9.2 Argument Claims, Evidence, and Purpose

What Counts as an Argument

An argument is a set of connected statements meant to persuade a reader that a claim is reasonable. GED RLA never asks whether you agree with the writer. It asks whether you can identify the claim, follow the reasoning, find the evidence, judge whether that evidence is relevant and sufficient, and notice how the author handles opposing views.

The official RLA targets include delineating the steps of an argument, identifying evidence used to support claims, evaluating relevance and sufficiency, distinguishing supported from unsupported claims, assessing reasoning, and identifying assumptions. These same skills drive the Extended Response (Section 2) — a 45-minute essay in which you must analyze two source texts, decide which argument is better supported by evidence, and defend that judgment. The essay is scored by trained raters (and an automated engine) on three traits: analysis of arguments, development and organization, and clarity/conventions.

So mastering argument anatomy here pays off twice.

Argument Parts

The Claim Ladder Process

1. Find the main claim. It usually sits near the beginning or end, but verify against the whole passage.
2. List the reasons. Ask why the author thinks the claim should be accepted.
3. Attach evidence to each reason. Do not treat a reason as evidence unless it contains checkable support.
4. Rate relevance. Evidence must point at the specific claim, not just the topic.
5. Rate sufficiency. One small example rarely supports a broad conclusion.
6. Check purpose. Decide what each example or paragraph is trying to accomplish.

Mini-Argument Walkthrough

Mini-argument: A neighborhood association argues the city should add a crosswalk near the recreation center. It says children and older adults often cross there after evening programs, cites a two-week volunteer count showing more than 180 crossings at that location, and notes the nearest marked crosswalk is three blocks away. It acknowledges paint and signs cost money but says the project is smaller than rebuilding the whole corner.

The claim: the city should add a crosswalk. The reasons: safety and access for people already crossing. The evidence is specific — a volunteer count, the 180+ crossings figure, the three-block distance. The cost acknowledgement serves a purpose: it answers a likely objection and limits the proposal by contrasting a small crosswalk with major construction.

A weak evaluation says the argument is strong "because safety is important." That may be true, but it does not analyze evidence. A stronger evaluation says the count and distance are relevant because they show need at the proposed location; you could still ask whether two weeks is sufficient data — a sufficiency challenge that would strengthen an essay.

Common Argument Traps

A claim is not evidence: "This plan will make everyone safer" is just a claim unless facts show how. A personal story may be relevant yet insufficient for a broad policy conclusion. A statistic can look impressive but must match the claim — for a crosswalk near a recreation center, citywide traffic totals are less relevant than crossing data at that exact corner.

Purpose items often target a single sentence. A mentioned counterargument is usually there to acknowledge a concern before answering it. A list of examples is usually there to show a pattern. A defined term is usually there to prevent confusion before the argument continues. Your job is to judge the support: the best answers connect each claim to the exact evidence that makes it more believable.

Naming Logical Weaknesses

The RLA assessment expects you to assess whether the reasoning is valid, so it helps to name common flaws when you spot them:

• Overgeneralization — a broad claim resting on one case ("My neighbor's garden saved money, so gardens cut everyone's grocery bills").
• Irrelevant evidence — facts on the right topic but the wrong point (citywide crashes used to argue for one corner's crosswalk).
• Unstated assumption — a hidden "if" the argument needs ("the grant will be approved") that, if false, sinks the claim.
• Insufficient evidence — true but too thin a sample to justify a sweeping conclusion.

Relevance vs. Sufficiency at a Glance

When an option says an argument is "well supported," confirm three things: a clear claim, evidence that matches that claim, and enough evidence. If any link breaks, the stronger answer calls out the gap — that is precisely the analysis the Extended Response rewards when you argue which of two source texts is better supported.