Practice
Fifty original digital-SAT-style Command of Evidence questions for Topic 3-5: Interpreting Bar Graphs.
In a hypothetical science investigation of garden plots, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records afternoon humidity for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that dense ground cover shows a sustained increase in afternoon humidity from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that dense ground cover shows a sustained increase in afternoon humidity from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: dense ground cover rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: dense ground cover rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that dense ground cover shows a sustained increase in afternoon humidity from baseline through follow-up.
dense ground cover: 18, 22, 28, 34 %; bare soil: 42, 38, 34, 30 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of archive users, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records successful record searches for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in successful record searches between bilingual transcripts and single-language metadata narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in successful record searches between bilingual transcripts and single-language metadata narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 7 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 7 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in successful record searches between bilingual transcripts and single-language metadata narrows across the four measurements.
bilingual transcripts: 25, 30, 37, 44 %; single-language metadata: 49, 45, 41, 37 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of theater audiences, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records noticed performer interactions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that seats surrounding the stage exceeds fixed front-facing rows in noticed performer interactions by follow-up.
The team claims that seats surrounding the stage exceeds fixed front-facing rows in noticed performer interactions by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, seats surrounding the stage reaches 54 %, exceeding fixed front-facing rows at 44 %.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, seats surrounding the stage reaches 54 %, exceeding fixed front-facing rows at 44 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that seats surrounding the stage exceeds fixed front-facing rows in noticed performer interactions by follow-up.
seats surrounding the stage: 32, 38, 46, 54 %; fixed front-facing rows: 56, 52, 48, 44 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Noor in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records openness to shared discovery for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots changes more across the measurement period than restricting every slot.
The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots changes more across the measurement period than restricting every slot.
In the categorical comparison: opening unscheduled viewing slots changes by 25 decisions, while restricting every slot changes by 12 decisions in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: opening unscheduled viewing slots changes by 25 decisions, while restricting every slot changes by 12 decisions in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots changes more across the measurement period than restricting every slot.
opening unscheduled viewing slots: 19, 26, 35, 44 decisions; restricting every slot: 43, 39, 35, 31 decisions
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of building tiles, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records strength after wetting for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that high recycled-glass content shows a sustained increase in strength after wetting from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that high recycled-glass content shows a sustained increase in strength after wetting from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: high recycled-glass content rises at every measurement, from 26 % at baseline to 54 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: high recycled-glass content rises at every measurement, from 26 % at baseline to 54 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that high recycled-glass content shows a sustained increase in strength after wetting from baseline through follow-up.
high recycled-glass content: 26, 34, 44, 54 %; low recycled-glass content: 50, 46, 42, 38 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of meeting attendees, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records question-period participation for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in question-period participation between a portable hearing loop and standard room audio narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in question-period participation between a portable hearing loop and standard room audio narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 questions at baseline to 4 questions at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 questions at baseline to 4 questions at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in question-period participation between a portable hearing loop and standard room audio narrows across the four measurements.
a portable hearing loop: 33, 37, 43, 49 questions; standard room audio: 57, 53, 49, 45 questions
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of photography viewers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records distinct interpretations for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that captions shown after viewing exceeds captions shown before viewing in distinct interpretations by follow-up.
The team claims that captions shown after viewing exceeds captions shown before viewing in distinct interpretations by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, captions shown after viewing reaches 39 interpretations, exceeding captions shown before viewing at 32 interpretations.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, captions shown after viewing reaches 39 interpretations, exceeding captions shown before viewing at 32 interpretations. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that captions shown after viewing exceeds captions shown before viewing in distinct interpretations by follow-up.
captions shown after viewing: 20, 25, 32, 39 interpretations; captions shown before viewing: 44, 40, 36, 32 interpretations
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Kavi in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records willingness to revise a plan for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that asking Leena to redraw the route changes more across the measurement period than insisting on his damaged map.
