English Language Arts
Grade 9
15 min
Choose the analysis that logically connects the evidence to the claim
Choose the analysis that logically connects the evidence to the claim
Tutorial Preview
1
Introduction & Learning Objectives
Learning Objectives
Define claim, evidence, and analysis in the context of an argument.
Differentiate between summarizing evidence and analyzing it.
Identify the logical relationship between a piece of evidence and a given claim.
Evaluate multiple analysis options to determine which one most effectively explains the evidence's significance.
Articulate why a specific analysis creates a strong logical bridge between evidence and claim.
Apply the 'So what?' test to assess the strength of an analysis.
Ever won an argument by not just stating a fact, but explaining *why* that fact proves you're right? 🤔 That's the powerful skill we're mastering today!
This tutorial will teach you the most crucial part of writing an argument: connecting your evidenc...
2
Key Concepts & Vocabulary
TermDefinitionExample
ClaimThe main argument or point you are trying to prove in a paragraph or essay. It's your debatable opinion, the 'what' of your argument.In the short story 'The Most Dangerous Game,' the author argues that the line between the hunter and the hunted is dangerously thin.
EvidenceThe specific facts, quotes, or details from a text used to support your claim. It's the 'how you know' part of your argument.Early in the story, Rainsford states, 'The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, I am a hunter.'
Analysis (or Reasoning)Your explanation of *how* and *why* the evidence supports the claim. It's the 'so what?' that connects the evidence to the bigger idea.Rainsford's init...
3
Key Rules & Conventions
The 'So What?' Test
After you state your evidence, ask yourself, 'So what?' Your analysis is the answer to that question.
Use this test to push yourself beyond summary. If you state a quote, asking 'So what?' forces you to explain its importance, its implications, and its connection to your main claim. It's the bridge from evidence to argument.
The 'Because' Clause Formula
A strong analysis often implicitly or explicitly uses a 'because' structure: This evidence supports the claim BECAUSE it reveals/demonstrates/suggests [your explanation].
This formula helps ensure you are explaining the *reasoning* behind your connection. It forces you to articulate the logical link between the evidence and the claim you are making....
4 more steps in this tutorial
Sign up free to access the complete tutorial with worked examples and practice.
Sign Up Free to ContinueSample Practice Questions
Challenging
Evidence: In a novel, a character who has always lived in the city moves to a small town and observes, 'The silence here isn't empty; it's full of the sound of the wind in the pines and the hum of the earth itself.'
Analysis: The character's perception of silence as 'full' rather than empty reveals a profound shift in their perspective. This newfound ability to appreciate nature's subtle sounds signifies a deeper connection to the world and a healing from the chaotic noise of their past.
Which of the following claims is best supported by this evidence and analysis?
A.The character dislikes living in the small town.
B.The novel argues that city life is superior to country life.
C.The character is an expert in identifying different types of trees.
D.The character's move to a rural setting initiates a positive internal transformation.
Challenging
Claim: In 'A Raisin in the Sun,' Mama's small, struggling plant symbolizes the family's persistent hope in the face of adversity.
Evidence: Mama says of her plant, 'It ain’t never going to be nothing...but it’s living and it’s trying.' She continues to care for it on the cramped apartment windowsill.
Choose the analysis that creates the most profound logical connection between the evidence and the abstract theme of hope.
A.Mama's plant is a symbol because it is not a literal part of the family but represents an idea.
B.Just as the plant persists in poor conditions, the family holds onto their dreams despite their oppressive environment. Mama's nurturing of the plant is a physical manifestation of her own refusal to give up hope for her family's future, making the plant's survival a direct parallel to the family's resilience.
C.The plant is a metaphor for Mama's dream of having a garden, which is an important goal for her.
D.The evidence shows that Mama is a caring person who likes plants, even if they are not very beautiful.
Challenging
Claim: The author uses a first-person narrator to create a sense of immediacy and personal bias.
Evidence: The narrator states, 'I knew, with a certainty that left no room for doubt, that he was the villain in this story.'
Analysis A: The narrator's statement of 'certainty' shows the reader that the other character is the villain.
Analysis B: By having the narrator declare his 'certainty' directly to the reader, the author forces us to see the events through a biased lens. The phrase 'left no room for doubt' is an absolute that signals a subjective judgment, not an objective fact, thus creating the immediacy and bias mentioned in the claim.
Why is Analysis B logically stronger than Analysis A?
A.Analysis A is too long and uses confusing language.
B.Analysis A incorrectly identifies the villain of the story.
C.Analysis A takes the narrator's words at face value (a summary), while Analysis B explains *how the author's technique* (using a biased narrator) creates the effect described in the claim.
D.Analysis B uses a direct quote from the evidence, which makes it stronger.
Want to practice and check your answers?
Sign up to access all questions with instant feedback, explanations, and progress tracking.
Start Practicing Free