10.3 Extended Response Argument Analysis
Key Takeaways
- The GED RLA Extended Response asks you to analyze two source texts and decide which argument is better supported, not which side you personally prefer.
- A better-supported argument shows a clear claim, relevant and concrete evidence, sound reasoning, few unsupported assumptions, and credible sources.
- Trait 1, Analysis of Arguments and Use of Evidence, is scored 0-2 and double-weighted, rewarding text-based evidence tied to your own explanation.
- Effective analysis compares how each author uses evidence rather than summarizing what both passages say.
- Original GED-style practice should use new source situations and must never copy official prompts or official sample responses.
Extended Response Argument Analysis
The GED RLA Extended Response is an evidence-based argument task that fills the 45-minute Section 2 of the test. You read two short source texts that take opposing positions on one issue, decide which position is better supported, and explain your judgment with evidence drawn from the texts. The deciding factor is the strength of support, not your personal opinion about the topic.
The response is scored on three traits, each worth 0-2 points and double-weighted into a 12-point scale. Trait 1, Analysis of Arguments and Use of Evidence, rewards establishing a claim about which source is stronger, analyzing the validity of the arguments, and integrating text evidence with your own explanation. A blank, off-topic, or non-English response, or one written without reading the sources, earns a 0 and ends scoring.
What to Analyze
As you read, mark the parts that build each argument:
| Element | Question to ask | Sign of strength |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | What does the author want readers to believe or do? | The claim is clear and specific |
| Evidence | What facts, data, examples, or expert support appear? | Evidence is relevant, concrete, and sufficient |
| Reasoning | How does the author link evidence to the claim? | The connection is logical and explained |
| Assumptions | What must readers accept without proof? | Few major assumptions go unsupported |
| Credibility | Why should the source be trusted? | Reliable information, little obvious bias |
Do not write a plot-style summary. Summary says, Passage A says buses help and Passage B says bike lanes help. Analysis says, Passage A is better supported because it ties ridership data to shorter commute times, while Passage B relies on predictions it never explains.
Mini Example
Imagine two original excerpts about whether a town should extend library hours.
Source A: The library should stay open until 8 p.m. twice a week. A survey of 240 cardholders found that 62 percent could not visit before 5 p.m. because of work or school. Nearby towns that added evening hours reported higher computer use and more adult-education attendance.
Source B: The library should keep its current schedule. Evening hours might attract too many people, and staff could grow tired. The town has other problems, so the schedule should not change.
A strong response chooses Source A as better supported: it offers survey data, a specific proposal, and comparison evidence from nearby towns. Source B raises possible concerns but gives no evidence about staffing cost, safety, or actual demand. Notice the response can acknowledge Source B's concern without treating it as equally supported — that fair acknowledgment is itself a sign of analysis.
Evidence Use
Use evidence in small, purposeful pieces. You do not need long quotations; long copied chunks crowd out your analysis and can actually lower Trait 1. Paraphrase when you can and quote only the exact words that matter. A useful evidence sentence has three parts:
- Introduce the source or author.
- Give a specific fact, detail, or phrase from the text.
- Explain why it proves your point about support.
Example: Source A is stronger because its survey of 240 cardholders directly measures the people affected by library hours; that evidence is more relevant than Source B's unsupported prediction that evening hours might be too crowded.
Common Traps
- Choosing the side you agree with without checking which is better supported.
- Writing about only one source when the task demands a comparison.
- Counting facts instead of explaining them — three weak details do not beat one strong, relevant piece.
- Copying long passages to fill space, which leaves no room for reasoning.
On test day, your first read identifies each author's main claim; your second read marks the strongest and weakest support. Then write a thesis that names the better-supported argument and gives a brief reason. That thesis anchors the whole essay.
Spotting Weak Reasoning
The sources are written so that one argument has stronger support, often by planting recognizable weaknesses in the other. Train yourself to name the flaw rather than just feel it. Common weak moves include the unsupported assumption (the author assumes a result without evidence), vague or absent data (claims like many people or experts agree with no numbers or names), prediction stated as fact (evening hours would be too crowded), and appeals to emotion or irrelevant points (the town has other problems).
| Weakness | What it looks like | Why it lowers support |
|---|---|---|
| Unsupported assumption | Concludes a result with no proof | The reader has no reason to accept it |
| Vague evidence | "Many residents" with no count | Cannot be checked or weighed |
| Prediction as fact | "This would cause crowding" | No data shows it will happen |
| Irrelevant point | "The town has other problems" | Does not address the actual claim |
Naming the flaw in your essay ("Source B relies on an unsupported prediction") is exactly the analytic move Trait 1 rewards, and it gives you concrete material to write about beyond simple agreement.
Balancing the Two Sources
Even though you choose one side, a high-scoring response engages both texts. Spend most of your analysis on the stronger source, but devote at least one paragraph to the weaker one, explaining precisely why its support falls short. This comparison — Source A's survey directly measures demand, whereas Source B offers only a prediction — demonstrates that you evaluated both arguments rather than ignoring one. A response that mentions only the source it favors usually caps at the lower end of Trait 1 because it never shows the comparative judgment the task requires.
Which thesis is strongest for an Extended Response comparing two arguments about a city recycling rule?
A passage claims a tutoring program should expand because 78 percent of students who attended at least eight sessions improved their reading scores. Which response best analyzes the evidence?