Reading: arguments, paired texts and graphic evidence
| English | Français |
|---|---|
| denominator/dɪˈnɒmɪneɪtə/ | dénominateur |
| synthesis/ˈsɪnθəsɪs/ | synthèse |
A decision before an answer
- Two authors can share a goal and disagree about the method. A comparison must preserve both levels.
- Your goal: Evaluate whether evidence supports a specific argument.
Read the relationship
- Identify each argument’s claim, evidence and limits separately before comparing texts. A criticism may concern method, cost or certainty rather than the goal itself. Relevance asks whether evidence bears on the claim; sufficiency asks whether its amount and quality warrant the conclusion. A counterexample can weaken a universal claim without disproving a narrower one.
- Compare agreement and disagreement across paired texts.
Where do the authors agree?
Both texts explicitly recognise evening access.
Use the defining rule
- For paired texts, make a two-column mental map of shared concerns and distinct positions. An answer can misrepresent both authors by combining one author’s evidence with the other’s conclusion. When predicting a response, use the responding author’s stated principle; do not invent a view simply because the authors disagree elsewhere.
- Integrate a graph or table without replacing the passage’s claim.
Which group has the highest waiting proportion?
10/18 exceeds 0.2 for both other groups.
Check the conditions
- Read a visual’s title, axes, units, groups and notes before using its values. A table may summarise observed counts rather than rates; compare denominators before interpreting a difference. Link the exact visual finding to the claim in the passage. A numerical trend does not establish a causal mechanism unless the design and text supply that support.
- Integrate a graph or table without replacing the passage’s claim.
Original Text A: “Extend opening hours first. The pilot recorded 18 evening visits across four evenings, so access after work is a real concern. Before buying more equipment, see whether a longer schedule spreads demand.” Text B: “Evening access matters, but schedule changes alone will not solve equipment queues. In the same pilot, ten of the eighteen evening visitors waited for a machine. Purchase decisions should use both attendance and waiting data.” Pilot table: morning 20 visits/4 waited; afternoon 30/6; evening 18/10. Both authors value access, but B says capacity also matters. Waiting proportions are 20%, 20% and about 56%, so evening has the highest waiting proportion despite the lowest visit count. This supports investigating an evening bottleneck; the observational pilot does not prove buying a machine is the best solution.
Six of thirty afternoon visitors waited: this is ____ percent.
6÷30×100=20; use afternoon visitors as the denominator.
Apply the task format
- The original paired case uses a compact table represented in words. It is targeted practice, not a full long Reading passage set. In a complete set, return between passage and visual as needed and answer the specified relationship rather than every interesting numerical pattern. Keep survey, pilot and measured outcome claims distinct.
- Integrate a graph or table without replacing the passage’s claim.
Counts are not rates, shared goals are not identical recommendations, and a four-evening pilot does not establish a universal causal claim.
Which answer fits this case?
Evaluate whether evidence supports a specific argument
The pilot proves that new equipment is the only solution.
The observations identify a problem but do not compare all remedies causally.
Keep the distinctions
- synthesis 综合 — Connecting ideas across sources while preserving their distinct claims.
- denominator 分母 — The reference total used when interpreting a proportion.
- Evaluate whether evidence supports a specific argument.
- Compare agreement and disagreement across paired texts.
- Integrate a graph or table without replacing the passage’s claim.
Match each term with its precise meaning in this lesson.
Keep the distinctions stated in the teaching example.
Put this lesson’s reasoning or event sequence in order.
The order follows the stated process; check each stage before the next.