Command of evidence is the question type that asks not what a writer said but what would make a claim more or less believable, and it rewards a habit rather than a fact: before looking at the choices, ask what would be different if the claim were false. Ten questions here, in two halves. Five give a researcher's or a writer's hypothesis in a sentence or two and ask which finding would most strongly support it, or most directly undermine it. Five present the results of an invented study, two of them as a bar graph and the rest in sentences — percentages for two or three groups, sometimes across three years — and ask which statement those numbers actually support.
The textual half is built around a distinction that decides most of these questions: being consistent with a hypothesis is not the same as being evidence for it. One question puts the point directly. A researcher thinks birds nest in ornamental trees because the foliage is denser; one choice reports that the birds also feed in the native woods nearby, which fits her hypothesis perfectly well and fits its denial just as well, and is therefore worth nothing to her. The keyed choice is the one where the proposed cause is taken away — the trees pruned to equal density — and the preference disappears with it. The same shape governs the two questions that ask what weakens a claim: a rival cause unseats a claim about the main cause, while a consequence of the thing being explained cannot explain it, which is the commonest way this type is failed.
The quantitative half is about reading three or four numbers carefully once. Each wrong answer misreads them in a particular way, and the ways repeat across the section: comparing the wrong pair of figures, stating a correct comparison in the wrong direction, treating a difference between two groups as a change over time, and drawing a causal conclusion from figures that show only an association. The three-year soil trial carries all four at once — the gap between treated and untreated plots narrows from twenty-four points to eight, which a candidate in a hurry reads as widening, and the untreated plots rise substantially on their own, which is exactly why a trial keeps a group that receives nothing.
Every explanation names what is wrong with each choice by describing it rather than by pointing at its position, so the reasoning holds however the options are ordered. Several also note something the figures cannot show at all: that reported output is not measured output, and that students who chose their own textbook format may differ from each other in ways no percentage records.
Every study, researcher, firm and place here is invented, and no invented finding is attributed to any real organization, journal or university. Nothing is reproduced from any College Board publication, released test, practice test, question bank or scoring guideline. The real section presents some of this data as graphs and tables; here two questions are read from a bar graph and the rest from sentences, so chart-reading gets some practice but not a full set.
Zestly is an independent study tool. It is not affiliated with the College Board, which owns the SAT, and it is not an test center.
Written for this catalog, with no source document. The content is the command of evidence skill, textual and quantitative, as described publicly by the College Board for the Information and Ideas domain of the SAT Reading and Writing section; every passage, question, option and explanation here is original, and nothing is reproduced from any official publication or released test. Zestly is an independent study tool. It is not affiliated with the College Board, which owns the SAT.
A study of remote work at the firm TechFlow compared employees working fully from home, employees on a hybrid schedule and employees working exclusively in the office. The graph shows the percentage in each group who reported higher daily output. Which statement do these results support?
A higher percentage of the fully remote employees than of the office-based employees reported higher daily output.
The figures to compare for the keyed statement are 72 percent and 55 percent, and the remote group is ahead, which is all the results establish. Calling the hybrid model the most effective contradicts the figures outright, since 48 percent is the lowest of the three. The claim about a 24 percentage point increase does two things wrong at once: it subtracts the hybrid figure from the remote figure, which is the wrong pair for a comparison between home and office, and it converts a difference between two groups into a causal effect of one arrangement. And the statement about the office arrangement reverses a comparison the figures settle the other way, since 55 percent is higher than 48 percent, not lower. Note also that every figure reports what employees said about their own output, not output measured independently.
Try this quiz →Practice these flashcards →
SAT® is a trademark registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with and does not endorse Zestly. All questions here are original and written by us; nothing reproduces official College Board material.