evidence is more than just a series of facts. It must be interpreted and linked to the claims in a passage. Authors often interpret the same evidence in different ways. For example, scientists often study identical twins to find out why they may have differing IQs as they grow up. Some argue that social factors in their development influence intellectual development. Others argue that cell mutation in life accounts for a large part of the difference. Read about a historical event in a book written right after the event and in one written several decades later. Between selecting different evidence and interpreting the same evidence differently, two very different stories emerge.
Consider this fact: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, African Americans make up nearly 40 percent of the total prison and jail population. African Americans comprised just over 17 percent of the general population in 2013.
These two facts can be used as evidence to arrive at two very different conclusions:
African Americans are far more likely to commit crimes than are Americans of other races and ethnicities.
The criminal justice system unjustly targets African Americans.
The evidence is open to interpretation. The passage doesn’t link the percentage of African Americans in jail to the proportion of African Americans in the overall population. To make any reasonable argument and reach any reasonable conclusion, far more evidence is needed to explain any possible link or expose other issues, such as socioeconomic inequalities.
Here’s another example of how you can draw very different conclusions from the same information:
I looked up at the sky. It was clouding over, so I decided to take my umbrella with me.
I looked up at the sky. It was clouding over. Now I didn’t have to worry about getting sunburn.
Both of these statements start with the same evidence, the cloud cover, but end with very different conclusions. Based on the evidence presented, both conclusions are valid.
When an RLA question asks you to compare two passages, take the following steps:
Read one passage.
Write down the main idea or the claim stated or implied in the passage.
Write down any other claims made in the passage.
For each claim, list the evidence provided to support it along with whether the evidence is true/valid.
Highlight any evidence that may be misinterpreted.
Repeat the process for the second passage.
Your list of claims and evidence, and analysis of the validity of any evidence, help you make clear comparisons.
Any evidence that’s misinterpreted or applied erroneously may create doubt about the validity of the conclusion. Further, some evidence may be coincidental; for example, the fact that the sky is clouding over doesn’t necessarily mean that rain is imminent.
Consider the following two passages, both of which are about President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
Passage One
Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. By the middle of 1945, Germany had been defeated, but the war in the Pacific continued. The U.S. government offered surrender terms to Japan, but the Japanese government rejected them. The American military had suffered heavy casualties in the island-to-island war—about one third of its forces. Japanese forces fought fiercely, often to the death. The military estimated that invading the main islands of Japan would involve nearly 2 million American casualties, including more than 350,000 deaths. Japanese military and civilian losses would be even higher. The government calculated that the use of the atomic bomb would actually save lives, so justifying its use.
Passage Two
America did not have to use the atomic bomb on Japan. Despite the heavy casualties America had suffered in the Pacific, the USSR had available manpower. With the war in Europe over, the Soviets had begun moving a large portion of their military eastward. The American conventional bombing campaign was working, too. By early 1945, Japan was experiencing great difficulties in manufacturing enough military supplies to continue the war. Continuing that bombing campaign and postponing any invasion would have saved American lives, and Japan eventually would have been forced to surrender. America could have invited Japanese observers to a demonstration atomic bomb test, showing them what they were facing. Any of these factors could have led to a Japanese surrender without the use of an atomic bomb.
The first passage argues that using the atomic bomb was justified because
Japan had rejected surrender terms.
America had already suffered massive casualties.
The invasion of Japan would cause even greater casualties.
The evidence in this passage is open to interpretation. The first evidence lists American casualties to that point in the Pacific. These are verifiable facts and can be accepted. However, the passage also lists huge casualties resulting from an invasion of Japan. The passage states that these were estimates. How much to believe this passage depends on the degree of reliability assigned to these estimates. That evaluation can put the entire conclusion in doubt.
The second passage offers reasons America didn’t have to use the atomic bomb:
The USSR was a possible source of manpower to offset American casualties.
Conventional bombing was working.
A demonstration of the bomb may have led to surrender.
The second passage offers only one fact — that the conventional bombing campaign was working. The other evidence is based on supposition. The USSR forces may or may not have been available. It’s not certain that a demonstration of the atomic bomb would have encouraged surrender. Even the more factual claim, that the conventional bombing campaign was working, isn’t supported in the passage.
Synthesizing two arguments
One way to demonstrate your ability to compare arguments is to synthesize the two arguments — merge two or more ideas to create a new claim, connecting facts to each other and deriving new meaning. The skills presented earlier in this chapter — the use and evaluation of evidence, the assembly of that evidence in a logical order, and the identification of assumptions and premises — all prepare for this next step.
When you’re asked to synthesize two arguments, jot down a list of the claims and evidence provided in the two passages. For example, suppose you’re asked to synthesize the arguments presented in the previous two passages on the bombing of Japan. You may come up with a list that looks something like this:
America had already suffered massive casualties trying to defeat Japan.
Japan had rejected surrender terms.
Invading Japan proper would entail even more massive casualties.
More manpower was potentially available from the USSR.
Japan was having trouble manufacturing sufficient military supplies to continue.
U.S. government estimates showed that using the bomb would save more lives than would be lost.