The team claims that asking Leena to redraw the route changes more across the measurement period than insisting on his damaged map.
In the categorical comparison: asking Leena to redraw the route changes by 22 actions, while insisting on his damaged map changes by 12 actions in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: asking Leena to redraw the route changes by 22 actions, while insisting on his damaged map changes by 12 actions in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that asking Leena to redraw the route changes more across the measurement period than insisting on his damaged map.
asking Leena to redraw the route: 27, 33, 41, 49 actions; insisting on his damaged map: 51, 47, 43, 39 actions
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of model turbine blades, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records noise reduction for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that textured trailing edges shows a sustained increase in noise reduction from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that textured trailing edges shows a sustained increase in noise reduction from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: textured trailing edges rises at every measurement, from 34 dB at baseline to 59 dB at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: textured trailing edges rises at every measurement, from 34 dB at baseline to 59 dB at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that textured trailing edges shows a sustained increase in noise reduction from baseline through follow-up.
textured trailing edges: 34, 41, 50, 59 dB; plain trailing edges: 58, 54, 50, 46 dB
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of neighborhood residents, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records postal codes represented for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in postal codes represented between comment boxes in libraries and a city-hall-only box narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in postal codes represented between comment boxes in libraries and a city-hall-only box narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 codes at baseline to 16 codes at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 codes at baseline to 16 codes at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in postal codes represented between comment boxes in libraries and a city-hall-only box narrows across the four measurements.
comment boxes in libraries: 21, 29, 39, 49 codes; a city-hall-only box: 45, 41, 37, 33 codes
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of ceramic fragments, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records cross-vessel matches for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that organization by tool marks exceeds organization by color in cross-vessel matches by follow-up.
The team claims that organization by tool marks exceeds organization by color in cross-vessel matches by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, organization by tool marks reaches 44 matches, exceeding organization by color at 40 matches.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, organization by tool marks reaches 44 matches, exceeding organization by color at 40 matches. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that organization by tool marks exceeds organization by color in cross-vessel matches by follow-up.
organization by tool marks: 28, 32, 38, 44 matches; organization by color: 52, 48, 44, 40 matches
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Inez in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records adaptation without erasure for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that adding a substitute in pencil changes more across the measurement period than erasing the original line.
The team claims that adding a substitute in pencil changes more across the measurement period than erasing the original line.
In the categorical comparison: adding a substitute in pencil changes by 19 details, while erasing the original line changes by 12 details in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: adding a substitute in pencil changes by 19 details, while erasing the original line changes by 12 details in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that adding a substitute in pencil changes more across the measurement period than erasing the original line.
adding a substitute in pencil: 35, 40, 47, 54 details; erasing the original line: 59, 55, 51, 47 details
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of greenhouse roots, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records root depth for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that less frequent deep watering shows a sustained increase in root depth from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that less frequent deep watering shows a sustained increase in root depth from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: less frequent deep watering rises at every measurement, from 22 cm at baseline to 44 cm at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: less frequent deep watering rises at every measurement, from 22 cm at baseline to 44 cm at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that less frequent deep watering shows a sustained increase in root depth from baseline through follow-up.
less frequent deep watering: 22, 28, 36, 44 cm; daily shallow watering: 46, 42, 38, 34 cm
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of service employees, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records participation for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in participation between after-work voting and noon-only voting narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in participation between after-work voting and noon-only voting narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 voters at baseline to 13 voters at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 voters at baseline to 13 voters at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in participation between after-work voting and noon-only voting narrows across the four measurements.
after-work voting: 29, 36, 45, 54 voters; noon-only voting: 53, 49, 45, 41 voters
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of theater historians, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records casting links identified for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that digitized page margins exceeds cropped central text in casting links identified by follow-up.
