The task is to explain which argument is better supported by its evidence. Personal agreement is not enough. The fictional texts and response below demonstrate a method; they are not an official GED prompt, released item, or scored exemplar.
Read both arguments about extending library hours. Decide which argument is better supported. Use specific evidence from both texts, explain the strengths and limits of that evidence, and organize your response so a reader can follow the comparison. All numbers and organizations in this exercise are fictional.
The Riverbend Library should remain open until 9 p.m. twice a week during a three-month pilot. Last month, 180 of 300 visitors who answered a voluntary survey said they wanted later hours. That finding suggests demand, but the survey did not include residents who never visit the library.
At a nearby library, evening entries rose from 240 to 330 per week after a similar schedule change. Riverbend cannot assume the same increase because the communities differ. A pilot would test local demand before a permanent change. Staff estimate the pilot would cost $7,200. The library should count evening visits, survey users about access, and compare the cost with the result before renewing it.
The library should keep its existing hours because people can always use online resources. My two neighbors prefer reading at home, so residents will not use later hours. The survey proves that most people in town want an extension, but people often say things they do not mean.
Opening later will certainly double the library’s annual budget. It will also cause every employee to quit. The current schedule has existed for twenty years, which proves it is the best possible schedule. Instead of conducting a pilot, the library should spend its money on better books.
Text A presents the better-supported argument for a limited trial of later library hours. It uses measured observations, acknowledges what those observations cannot establish, and proposes checking local results before making a permanent commitment. Text B raises a relevant concern about cost, but its strongest claims are unsupported by the evidence it supplies.
Annotation: The opening identifies a position about the quality of support, not a personal preference for later hours. It gives three reasons that the body can develop.
The survey in Text A offers some evidence of interest: 180 of 300 respondents requested later hours. However, voluntary respondents are not necessarily representative of all residents. Text A recognizes a specific gap by noting that nonvisitors were not included. Text B first exaggerates the survey as proof of what most people in town want, then rejects it without offering a better measure. The sample can support further investigation, but cannot establish townwide demand.
Annotation: This paragraph uses a specific fact from the passage, explains its relevance, and qualifies its reach. It does not invent a response rate or assume that every resident was surveyed.
Text A also describes a nearby library whose weekly evening entries rose from 240 to 330. That example does not prove Riverbend will obtain the same result, and Text A explicitly acknowledges the difference between communities. Its proposed three-month pilot addresses that uncertainty by measuring local visits and cost. Text B relies instead on the preferences of two neighbors to claim that residents will not use later hours. Two anecdotes cannot justify such a broad conclusion.
The cost issue deserves attention, but Text B supplies no budget figures to support its claim that later hours would double annual spending. Text A provides an estimated $7,200 pilot cost, although the passage does not explain the estimate’s components. A stronger proposal would disclose staffing assumptions and compare the pilot with alternative uses of funds. Even with this limitation, Text A offers more specific and testable support than Text B’s unsupported prediction that every employee would quit.
Annotation: A strong comparison can criticize both texts. Naming an omitted cost breakdown is a limit visible in the supplied evidence; inventing the real price of staffing would go beyond it.
Overall, Text A better supports trying and evaluating a temporary extension. Its evidence justifies testing local demand rather than guaranteeing success. Text B’s appeal to a twenty-year tradition and its unsupported predictions do not show that the existing schedule is optimal. The reasonable conclusion is a conditional pilot with evaluation, not certainty that longer hours will work.
Annotation: The conclusion matches the scope of the evidence. It avoids converting a limited pilot argument into an unconditional endorsement of permanent expansion.
No official rubric score is assigned to this example. A generated or self-assessed score is not a GED Testing Service evaluation.
Independent preparation materials. Not affiliated with or endorsed by ACE or GED Testing Service. GED is a registered trademark owned by ACE. Practice results do not predict an official GED score, and GEDPilot does not guarantee a passing score.
Last updated .