Command of Evidence

The graph provides VISUAL EVIDENCE of a correlation:

The parallel trends (bees declining while pesticide use increases) suggest a relationship between the two variables.

How to describe this in SAT terms:

• The graph supports the passage's argument that pesticides harm bee populations
• It provides quantitative evidence (specific data points over time)
• It shows a correlation (not necessarily causation)

Important distinction for the SAT:

• The graph shows correlation, NOT causation
• Other factors could contribute to bee decline
• The graph SUPPORTS the argument but doesn't PROVE it

Answer: The graph provides quantitative evidence of a correlation between increased pesticide use and declining bee populations, supporting the passage's claim about the environmental impact of pesticides.

SAT Tip: When passages include graphs/charts, questions often ask how the data relates to the author's argument.

Evaluate each option:

(A) Personal anecdote → Subjective, only one person, not generalizable ❌

(B) A study showing fiction readers score higher on empathy tests → Best evidence ✅

• Empirical data from research
• Directly measures empathy
• Compares fiction readers to non-readers
• Most objective and generalizable

(C) Quote from a famous author → Expert opinion but about writing, not empathy ❌

(D) Sales figures → Shows fiction is popular, but says nothing about empathy ❌

Answer: (B) — A controlled study with measurable results provides the strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect claim.

Hierarchy of evidence (strongest to weakest):

1. Controlled studies / empirical data
2. Expert testimony from relevant field
3. Historical examples / case studies
4. Anecdotes / personal experiences

Step 1: Identify the author's claim: "Sleep improves academic performance."

Step 2: Look at the table data: If the table shows that students with MORE sleep have HIGHER test scores, the data SUPPORTS the claim.

Step 3: Check for nuance:

• Is the relationship consistent across all groups?
• Are there any exceptions?
• Is the difference significant?

Step 4: Formulate your answer:

If data supports: "Yes, the data show a positive correlation between hours of sleep and test scores. Students sleeping 8+ hours averaged 15 points higher than those sleeping fewer than 6 hours."

If data partially supports: "The data partially support the claim. While students with 7-8 hours of sleep performed best, those with more than 9 hours showed slightly lower scores, suggesting an optimal range."

If data contradicts: "The data do not support the claim. Test scores showed no consistent pattern relative to sleep duration."

SAT Tip: Always look at ALL the data points, not just the ones that seem to confirm the claim. The SAT may include data that partially or fully contradicts the argument.

Framework for evaluating competing evidence:

Step 1: Identify each passage's central claim:

• Passage 1: Urban development is beneficial (evidence: economic growth)
• Passage 2: Urban development is harmful (evidence: environmental damage)

Step 2: Evaluate the QUALITY of evidence:

• Is it from reputable sources?
• Is it current?
• Does it directly address the claim?
• Is it quantitative or qualitative?

Step 3: Recognize they may BOTH be valid: On the SAT, paired passages often present legitimate but different perspectives. They may measure different things (economic vs. environmental outcomes).

Step 4: Note what each passage ignores:

• Passage 1 may not address environmental concerns
• Passage 2 may not address economic benefits
• Their disagreement may stem from different VALUES, not different facts

Step 5: Answer relationship questions:

• "How would Author 2 respond to Author 1's evidence?" → Author 2 would likely argue that economic data ignores environmental costs
• "On what point do the authors agree?" → Both acknowledge urban development has significant impacts

Key SAT insight: The question often isn't "who is right?" but "how do these perspectives relate to each other?"

Answer: Evaluate each body of evidence on its own terms, then consider how the two perspectives complement or conflict with each other.