Evidence ID - Can you tell strong evidence from weak?
Lewis cites research from the NIH and PolicyLab. Rajan mentions one school district's bus costs. Which author has stronger evidence and why?
Lewis — her evidence comes from established research institutions studying many schools. Rajan's is one example from one district.
A student writes: "Lewis says that schools with later start times see better grades and test scores." What three words should come next to start the reasoning bridge?
✅ "This shows that..." / "This demonstrates that..." / "This means that..."
Which opening commits to a position?
A: "Both passages discuss school start times."
B: "Lewis's letter presents the stronger argument because it draws on institutional research."
✅ B — A describes the topic without taking a side. B tells the scorer exactly where this essay is going before the first body paragraph.
A student writes: "Studies show that teenagers need more sleep." Does this count as evidence from the passage? Why or why not?
✅ No — it doesn't name the passage or the source. The scorer can't tell if the student read the text or already knew this. Evidence must be traceable back to the passage.
Here's a reasoning bridge: "Lewis cites PolicyLab research showing better memory and attention. This shows that sleep affects academic performance." Is this a complete bridge? What's missing?
✅ Almost — but it stops at restating the evidence. A complete bridge connects back to the argument: "...which means Lewis's case is stronger than Rajan's because she shows consequences, not just costs."
A student opens with: "I think Lewis makes some good points, but Rajan also raises valid concerns." What does this opening cost them — and how do you fix it in one sentence?
✅ It signals the student isn't committing — the scorer sees hedging, not analysis. Fix: "Although Rajan raises a legitimate transportation concern, Lewis's letter presents the stronger argument because institutional research outweighs a single cost estimate."
Rajan argues that later start times would cost the Greenwich district millions for new buses. Lewis argues that poor sleep increases rates of obesity, depression, and academic failure. Which evidence is harder to argue against, and what makes it that way?
✅ Lewis's — it covers multiple domains (health, mental health, academics) with institutional backing. Rajan's is one cost in one district with nothing measuring it against the benefits. Breadth plus source credibility beats a single example.
A student writes: "Rajan says new bus routes would cost millions. This shows that later start times are too expensive." What's wrong with this reasoning bridge — and how would you fix it?
It treats one district's estimate as a universal conclusion. A stronger bridge would acknowledge the limit: "This shows that transportation costs are a real concern — however, Rajan doesn't compare this cost to the long-term expenses of untreated sleep deprivation, which weakens his argument."
Stanton walked into Seneca Falls and used the founders' own words to argue they were wrong. She didn't say "both interpretations have merit." How does that connect to what the GED essay is asking you to do?
✅ The GED asks you to be Stanton — use the passages' own evidence to show which argument wins. Hedging is the opposite of analysis. Committing early and proving it with evidence is exactly what earns the top score.