Which sequence best responds to a reading prompt requiring evidence-based reasoning?

Which sequence best responds to a reading prompt requiring evidence-based reasoning?

• A. State a claim with no evidence, and stop.
• B. State a claim, cite multiple textual evidence, explain reasoning, and address counterarguments.
• C. Cite sources but never explain reasoning.
• D. Focus on personal anecdotes rather than text evidence.

Answer: (B)

Evidence-based reasoning in reading responses means connecting a claim to specific textual evidence, explaining how that evidence supports the claim, and addressing opposing viewpoints. The sequence that does all of this—state a claim, cite multiple pieces of textual evidence, explain how the evidence backs the claim, and address counterarguments—best fits that goal. It shows you’ve found relevant details, interpreted their meaning, and considered other angles, which strengthens your argument. For example, if the prompt asks how a character changes, you would assert the change, bring in scenes or quotes that illustrate the shift, explain how those details demonstrate the change, and then discuss a possible counterpoint (like whether the change could be temporary or influenced by external factors) and why your interpretation still holds. The other possibilities fall short because one offers a claim with no evidence, so the argument isn’t supported by the text. Another collects sources but never explains how they support the claim, which leaves the reasoning unattached to the evidence. A final option leans on personal anecdotes rather than text-based evidence, which doesn’t meet the requirement to base reasoning on the reading.

Evidence-based reasoning in reading responses means connecting a claim to specific textual evidence, explaining how that evidence supports the claim, and addressing opposing viewpoints. The sequence that does all of this—state a claim, cite multiple pieces of textual evidence, explain how the evidence backs the claim, and address counterarguments—best fits that goal. It shows you’ve found relevant details, interpreted their meaning, and considered other angles, which strengthens your argument.

For example, if the prompt asks how a character changes, you would assert the change, bring in scenes or quotes that illustrate the shift, explain how those details demonstrate the change, and then discuss a possible counterpoint (like whether the change could be temporary or influenced by external factors) and why your interpretation still holds.

The other possibilities fall short because one offers a claim with no evidence, so the argument isn’t supported by the text. Another collects sources but never explains how they support the claim, which leaves the reasoning unattached to the evidence. A final option leans on personal anecdotes rather than text-based evidence, which doesn’t meet the requirement to base reasoning on the reading.