Analyzing Arguments

Evaluate reasoning and evidence in arguments

Analyzing Arguments (SAT Reading)

What is Analyzing Arguments?

On the SAT Reading section, you'll be asked to:

  • Identify the author's claim or central argument
  • Evaluate the evidence used to support it
  • Assess the reasoning and logic
  • Recognize counterarguments and how they're addressed

Components of an Argument

1. Claim (Thesis)

The main point the author wants to prove.

Example: "Social media has a negative impact on teenage mental health."

2. Evidence

Facts, statistics, examples, or expert opinions that support the claim.

Example: "Studies show 40% of teens report increased anxiety from social media use."

3. Reasoning

How the evidence connects to and supports the claim.

Example: "Because constant comparison leads to lower self-esteem."

4. Counterargument

An opposing viewpoint that the author acknowledges or refutes.

Example: "While some argue social media enhances connection, research shows..."

SAT Question Types

Type 1: Identify the Central Claim

What they ask:

  • "The main argument of the passage is..."
  • "The author's primary claim..."
  • "Which statement best represents the author's position?"

Strategy:

  • Usually found in introduction or conclusion
  • Look for definitive statements, not just observations
  • Avoid choices that are too narrow (minor points) or too broad

Type 2: Evaluate Evidence

What they ask:

  • "Which choice provides the best evidence for the previous question?"
  • "The author supports the claim by..."
  • "The data in lines 23-27 primarily serves to..."

Strategy:

  • Evidence should directly support the specific claim
  • Look for facts, studies, examples
  • Avoid opinions without backing

Type 3: Analyze Reasoning

What they ask:

  • "The author uses the example of X to..."
  • "By mentioning Y, the author implies..."
  • "The comparison between A and B serves to..."

Strategy:

  • Ask: WHY did the author include this?
  • Connect evidence to claim
  • Consider rhetorical purpose (persuade, explain, contrast)

Type 4: Identify Counterarguments

What they ask:

  • "The author addresses the opposing view by..."
  • "Lines 45-48 serve to..."
  • "The author mentions the alternative explanation in order to..."

Strategy:

  • Look for transition words: "however," "although," "critics argue," "some believe"
  • Authors mention counterarguments to strengthen their own position

Evaluating Argument Strength

Strong arguments have: ✓ Specific, relevant evidence
✓ Clear logical connections
✓ Acknowledgment of complexity
✓ Credible sources

Weak arguments have: ❌ Vague or irrelevant evidence
❌ Logical fallacies
❌ Overgeneralizations
❌ Unsupported claims

Common Logical Fallacies

False Cause

Error: Assuming correlation = causation

Example: "Ice cream sales and drowning both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning."

Hasty Generalization

Error: Drawing broad conclusion from limited evidence

Example: "My friend got sick after the vaccine, so vaccines are dangerous."

Straw Man

Error: Misrepresenting opponent's argument to make it easier to attack

Appeal to Authority

Error: Relying on authority figure outside their expertise

Example: "This celebrity endorses it, so it must be good."

SAT Reading Strategy

Step 1: Identify the Structure

As you read, note:

  • Main claim (usually intro/conclusion)
  • Supporting points (body paragraphs)
  • Evidence for each point
  • Counterarguments (if any)

Step 2: Annotate Active Words

Circle:

  • Claim indicators: "argues that," "maintains," "contends"
  • Evidence markers: "studies show," "for example," "data reveals"
  • Reasoning connectors: "therefore," "because," "thus"
  • Counter indicators: "however," "critics," "opponents claim"

Step 3: Match Question to Passage Purpose

Ask: What is this sentence/paragraph doing?

  • Introducing main idea?
  • Providing evidence?
  • Addressing opposition?
  • Drawing conclusion?

Common SAT Mistakes

❌ Confusing a minor point with the main claim
❌ Choosing evidence that's interesting but doesn't support the specific claim
❌ Missing the author's purpose for including information
❌ Not recognizing when author is presenting opposing views

Quick Tips

✓ The claim is what the author wants you to believe
✓ Evidence is the facts/examples that support it
✓ Not all information is evidence—some is context or counterargument
✓ Strong passages acknowledge complexity and opposing views

📚 Practice Problems

1Problem 1medium

Question:

Passage: "Electric vehicles (EVs) are clearly superior to gasoline cars. EVs produce zero emissions while driving, making them better for the environment. Additionally, electricity is cheaper than gasoline, so EV owners save money on fuel."

