Examkin

Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence

3 questions

Question 1Question →

In Analytical Writing, a persuasive argument must ground broad premises with specific, concrete empirical evidence rather than vague assertions. Match each abstract claim premise on the left with the piece of concrete evidence on the right that most directly substantiates it.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Implementing flexible working hours significantly boosts corporate employee productivity.
Municipal investments in public urban parks lead to substantial neighborhood economic revitalization.
Transitioning university courses to online-only formats reduces operating costs without harming academic outcomes.
Installing automated traffic enforcement cameras at busy city intersections reduces severe traffic accidents.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Each broad premise pairs with specific empirical data that directly quantifies its exact mechanism: flexible scheduling matches with the firm productivity study; urban park revitalization matches with property tax revenue data; online university cost-reduction matches with facility overhead and graduation rate metrics; and traffic camera safety matches with municipal collision and fatality records.
Each generalized premise introduces a distinct policy claim. Effective integration of concrete evidence requires matching each premise with specific, empirical, and quantifiable data (such as percentage changes, study scope, and time periods) that directly validates the proposed outcome.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the specific causal variables and metrics implied in each abstract premise.
Determined that premise 1 requires workplace productivity metrics, premise 2 requires municipal economic/tax data, premise 3 requires institutional financial and academic performance metrics, and premise 4 requires traffic collision statistics.
Concrete evidence must directly substantiate the precise variables named in the claim.
2
Evaluate the empirical specificity of each candidate evidence item.
Matched each general assertion with study data, tax records, fiscal audits, or transit reports containing concrete numbers, timeframes, and defined populations.
Specific empirical details convert broad generalizations into logically sound, compelling arguments.

Key Concept

Integrating specific, quantifiable, and verifiable empirical evidence to substantiate analytical claims.
Question 2Question →

In Analytical Writing, broad argument premises must be supported by specific, concrete evidence rather than vague generalizations. Match each argumentative claim on the left with the specific empirical evidence on the right that most directly substantiates it.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Claim: Expanding municipal public transportation infrastructure significantly lowers local urban carbon emissions and traffic congestion.
Claim: Transitioning university courses to experiential project-based learning improves post-graduation job placement rates.
Claim: Adopting flexible remote work options enhances employee productivity and reduces workplace exhaustion.
Claim: Enforcing strict corporate environmental regulations deters regional capital investment and industrial employment.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Each argument claim is correctly matched with concrete empirical evidence that presents specific metrics, verifiable scope, and direct logical alignment with the claim's asserted variables.
Each claim is paired with concrete empirical evidence that provides measurable data directly aligned with the asserted claim. The public transportation claim is supported by specific light-rail traffic and emission statistics; the higher education claim is backed by six-month employment percentages from capstone projects; the remote work claim is grounded by multi-firm audit metrics on task speed and burnout; and the environmental regulation claim is substantiated by industrial permit and employment contraction figures.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core variables and cause-and-effect assertions in each left-hand claim.
Identified four distinct subject domains: urban transit emissions, higher education career outcomes, workplace productivity under remote schedules, and regulatory economic impacts.
Understanding the precise claim scope is required to evaluate whether proposed evidence is relevant and sufficient.
2
Evaluate the right-hand evidence items for concrete empirical specificity.
All right-hand items provide specific numerical metrics, targeted timeframes, and defined sample groups rather than vague assertions.
Effective GRE Analytical Writing requires replacing hypothetical assumptions with verifiable, specific data points.
3
Align each claim with the evidence item that directly measures its specific outcome.
Matched transit claim to light-rail emissions data, education claim to capstone job placement rates, remote work claim to corporate performance audits, and regulation claim to factory permit records.
Concrete evidence must directly connect the stated cause to the specific effect without logical gaps.

Key Concept

Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence
Question 3Question →

Match each abstract argument premise on the left with the specific, concrete empirical evidence on the right that most effectively substantiates it.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Implementing municipal bike-share programs significantly reduces urban traffic congestion and localized carbon emissions.
Mandating holistic admissions reviews in higher education improves student retention without compromising academic standards.
Transitioning to a hybrid remote-work policy boosts employee productivity while lowering corporate overhead operational expenses.
Expanding urban green spaces improves public health outcomes and mitigates local heat-island effects in metropolitan areas.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Each abstract premise is correctly matched with concrete empirical evidence that presents specific, verifiable quantitative metrics directly supporting the claim's scope and mechanisms.
Each abstract argument premise is accurately paired with empirical evidence that provides measurable data—such as study percentages, specific temperature changes, financial audit results, and graduation metrics—directly confirming the claim's assertion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze each abstract premise on the left to identify the core cause-and-effect relationship being claimed.
Identified four distinct subject areas: municipal transit/emissions, university admissions/retention, remote work productivity/overhead, and urban green spaces/public health.
Clear identification of the premise variables is necessary to select evidence with matching contextual scope.
2
Evaluate the evidence statements on the right for specific, measurable empirical data rather than general assertions.
Selected evidence items containing explicit numerical metrics, named institutional data sources, and verified outcome measures.
Concrete evidence in Analytical Writing requires specific data, real-world case details, or study metrics to replace unsupported generalizations.
3
Align each premise with the specific evidence item that directly addresses both its primary cause and stated effect.
Paired each abstract claim with its exact empirical counterpart based on metric alignment.
Ensures full conceptual relevance and logical sufficiency between premise and supporting evidence.

Key Concept

Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence in Argumentation
Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence Practice Questions — GRE General Test | Examkin