The team claims that digitized page margins exceeds cropped central text in casting links identified by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, digitized page margins reaches 64 links, exceeding cropped central text at 48 links.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, digitized page margins reaches 64 links, exceeding cropped central text at 48 links. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that digitized page margins exceeds cropped central text in casting links identified by follow-up.
digitized page margins: 36, 44, 54, 64 links; cropped central text: 60, 56, 52, 48 links
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Yara in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records willingness to teach revision for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that showing a crossed-out draft changes more across the measurement period than showing only the final poem.
The team claims that showing a crossed-out draft changes more across the measurement period than showing only the final poem.
In the categorical comparison: showing a crossed-out draft changes by 16 actions, while showing only the final poem changes by 12 actions in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: showing a crossed-out draft changes by 16 actions, while showing only the final poem changes by 12 actions in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that showing a crossed-out draft changes more across the measurement period than showing only the final poem.
showing a crossed-out draft: 23, 27, 33, 39 actions; showing only the final poem: 47, 43, 39, 35 actions
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of deep-reef light sensors, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records recorded light spikes for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps shows a sustained increase in recorded light spikes from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps shows a sustained increase in recorded light spikes from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: uncovered vehicle lamps rises at every measurement, from 30 spikes at baseline to 49 spikes at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: uncovered vehicle lamps rises at every measurement, from 30 spikes at baseline to 49 spikes at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps shows a sustained increase in recorded light spikes from baseline through follow-up.
uncovered vehicle lamps: 30, 35, 42, 49 spikes; covered lamps: 54, 50, 46, 42 spikes
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of shift workers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records weekday visits for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in weekday visits between late museum hours and daytime-only hours narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in weekday visits between late museum hours and daytime-only hours narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 visits at baseline to 10 visits at follow-up.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 visits at baseline to 10 visits at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in weekday visits between late museum hours and daytime-only hours narrows across the four measurements.
late museum hours: 37, 43, 51, 59 visits; daytime-only hours: 61, 57, 53, 49 visits
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of design researchers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records cross-period connections for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that a color-based index exceeds a date-based index in cross-period connections by follow-up.
The team claims that a color-based index exceeds a date-based index in cross-period connections by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, a color-based index reaches 49 connections, exceeding a date-based index at 36 connections.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, a color-based index reaches 49 connections, exceeding a date-based index at 36 connections. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a color-based index exceeds a date-based index in cross-period connections by follow-up.
a color-based index: 24, 31, 40, 49 connections; a date-based index: 48, 44, 40, 36 connections
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Sami in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records revaluation of imperfection for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that rehanging the rough-toned bell changes more across the measurement period than keeping it silent.
The team claims that rehanging the rough-toned bell changes more across the measurement period than keeping it silent.
In the categorical comparison: rehanging the rough-toned bell changes by 28 choices, while keeping it silent changes by 12 choices in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: rehanging the rough-toned bell changes by 28 choices, while keeping it silent changes by 12 choices in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that rehanging the rough-toned bell changes more across the measurement period than keeping it silent.
rehanging the rough-toned bell: 31, 39, 49, 59 choices; keeping it silent: 55, 51, 47, 43 choices
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of rooftop plants, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records living leaves after drought for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that deeper soil shows a sustained increase in living leaves after drought from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that deeper soil shows a sustained increase in living leaves after drought from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: deeper soil rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: deeper soil rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that deeper soil shows a sustained increase in living leaves after drought from baseline through follow-up.
deeper soil: 18, 22, 28, 34 %; shallow soil: 42, 38, 34, 30 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of full-time workers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records registrations for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in registrations between Saturday workshops and weekday-morning workshops narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in registrations between Saturday workshops and weekday-morning workshops narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 people at baseline to 7 people at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 people at baseline to 7 people at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in registrations between Saturday workshops and weekday-morning workshops narrows across the four measurements.
Saturday workshops: 25, 30, 37, 44 people; weekday-morning workshops: 49, 45, 41, 37 people
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of delivery robots on wet ramps, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records successful climbs for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that textured wheel bands exceeds smooth wheel bands in successful climbs by follow-up.