Which statement best describes a weakness in this argument?

A) It ignores the environmental impact of electricity generation B) It fails to provide specific cost comparisons C) It doesn't mention the history of electric vehicles D) It uses overly technical language

💡 Show Solution

To analyze an argument, identify:

  1. The claim (conclusion)
  2. The evidence/reasoning
  3. Potential weaknesses or gaps

Claim: EVs are superior to gasoline cars

Evidence: • Zero emissions while driving • Cheaper fuel (electricity)

Analyzing each option:

A) Ignores environmental impact of electricity generation • The argument says EVs produce "zero emissions while driving" • But doesn't consider WHERE the electricity comes from • If electricity is from coal plants, still causes pollution • Valid weakness - incomplete analysis! ✓ • BEST answer ✓

B) Fails to provide specific cost comparisons • True, but claims about cost are still reasonable • Minor weakness, not fundamental flaw ✗

C) Doesn't mention history of EVs • History isn't relevant to whether they're superior NOW • Not a logical weakness ✗

D) Uses overly technical language • The passage is actually quite simple • Not true ✗

Answer: A) It ignores the environmental impact of electricity generation

Argument Analysis Skills: • Look for unstated assumptions • Consider counterexamples or alternative perspectives • Identify missing information • Check if evidence actually supports the claim

2Problem 2medium

Question:

Passage: "A recent survey found that 80% of teenagers prefer texting to phone calls. This proves that phone calls will soon become obsolete."

What logical flaw does this argument contain?

A) False cause - assuming correlation implies causation B) Hasty generalization - drawing a broad conclusion from limited data C) Ad hominem - attacking the person rather than the argument D) Circular reasoning - using the conclusion as evidence

💡 Show Solution

Let's identify the logical flaw:

Premise: 80% of teenagers prefer texting Conclusion: Phone calls will become obsolete

Analyzing each flaw type:

A) False cause (correlation ≠ causation) • This would be claiming one thing CAUSES another without proof • The argument isn't about causation ✗

B) Hasty generalization • Drawing a BROAD conclusion from LIMITED data • Survey: only teenagers • Conclusion: ALL phone calls (everyone, everywhere) obsolete • Also: preference ≠ complete abandonment • This fits! ✓ • CORRECT answer ✓

C) Ad hominem • Attacking the person making the argument • No personal attack here ✗

D) Circular reasoning • Using conclusion as its own evidence • The argument uses survey data, not circular ✗

Answer: B) Hasty generalization

Why it's hasty: • Only surveyed teenagers (not adults, businesses) • Preference doesn't mean exclusive use • "Soon become obsolete" is extreme claim • Jumps from one group's preference to total elimination

How to fix: Need data from all age groups, consider business/emergency use, distinguish between preference and necessity.

3Problem 3hard

Question:

Passage: "Studies show that students who eat breakfast perform better academically. Therefore, schools should require all students to eat breakfast before class to improve test scores."

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken this recommendation?

A) Some students dislike eating early in the morning B) The studies show correlation but cannot establish that breakfast causes better performance C) Breakfast foods vary in nutritional value D) Not all schools have the facilities to serve breakfast

💡 Show Solution

This question asks what would WEAKEN the recommendation.

Argument structure: • Evidence: Students who eat breakfast perform better • Recommendation: Schools should require breakfast • Assumption: Breakfast CAUSES better performance

To weaken: Attack the assumption or show recommendation won't achieve goal.

A) Some students dislike eating early • Minor inconvenience, doesn't address effectiveness • Weak objection ✗

B) Studies show correlation, not causation • KEY POINT: Correlation ≠ causation • Maybe high-performing students have structured routines (including breakfast) • Maybe family resources allow both breakfast and academic support • Maybe good students make healthy choices generally • If breakfast doesn't CAUSE performance, requiring it won't help! • Fundamentally undermines the logic ✓ • STRONGEST weakening ✓

C) Breakfast foods vary in nutrition • Suggests some breakfasts better than others • Doesn't challenge whether breakfast helps • Could strengthen by suggesting quality matters ✗

D) Not all schools have facilities • Practical objection, not logical weakness • About feasibility, not effectiveness ✗

Answer: B) The studies show correlation but cannot establish that breakfast causes better performance

This is the correlation vs. causation issue: • CORRELATION: Two things happen together • CAUSATION: One thing causes the other • You can't prove causation from correlation alone! • Confounding variables might explain both

If breakfast doesn't cause better performance, forcing students to eat won't improve scores.