Deepen your Command of Evidence skills by learning to identify subtle differences between good and bad evidence. This stack covers common distractors and traps set by test makers.
What is the "Keyword Trap" in Command of Evidence questions?
This trap is an answer choice that contains the same keywords as the claim or question, but the line's content doesn't actually support the claim's meaning. It's a test of comprehension over simple word matching.
Describe the distractor known as "Right Topic, Wrong Idea."
This is an evidence choice that talks about the correct subject (person, event, concept) but presents a different idea or detail about it than the one required to support the specific claim in question.
What makes an evidence choice "Too Broad" or "Too General"?
The evidence is a general statement that is related to the claim but does not provide the specific proof needed. The correct evidence will be more precise and directly targeted to the claim.
What is the 'Partial Support' or 'Too Narrow' trap?
The evidence choice supports only one part of a multi-part claim, or focuses on a minor detail while ignoring the claim's main point. The best evidence must address the entire scope of the claim.
Describe the "Contradictory Evidence" trap.
This is an answer choice that presents information that is the opposite of or directly contradicts the claim you are trying to support. It's a distractor that preys on careless reading.
How do you distinguish between evidence that is merely 'related' and evidence that offers 'direct support'?
Related evidence is on the same topic. Direct support is evidence that, on its own, serves as a logical reason to believe the claim is true. Ask, "Does this line *prove* the claim, or does it just *talk about* the same subject?"
What does it mean for evidence to be "sufficient"?
Sufficient evidence provides enough information to fully support the claim. Insufficient evidence might hint at the claim but requires the reader to make a significant logical leap or assumption to connect them.
If an evidence choice requires you to make a large assumption to connect it to the claim, what does that indicate?
It indicates that it is almost certainly the wrong answer. The correct evidence should have a clear and direct connection to the claim without requiring unsupported assumptions.
What is the "Paraphrase Test" for evaluating evidence?
Try to paraphrase the evidence choice in your own words. Then, try to paraphrase the claim (or the Q1 answer in a paired set). If your two paraphrases mean essentially the same thing, the evidence is strong.
Why should you be wary of evidence containing absolute words like 'always', 'never', or 'all'?
While not always wrong, such absolute evidence is only correct if the claim itself is absolute. Often, a more nuanced claim is better supported by more nuanced evidence.
How can the tone of the evidence help you determine if it's a good match?
The tone of the evidence (e.g., critical, supportive, neutral) should match the tone of the claim. If the claim is about a 'criticism', the evidence should have a critical tone.
How do you handle evidence that is a quote from a person within the passage?
You must attribute the evidence correctly. It supports what that specific person thinks or says, not necessarily what the author of the passage believes or what is presented as objective fact.
What is a 'scope mismatch' trap?
This occurs when the evidence and the claim have different scopes. For example, the claim might be about 'all scientists', but the evidence is about the findings of 'one specific research team'.
If you're stuck between two evidence choices, what is the best tie-breaking question to ask?
Ask, "Which of these choices requires fewer logical steps to connect to the claim?" The correct answer is almost always the one that is more direct and requires less interpretation.
Can a rhetorical question in the passage serve as evidence?
Yes, but you must understand its implied answer. The evidence is not the question itself, but the point the author is making by asking it.