The team claims that textured wheel bands exceeds smooth wheel bands in successful climbs by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, textured wheel bands reaches 54 %, exceeding smooth wheel bands at 44 %.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, textured wheel bands reaches 54 %, exceeding smooth wheel bands at 44 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that textured wheel bands exceeds smooth wheel bands in successful climbs by follow-up.
textured wheel bands: 32, 38, 46, 54 %; smooth wheel bands: 56, 52, 48, 44 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of library visitors, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records completed visits for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that evening opening hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
The team claims that evening opening hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
In the categorical comparison: evening opening hours changes by 25 visits, while daytime-only hours changes by 12 visits in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: evening opening hours changes by 25 visits, while daytime-only hours changes by 12 visits in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that evening opening hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
evening opening hours: 19, 26, 35, 44 visits; daytime-only hours: 43, 39, 35, 31 visits
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of museum visitors, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records identified revisions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that layer-by-layer labels shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that layer-by-layer labels shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: layer-by-layer labels rises at every measurement, from 26 % at baseline to 54 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: layer-by-layer labels rises at every measurement, from 26 % at baseline to 54 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that layer-by-layer labels shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
layer-by-layer labels: 26, 34, 44, 54 %; single summary labels: 50, 46, 42, 38 %
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Mira in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records candor about uncertainty for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in candor about uncertainty between speaking before the council and speaking privately to Ivo narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in candor about uncertainty between speaking before the council and speaking privately to Ivo narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 instances at baseline to 4 instances at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 instances at baseline to 4 instances at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in candor about uncertainty between speaking before the council and speaking privately to Ivo narrows across the four measurements.
speaking before the council: 33, 37, 43, 49 instances; speaking privately to Ivo: 57, 53, 49, 45 instances
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of coastal seedlings, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records surviving leaves for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that low-salt irrigation exceeds high-salt irrigation in surviving leaves by follow-up.
The team claims that low-salt irrigation exceeds high-salt irrigation in surviving leaves by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, low-salt irrigation reaches 39 leaves, exceeding high-salt irrigation at 32 leaves.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, low-salt irrigation reaches 39 leaves, exceeding high-salt irrigation at 32 leaves. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that low-salt irrigation exceeds high-salt irrigation in surviving leaves by follow-up.
low-salt irrigation: 20, 25, 32, 39 leaves; high-salt irrigation: 44, 40, 36, 32 leaves
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of first-time voters, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records correctly completed sample ballots for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that a translated guide changes more across the measurement period than a single-language guide.
The team claims that a translated guide changes more across the measurement period than a single-language guide.
In the categorical comparison: a translated guide changes by 22 %, while a single-language guide changes by 12 % in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: a translated guide changes by 22 %, while a single-language guide changes by 12 % in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a translated guide changes more across the measurement period than a single-language guide.
a translated guide: 27, 33, 41, 49 %; a single-language guide: 51, 47, 43, 39 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of student percussionists, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records synchronized entries for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal shows a sustained increase in synchronized entries from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal shows a sustained increase in synchronized entries from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: rhythm-first rehearsal rises at every measurement, from 34 % at baseline to 59 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: rhythm-first rehearsal rises at every measurement, from 34 % at baseline to 59 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal shows a sustained increase in synchronized entries from baseline through follow-up.
rhythm-first rehearsal: 34, 41, 50, 59 %; melody-first rehearsal: 58, 54, 50, 46 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Jonas in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records acceptance of imperfection for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in acceptance of imperfection between displaying the patched kite and hiding it in the shed narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in acceptance of imperfection between displaying the patched kite and hiding it in the shed narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 details at baseline to 16 details at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 details at baseline to 16 details at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in acceptance of imperfection between displaying the patched kite and hiding it in the shed narrows across the four measurements.
displaying the patched kite: 21, 29, 39, 49 details; hiding it in the shed: 45, 41, 37, 33 details
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of identical roof tiles, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records retained heat for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that reflective coating exceeds plain coating in retained heat by follow-up.