The conventional bombing campaign was working.
When you have two opposing arguments such as those presented in these two passages, one of the easiest ways to synthesize the two arguments is to aim somewhere in the middle. The first passage indicates that the U.S. was justified in dropping the bomb, while the second passage argues that this drastic action could have been avoided. Looking at the list, you can see that both passages mention the casualties of the war and considerations about reducing war casualties. A synthesis of the two arguments may lead to a third possibility that perhaps the United States could have dropped the bomb on less populated areas or focused the bombing on areas with higher military concentrations and fewer civilians.
Drawing new conclusions
When you encounter an RLA question that asks you to draw a new conclusion based on the arguments or evidence provided in two passages, follow the same procedure as presented in the preceding section. List the main ideas and evidence presented in the two passages and take a step back to see where it points. Chances are good that it will point you in the direction of the correct answer choice. Here’s an example:
Passage One
Childhood vaccinations should not be mandatory. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends 49 doses of 14 different vaccines between the day of birth and the age of six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between the day of birth and the age of 18 years. In some cases, numerous vaccines are given on the same day and sometimes in a combination vaccine, such as the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, further increasing the child’s risk of experiencing a severe reaction. This aggressive vaccination schedule hasn’t made children any healthier. In fact, children seem to be developing more chronic diseases as they receive more vaccines — illnesses such as autism, ADHD, allergies, asthma, and diabetes.
Passage Two
All parents should be required by law to vaccinate their children. Vaccination protects the child from serious illness, including measles and polio. Equally important is that vaccination prevents the spread of serious illnesses, even protecting those who aren’t immunized. Studies show that when a certain percentage of a population is immunized against a contagious disease, the principle of herd immunity goes into effect, protecting even those who are ineligible to receive the vaccine, such as infants, pregnant women, and those whose immune systems have been compromised.
Which of the following statements represents a reasonable compromise between the two arguments presented in these passages?
(A) Vaccinations could be postponed when a child is ill.
(B) Vaccinations could be spaced four to six months apart.
(C) Vaccinations could be delayed until the age of one year old.
(D) All of the above.
Although the two sides of the vaccination debate are represented in the passages, they don’t address a third option that would involve various ways to reduce the potential risks associated with childhood vaccinations. All the answer choices provide possible solutions to lower the risks while still ensuring that all children are vaccinated. Choice (D) is the best choice.
Applying information to other situations
One or more questions on the RLA test are likely to ask you to read one or two passages and apply what you learn from them to another situation or issue. We can’t offer much guidance on how to develop this skill. It requires using your noodle and doing some practice. Here are two passages followed by a sample question so you know what to expect:
Passage One
In their book Living Wheat Free For Dummies, Rusty Gregory and Alan Chasen claim that consumption of wheat products triggers an immune response in many people who are sensitive to modern forms of wheat. The immune response causes systemic (throughout the body) inflammation, which is the root cause of many chronic illnesses, including allergies, asthma, arthritis, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, dementia, and some forms of cancer.
Passage Two
Several diets considered the healthiest involve increasing consumption of healthy proteins and fats and reducing or eliminating sugary and starchy foods, including breads and cereals. Diets that fall into this category include the Paleo diet, the Candida diet, and the Atkins diet. Some nutritionists, however, warn that these diets tend to be high in cholesterol and low in fiber and contribute to cardiovascular disease. They tend to recommend more balanced diets, such as the Mediterranean diet, the DASH diet, and the TLC diet, which promote moderate consumption of whole-grain products, including breads and cereals.
Which of the following diets is likely to be recommended for those with the inflammatory disease fibromyalgia?
(A) The Paleo diet
(B) The Mediterranean diet
(C) The DASH diet
(D) A low-fiber, high-cholesterol diet
Choice (A) is the correct answer because the second passage describes the Paleo diet as one that reduces consumption of breads and cereals, which primarily contain wheat. You can rule out Choices (B) and (C); both of these diets call for moderate consumption of whole-grain products, which the first passage claims contribute to inflammation. Neither passage claims that a low-fiber, high-cholesterol diet is healthy, so you can eliminate Choice (D).
Grasping the main idea of a written passage
Questions on the GED RLA test may not ask you specifically to identify the main idea of a passage. Instead, they may ask what the passage builds up to or ask you to choose the best headline for the passage. Although they don’t ask for the main idea of the passage directly, that’s exactly what they’re after.
What does all the information in the text build up to?
Note that the wording “out to get the workers” is clearly loaded. It aims to elicit an emotional response rather than convey a reasoned argument, and it reveals the author’s bias against this attitude in those that support modern-day unions.
, or 37.5 percent of the total. By 2014, the total imports amounted to about $34 billion. China was the source of about $26 billion of that total. China’s proportion of the trade was 
, or 76.5 percent of the total. A few more calculations would better reflect the changes over time, but even this limited view shows a trend, making Choice (D) incorrect. The correct answer is Choice (A). China’s proportion of the trade hasn’t declined, so Choice (B) is wrong. A change has occurred, so Choice (C) doesn’t work. 