Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaIntegrating Specific Concrete Evidence

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.

  • Claim: Expanding municipal public transportation infrastructure significantly lowers local urban carbon emissions and traffic congestion.Evidence: A five-year study of Metro City showing a 22% reduction in peak-hour commuter traffic and a 14% drop in particulate emissions after launching three light-rail lines.
  • Claim: Transitioning university courses to experiential project-based learning improves post-graduation job placement rates.Evidence: Longitudinal data from State University indicating an 18% increase in full-time career placement within six months for students completing client capstone projects.
  • Claim: Adopting flexible remote work options enhances employee productivity and reduces workplace exhaustion.Evidence: A quarterly performance audit across 50 tech firms recording a 15% increase in task completion speed and a 28% decline in burnout markers following hybrid work adoption.
  • Claim: Enforcing strict corporate environmental regulations deters regional capital investment and industrial employment.Evidence: Regional economic records showing a 12% decline in new factory construction permits and a 4% contraction in manufacturing jobs during the two years post-legislation.

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Integrating Specific Concrete Evidence

Bu konudan daha fazla soru