Evaluate arguments and compare full sources
Separate facts, opinions, assumptions and reasoning, then compare what two sources actually establish.
What you will tackle
- Distinguish factual claims from evaluative opinions
- Evaluate argument structure, evidence and assumptions
- Integrate and compare paired texts
- Use visual/quantitative evidence alongside a passage
Evaluate the connection, not just the conclusion
A factual claim can be checked against evidence; an opinion evaluates something according to a value or standard. An argument connects premises to a conclusion. Ask whether its evidence addresses the exact claim, whether important groups are missing and whether an alternative explanation remains.
Reconcile points of agreement before judging difference
The paired original sources below agree that a trial changed how a public square was used. They emphasise different benefits and burdens, while both favour further testing before a permanent decision. Their shared observations do not force agreement about priorities. The accompanying counts describe visits, not every consequence or the motives of each visitor.
Two original perspectives
Fictional sources and invented trial data for reading practice.
Source A · Make room for public life
During the four-week street trial, the square acquired something that traffic counts had never measured well: time spent in company. Children paused at the temporary tables, older residents met outside the library, and the weekend market occupied space previously used by parked cars. Recorded visits rose from 600 to 900 per week. The increase does not tell us everything about the trial, but it gives a reason to examine the square as a place rather than only a route.
Critics correctly point out that delivery delays increased. That is a problem to solve, not necessarily a reason to abandon the experiment. A designated morning delivery window might preserve access without returning the square to its former arrangement. I favour extending the trial while testing that change. Permanent adoption should depend on whether the benefits endure and whether access can be improved, rather than on a choice between celebrating every feature and rejecting the entire idea.
Source B · Count the costs as carefully as the visits
The trial made the square busier, but the headline visit count conceals differences in who gained and who struggled. A visitor arriving on foot experienced the tables as an invitation. A worker carrying heavy supplies from a more distant unloading point faced a longer task. Recorded delivery delays increased from 10 to 25 a week. We need to know their duration and cost, not simply that people enjoyed the new seating.
I am not arguing that the trial produced no benefit. I am arguing that a short test in unusually mild weather cannot settle the permanent arrangement. The council should compare similar periods, measure effects on residents and traders, and test the proposed delivery window. If the altered design preserves visits while reducing burdens, it may earn wider support. A public space should be evaluated as a system of uses, rather than through a single number selected by either side.
| Weekly measure | Before trial | During trial |
|---|---|---|
| Visits | 600 | 900 |
| Recorded delivery delays | 10 | 25 |
Build your notes, then practise
Work on paper before opening an explanation. Guided tasks provide a starting point; independent tasks remove the scaffolding; application tasks ask you to justify a method or interpretation in context.
Guided practice
Guided 1
Read the two original sources below. State a shared factual claim, one difference in evaluative emphasis and one assumption needed to move from a temporary trial to a permanent policy.
Show a starting hint
Different values can yield different conclusions from some shared facts.
Compare with the explained answer
- Both acknowledge that activity in and around the square changed during the trial.
- They weigh public use and the burdens on access differently.
- A permanent-policy claim needs assumptions about typical conditions, representativeness and sustainable costs.
Answer / response criteria: Shared observation: use changed. Their emphasis differs over the trade-off. Permanent adoption requires evidence that the trial's conditions and effects can be sustained.
Independent practice
Independent 1
Use the accompanying table: visits rise from 600 to 900, while delivery delays rise from 10 to 25 per week. Calculate both changes and explain why neither number alone resolves the policy dispute.
Compare with the explained answer
- Visits rise by 300, or 50% of 600.
- Recorded delays rise by 15, or 150% of 10.
- The measures describe different outcomes and omit severity, costs, who benefits and other conditions.
Answer / response criteria: Visits +50%; delays +150%; neither alone supplies a complete evaluation.
Application practice
Application 1
Write a recommendation that uses both sources and the table, identifies an unanswered question and proposes a fairer next test.
Compare with the explained answer
- Acknowledge both more visits and more delivery delays.
- Request measurements of delay severity and impacts on affected groups, with comparable periods.
- A longer or modified trial can test delivery windows and access arrangements before a permanent decision.
Answer / response criteria: One justified recommendation is a modified trial with scheduled delivery access, reporting visits, delay duration and effects on residents and traders before deciding on permanence.
What can you explain now?
Write a recommendation that uses both sources and the table, identifies an unanswered question and proposes a fairer next test.
Compare with the explanation
One justified recommendation is a modified trial with scheduled delivery access, reporting visits, delay duration and effects on residents and traders before deciding on permanence.
Explain the reasoning before comparing. This review records your self-assessment rather than an official score or mastery decision.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Source and review status
Coverage follows the named requirements and examples in the 2026–2027 ACT test guide and subject descriptions. That guide explicitly does not list every possible topic. The broader coded College and Career Readiness Standards are also mapped to conceptual teaching and practice; this does not calibrate a learner to a score band. The separate scientific-background context list and reading-complexity rubric have their own stated limits.
Original teaching and explained self-check practice are available. Specialist review and difficulty calibration remain pending. Essays require self-check or teacher review and are not automatically marked or awarded official scores.
Official source specification / guide