The GED Reasoning Through Language Arts (RLA) test takes 150 minutes in three parts, with a 45-minute essay and a 10-minute break. You read workplace, nonfiction and literary passages, judge arguments, fix errors in drop-down editing items, and write one response that explains which of two arguments has better evidence.
A routine that test-takers often credit, and that this guide teaches, works for RLA, Social Studies and Science passages:
You read two passages that take opposite sides on an issue. Then you write a response that explains which side has the more convincing evidence, and why. GED.com describes the skill as analyzing two passages, deciding which argument has more convincing evidence, and explaining why the evidence supports your choice. The task is about the evidence, not your personal opinion of the issue. The two passages together are no longer than 650 words.
The official RLA assessment guide scores the extended response on three traits. In plain words:
A practice plan from the GEDPilot book (a study target, not an official section split):
Prompt: Read both passages about whether Harbor City should make its buses free to ride. Then write a response that explains which writer gives better support for his or her position. Use specific evidence from both passages. Plan for about 45 minutes, including time to review your work.
Passage A: Free Fares Pay Off (Renee Okafor, member of the Harbor City Transit Riders Council). Harbor City should make all of its buses free. We already have proof that it works. For six months last year, the city made Route 9 free as a trial. Ridership on Route 9 rose 31 percent compared with the same months the year before, while ridership on the city’s other routes stayed about the same. Boarding was faster, too. Drivers no longer waited for riders to find change, and the average stop time fell from 41 seconds to 26 seconds. Fares bring in about $1.2 million a year, but collecting them is not free. The transit office spends about $380,000 a year on fare machines, repairs and cash handling. That means the real cost of going fare-free is closer to $820,000, or about 3 percent of the bus system’s $27 million budget. Most of all, free buses help the people who need them most. In a city survey, 4 in 10 Route 9 riders said they used the free bus to get to work or job training.
Passage B: Spend the Money on Better Service (Gary Lindqvist, Harbor City budget analyst). Free buses sound generous, but they are the wrong choice for Harbor City. The Route 9 trial lasted only six months, and it ran in the summer and fall, when ridership is usually highest. We cannot know whether the same gains would last through a full year. Losing $1.2 million in fares would also mean cutting something else. I have talked to many riders, and they all tell me the same thing: they want buses that come more often, not free buses. If buses are crowded and late, a free ride is not much help. Other cities that dropped fares had problems too. I have heard that some saw more disturbances on buses after fares ended. Instead of free fares, the city should use the money to run buses every 10 minutes on its busiest routes.
Original prompt and passages written by GEDPilot. Harbor City, the writers and all figures are fictional.
Model response with notes:
Paragraph 1: Renee Okafor gives the better-supported argument for making Harbor City’s buses free. She uses results from a six-month trial on Route 9, explains the true cost of the change, and shows who would benefit. Gary Lindqvist raises one fair concern about the length of the trial, but most of his other points rest on informal conversations or on things he has “heard.” [Trait 1 and Trait 2: The thesis answers the prompt in the first sentence: it names the better-supported side. The next sentences preview the reasons and name both writers. There is no personal opinion about buses.]
Paragraph 2: Okafor’s strongest evidence comes from the Route 9 trial. Ridership on that route rose 31 percent compared with the same months a year earlier, while ridership on the other routes stayed about the same. Because the other routes did not change, the jump on Route 9 is likely connected to the free fares rather than to a citywide trend. She also reports that the average stop time fell from 41 to 26 seconds. That is a measured benefit for every rider, not just for people who save a fare. [Trait 1: Specific numbers from the passage, followed by a “because” sentence that explains why the numbers matter. Evidence is explained, not just dropped in.]
Paragraph 3: Lindqvist argues that six months is too short and that summer and fall are busy seasons. This is a reasonable concern, since a full year of data would be stronger. However, Okafor compared the trial months with the same months of the year before, so the busy season was present in both numbers. His point shows that the city should keep measuring, not that the trial results are wrong. [Trait 1 and Trait 2: A fair concession (“This is a reasonable concern”), then a rebuttal that uses a detail from the other passage. The transition “However” shows the turn in the argument.]
Paragraph 4: The two writers also disagree about cost. Lindqvist says the city would lose $1.2 million, but he does not mention the $380,000 the city already spends to collect fares. Okafor’s estimate of about $820,000, or 3 percent of the bus budget, is more complete. Lindqvist’s other support is weaker still. He says riders “all tell me the same thing,” but he does not say how many riders he asked or how he chose them. His claim about problems in other cities is based only on what he has “heard.” [Trait 1: This paragraph judges the quality of evidence: an incomplete number, an informal sample, and a rumor. Short quotes are woven into the writer’s own sentences.]
Paragraph 5: Lindqvist’s idea of running buses more often may be worth studying, but he gives no data showing it would help more riders than free fares. Okafor supports her position with measured results, a careful cost estimate and survey information about riders. For these reasons, her argument is better supported. [Trait 2 and Trait 3: The conclusion restates the judgment and the reasons without adding new opinions. Across the response, sentences vary in length, the tone stays formal, and there are no run-ons.]
Drop-down editing items test these rules. Each line shows the rule, a sentence to avoid and a corrected version.
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 .