The team claims that reflective coating exceeds plain coating in retained heat by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, reflective coating reaches 44 °C, exceeding plain coating at 40 °C.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, reflective coating reaches 44 °C, exceeding plain coating at 40 °C. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that reflective coating exceeds plain coating in retained heat by follow-up.
reflective coating: 28, 32, 38, 44 °C; plain coating: 52, 48, 44, 40 °C
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of rural archive donors, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records documents contributed for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that mobile scanning visits changes more across the measurement period than city-only scanning.
The team claims that mobile scanning visits changes more across the measurement period than city-only scanning.
In the categorical comparison: mobile scanning visits changes by 19 items, while city-only scanning changes by 12 items in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: mobile scanning visits changes by 19 items, while city-only scanning changes by 12 items in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that mobile scanning visits changes more across the measurement period than city-only scanning.
mobile scanning visits: 35, 40, 47, 54 items; city-only scanning: 59, 55, 51, 47 items
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of gallery visitors, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records material-specific observations for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that touchable material samples shows a sustained increase in material-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that touchable material samples shows a sustained increase in material-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: touchable material samples rises at every measurement, from 22 comments at baseline to 44 comments at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: touchable material samples rises at every measurement, from 22 comments at baseline to 44 comments at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that touchable material samples shows a sustained increase in material-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
touchable material samples: 22, 28, 36, 44 comments; text-only labels: 46, 42, 38, 34 comments
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Sana in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records readiness to collaborate for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in readiness to collaborate between moving a new colleague's chair closer and leaving the chair apart narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in readiness to collaborate between moving a new colleague's chair closer and leaving the chair apart narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 actions at baseline to 13 actions at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 actions at baseline to 13 actions at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in readiness to collaborate between moving a new colleague's chair closer and leaving the chair apart narrows across the four measurements.
moving a new colleague's chair closer: 29, 36, 45, 54 actions; leaving the chair apart: 53, 49, 45, 41 actions
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of solitary bees, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records occupied nesting tubes for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that east-facing nest openings exceeds west-facing openings in occupied nesting tubes by follow-up.
The team claims that east-facing nest openings exceeds west-facing openings in occupied nesting tubes by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, east-facing nest openings reaches 64 %, exceeding west-facing openings at 48 %.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, east-facing nest openings reaches 64 %, exceeding west-facing openings at 48 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that east-facing nest openings exceeds west-facing openings in occupied nesting tubes by follow-up.
east-facing nest openings: 36, 44, 54, 64 %; west-facing openings: 60, 56, 52, 48 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of hourly workers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records completed applications for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that Saturday permit appointments changes more across the measurement period than weekday-only appointments.
The team claims that Saturday permit appointments changes more across the measurement period than weekday-only appointments.
In the categorical comparison: Saturday permit appointments changes by 16 applications, while weekday-only appointments changes by 12 applications in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: Saturday permit appointments changes by 16 applications, while weekday-only appointments changes by 12 applications in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that Saturday permit appointments changes more across the measurement period than weekday-only appointments.
Saturday permit appointments: 23, 27, 33, 39 applications; weekday-only appointments: 47, 43, 39, 35 applications
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of art students, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records cross-period comparisons for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that theme-based gallery routes shows a sustained increase in cross-period comparisons from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that theme-based gallery routes shows a sustained increase in cross-period comparisons from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: theme-based gallery routes rises at every measurement, from 30 comparisons at baseline to 49 comparisons at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: theme-based gallery routes rises at every measurement, from 30 comparisons at baseline to 49 comparisons at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that theme-based gallery routes shows a sustained increase in cross-period comparisons from baseline through follow-up.
