IXL | Choose the analysis that logically connects the evidence to the claim

Read the claim and the supporting evidence.

Claim: Parents should not give their young children access to televisions, tablets, or similar devices.

Evidence: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of two have no screen time.

Why does the evidence support the claim? Choose the analysis that better explains the connection.

Older children should similarly have little to no screen time.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is a trusted source for recommendations about raising healthy children.

ref_doc_title.

Learn with an example

question

Read the claim and the supporting evidence.

Claim: Playing sports when young yields health benefits later in life.

Evidence: Researchers found that World War II veterans who played varsity sports when they were younger had fewer doctor visits as older men.

Why does the evidence support the claim? Choose the analysis that better explains the connection.

One survey found that people who participated in high school sports were less likely to smoke eight years after graduation.

Needing fewer doctor visits is reflective of having better health.

key idea

Argumentative writing is based on claims, evidence, and analysis. Analysis explains how and why the evidence supports the claim.

Strong analysis makes this connection by providing a statement of value, underlying principle, or general interpretive rule that helps readers to understand how the evidence supports the claim.

A statement of value is a statement about fundamental priorities that can be used to guide decisions.

Claim: Parents should not let their children watch television for more than an hour per day.

Evidence: Children who watch several hours of television per day spend less time outside than they would otherwise.

Analysis: It's vital that children spend time outside.

An underlying principle is a belief or understanding about how the world works.

Claim: Romeo and Juliet do not really love each other.

Evidence: They claim to be in love after only a few brief conversations.

Analysis: True love requires long periods of time in which two people get to know each other.

A general interpretive rule is a rule that can be used to interpret a certain type of information.

Claim: Ben Franklin was a social visionary.

Evidence: He was an outspoken opponent of slavery a century before it was legally abolished.

Analysis: The mark of a visionary is the ability to go against prevailing social norms and institutions for the sake of higher principles.

Analysis should not:

red X symbol, present further evidence

red X symbol, discuss aspects of the evidence that are unrelated to the claim

red X symbol, jump too quickly to conclusions about "what should be done"

red X symbol, make assumptions or interpretations that are not actually supported by the evidence

solution

Taken together, the evidence and analysis support the claim:

Evidence: Researchers found that World War II veterans who played varsity sports when they were younger had fewer doctor visits as older men.

and

Analysis: Needing fewer doctor visits is reflective of having better health.

Claim: Playing sports when young yields health benefits later in life.

The analysis provides a general interpretive rule that connects the evidence to the claim.

The other answer choice provides further evidence but not analysis.

$Confetti$

Excellent!

Now entering the Challenge Zone—are you ready?

Questions
answeredQuestions

Time
elapsedTime

hr	min	sec
00	00	06

SmartScore
out of 100
IXL's SmartScore is a dynamic measure of progress towards mastery, rather than a percentage grade. It tracks your skill level as you tackle progressively more difficult questions. Consistently answer questions correctly to reach excellence (90), or conquer the Challenge Zone to achieve mastery (100)! Learn more

Teacher tools

Excellent! You got that right!

Jumping to level 1 of 1

Excellent!