theme-based gallery routes: 30, 35, 42, 49 comparisons; chronological routes: 54, 50, 46, 42 comparisons
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Eren in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records trust in the group for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in trust in the group between sharing the damaged ledger and concealing its missing pages narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in trust in the group between sharing the damaged ledger and concealing its missing pages narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 choices at baseline to 10 choices at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 choices at baseline to 10 choices at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in trust in the group between sharing the damaged ledger and concealing its missing pages narrows across the four measurements.
sharing the damaged ledger: 37, 43, 51, 59 choices; concealing its missing pages: 61, 57, 53, 49 choices
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of forest moss samples, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records retained moisture for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that porous shade cover exceeds open exposure in retained moisture by follow-up.
The team claims that porous shade cover exceeds open exposure in retained moisture by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, porous shade cover reaches 49 %, exceeding open exposure at 36 %.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, porous shade cover reaches 49 %, exceeding open exposure at 36 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that porous shade cover exceeds open exposure in retained moisture by follow-up.
porous shade cover: 24, 31, 40, 49 %; open exposure: 48, 44, 40, 36 %
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of housing applicants, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records on-time responses for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that plain-language deadlines changes more across the measurement period than legalistic deadlines.
The team claims that plain-language deadlines changes more across the measurement period than legalistic deadlines.
In the categorical comparison: plain-language deadlines changes by 28 %, while legalistic deadlines changes by 12 % in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: plain-language deadlines changes by 28 %, while legalistic deadlines changes by 12 % in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that plain-language deadlines changes more across the measurement period than legalistic deadlines.
plain-language deadlines: 31, 39, 49, 59 %; legalistic deadlines: 55, 51, 47, 43 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of viewers of one silent scene, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records cautious character descriptions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that a cautious musical score shows a sustained increase in cautious character descriptions from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that a cautious musical score shows a sustained increase in cautious character descriptions from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: a cautious musical score rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: a cautious musical score rises at every measurement, from 18 % at baseline to 34 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a cautious musical score shows a sustained increase in cautious character descriptions from baseline through follow-up.
a cautious musical score: 18, 22, 28, 34 %; an urgent musical score: 42, 38, 34, 30 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Asha in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records respect for shared history for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in respect for shared history between mending the banner visibly and replacing it without a trace narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in respect for shared history between mending the banner visibly and replacing it without a trace narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 images at baseline to 7 images at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 images at baseline to 7 images at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in respect for shared history between mending the banner visibly and replacing it without a trace narrows across the four measurements.
mending the banner visibly: 25, 30, 37, 44 images; replacing it without a trace: 49, 45, 41, 37 images
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of stored seeds, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records post-thaw germination for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that sealed packets exceeds porous packets in post-thaw germination by follow-up.
The team claims that sealed packets exceeds porous packets in post-thaw germination by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, sealed packets reaches 54 %, exceeding porous packets at 44 %.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, sealed packets reaches 54 %, exceeding porous packets at 44 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that sealed packets exceeds porous packets in post-thaw germination by follow-up.
sealed packets: 32, 38, 46, 54 %; porous packets: 56, 52, 48, 44 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of first-time respondents, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records requests for guidance for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that rotating neighborhood desks changes more across the measurement period than one central desk.
The team claims that rotating neighborhood desks changes more across the measurement period than one central desk.
In the categorical comparison: rotating neighborhood desks changes by 25 requests, while one central desk changes by 12 requests in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: rotating neighborhood desks changes by 25 requests, while one central desk changes by 12 requests in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that rotating neighborhood desks changes more across the measurement period than one central desk.
rotating neighborhood desks: 19, 26, 35, 44 requests; one central desk: 43, 39, 35, 31 requests
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of poetry students, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records delivery-specific observations for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that several reader recordings shows a sustained increase in delivery-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that several reader recordings shows a sustained increase in delivery-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: several reader recordings rises at every measurement, from 26 observations at baseline to 54 observations at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
In the categorical comparison: several reader recordings rises at every measurement, from 26 observations at baseline to 54 observations at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that several reader recordings shows a sustained increase in delivery-specific observations from baseline through follow-up.
several reader recordings: 26, 34, 44, 54 observations; one official recording: 50, 46, 42, 38 observations
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Theo in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records confidence in her guidance for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in confidence in her guidance between handing Amara the lantern and keeping the lantern narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in confidence in her guidance between handing Amara the lantern and keeping the lantern narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 gestures at baseline to 4 gestures at follow-up.
The selected values directly illustrate the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly illustrates the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 gestures at baseline to 4 gestures at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in confidence in her guidance between handing Amara the lantern and keeping the lantern narrows across the four measurements.
handing Amara the lantern: 33, 37, 43, 49 gestures; keeping the lantern: 57, 53, 49, 45 gestures
The prompt asks for evidence that illustrates the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical science investigation of aquatic insects, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records insects retained after high flow for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that flat stream stones exceeds rounded stream stones in insects retained after high flow by follow-up.
The team claims that flat stream stones exceeds rounded stream stones in insects retained after high flow by follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, flat stream stones reaches 39 %, exceeding rounded stream stones at 32 %.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: At follow-up, flat stream stones reaches 39 %, exceeding rounded stream stones at 32 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that flat stream stones exceeds rounded stream stones in insects retained after high flow by follow-up.
flat stream stones: 20, 25, 32, 39 %; rounded stream stones: 44, 40, 36, 32 %
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical history social studies investigation of transit riders, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records trips ending near the clinic for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that a route extended near a clinic changes more across the measurement period than the earlier route.
The team claims that a route extended near a clinic changes more across the measurement period than the earlier route.
In the categorical comparison: a route extended near a clinic changes by 22 trips, while the earlier route changes by 12 trips in the opposite direction.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
In the categorical comparison: a route extended near a clinic changes by 22 trips, while the earlier route changes by 12 trips in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a route extended near a clinic changes more across the measurement period than the earlier route.
a route extended near a clinic: 27, 33, 41, 49 trips; the earlier route: 51, 47, 43, 39 trips
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of portrait viewers, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records identified revisions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that infrared underdrawing images shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that infrared underdrawing images shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
In the categorical comparison: infrared underdrawing images rises at every measurement, from 34 revisions at baseline to 59 revisions at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
In the categorical comparison: infrared underdrawing images rises at every measurement, from 34 revisions at baseline to 59 revisions at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that infrared underdrawing images shows a sustained increase in identified revisions from baseline through follow-up.
infrared underdrawing images: 34, 41, 50, 59 revisions; finished-image-only displays: 58, 54, 50, 46 revisions
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
In a hypothetical literature investigation of Sora in an original play, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the bar graph. The fictional dataset records openness to improvisation for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in openness to improvisation between allowing street rhythm into the finale and closing out every outside sound narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in openness to improvisation between allowing street rhythm into the finale and closing out every outside sound narrows across the four measurements.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 stage choices at baseline to 16 stage choices at follow-up.
The selected values directly support the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
This statement reads a valid value from the wrong series or reports one series without the required contrast.
This statement makes a mathematically valid but evidentially irrelevant comparison, so it does not establish the claimed relationship.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly supports the supplied claim.
This statement uses values from a real category in the graphic, but that category or time point does not test the full claim.
In the categorical comparison: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 stage choices at baseline to 16 stage choices at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in openness to improvisation between allowing street rhythm into the finale and closing out every outside sound narrows across the four measurements.
allowing street rhythm into the finale: 21, 29, 39, 49 stage choices; closing out every outside sound: 45, 41, 37, 33 stage choices
The prompt asks for evidence that supports the claim; the key does so without changing categories, series, time, or units.
Keyboard: use Tab to move, arrow keys to change answer choices, and Enter to check an answer.
Use the results to decide what to review before your next attempt.
No mistakes this time. Excellent work.