Practice
Fifty original digital-SAT-style Command of Evidence questions for Topic 3-7: Quantitative Evidence.
In a hypothetical humanities investigation of theater historians, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the table. The fictional dataset records casting links identified for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that digitized page margins shows a sustained increase in casting links identified from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that digitized page margins shows a sustained increase in casting links identified from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: digitized page margins rises at every measurement, from 28 links at baseline to 44 links 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 quantitative audit: digitized page margins rises at every measurement, from 28 links at baseline to 44 links at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that digitized page margins shows a sustained increase in casting links identified from baseline through follow-up.
digitized page margins: 28, 32, 38, 44 links; cropped central text: 52, 48, 44, 40 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 table. The fictional dataset records willingness to teach revision for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in willingness to teach revision between showing a crossed-out draft and showing only the final poem narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in willingness to teach revision between showing a crossed-out draft and showing only the final poem narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 actions at baseline to 7 actions 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 actions at baseline to 7 actions at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in willingness to teach revision between showing a crossed-out draft and showing only the final poem narrows across the four measurements.
showing a crossed-out draft: 35, 40, 47, 54 actions; showing only the final poem: 59, 55, 51, 47 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 table. The fictional dataset records recorded light spikes for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps exceeds covered lamps in recorded light spikes by follow-up.
The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps exceeds covered lamps in recorded light spikes by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, uncovered vehicle lamps reaches 44 spikes, exceeding covered lamps at 34 spikes.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, uncovered vehicle lamps reaches 44 spikes, exceeding covered lamps at 34 spikes. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that uncovered vehicle lamps exceeds covered lamps in recorded light spikes by follow-up.
uncovered vehicle lamps: 22, 28, 36, 44 spikes; covered lamps: 46, 42, 38, 34 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 table. The fictional dataset records weekday visits for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that late museum hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
The team claims that late museum hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
In the quantitative audit: late museum hours changes by 25 visits, while daytime-only hours changes by 12 visits 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 quantitative audit: late museum 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 late museum hours changes more across the measurement period than daytime-only hours.
late museum hours: 29, 36, 45, 54 visits; daytime-only hours: 53, 49, 45, 41 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 table. The fictional dataset records cross-period connections for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that a color-based index remains below a date-based index through follow-up for cross-period connections.
The team claims that a color-based index remains below a date-based index through follow-up for cross-period connections.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, a color-based index is 64 connections, which is above a date-based index at 48 connections.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges the supplied claim.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, a color-based index is 64 connections, which is above a date-based index at 48 connections. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a color-based index remains below a date-based index through follow-up for cross-period connections.
a color-based index: 36, 44, 54, 64 connections; a date-based index: 60, 56, 52, 48 connections
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 table. The fictional dataset records revaluation of imperfection for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in revaluation of imperfection between rehanging the rough-toned bell and keeping it silent narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in revaluation of imperfection between rehanging the rough-toned bell and keeping it silent narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 choices at baseline to 4 choices 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 choices at baseline to 4 choices at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in revaluation of imperfection between rehanging the rough-toned bell and keeping it silent narrows across the four measurements.
rehanging the rough-toned bell: 23, 27, 33, 39 choices; keeping it silent: 47, 43, 39, 35 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 table. The fictional dataset records living leaves after drought for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that deeper soil exceeds shallow soil in living leaves after drought by follow-up.
The team claims that deeper soil exceeds shallow soil in living leaves after drought by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, deeper soil reaches 49 %, exceeding shallow soil at 42 %.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, deeper soil reaches 49 %, exceeding shallow soil at 42 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that deeper soil exceeds shallow soil in living leaves after drought by follow-up.
deeper soil: 30, 35, 42, 49 %; shallow soil: 54, 50, 46, 42 %
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 table. The fictional dataset records registrations for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that Saturday workshops changes more across the measurement period than weekday-morning workshops.
The team claims that Saturday workshops changes more across the measurement period than weekday-morning workshops.
In the quantitative audit: Saturday workshops changes by 22 people, while weekday-morning workshops changes by 12 people 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 quantitative audit: Saturday workshops changes by 22 people, while weekday-morning workshops changes by 12 people in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that Saturday workshops changes more across the measurement period than weekday-morning workshops.
Saturday workshops: 37, 43, 51, 59 people; weekday-morning workshops: 61, 57, 53, 49 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 table. The fictional dataset records successful climbs for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that textured wheel bands shows a sustained increase in successful climbs from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that textured wheel bands shows a sustained increase in successful climbs from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: textured wheel bands rises at every measurement, from 24 % at baseline to 49 % 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 quantitative audit: textured wheel bands rises at every measurement, from 24 % at baseline to 49 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that textured wheel bands shows a sustained increase in successful climbs from baseline through follow-up.
textured wheel bands: 24, 31, 40, 49 %; smooth wheel bands: 48, 44, 40, 36 %
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 table. The fictional dataset records completed visits for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that evening opening hours remains below daytime-only hours through follow-up for completed visits.
The team claims that evening opening hours remains below daytime-only hours through follow-up for completed visits.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, evening opening hours is 59 visits, which is above daytime-only hours at 43 visits.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, evening opening hours is 59 visits, which is above daytime-only hours at 43 visits. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that evening opening hours remains below daytime-only hours through follow-up for completed visits.
evening opening hours: 31, 39, 49, 59 visits; daytime-only hours: 55, 51, 47, 43 visits
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 table. The fictional dataset records identified revisions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that layer-by-layer labels exceeds single summary labels in identified revisions by follow-up.
The team claims that layer-by-layer labels exceeds single summary labels in identified revisions by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, layer-by-layer labels reaches 34 %, exceeding single summary labels at 30 %.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, layer-by-layer labels reaches 34 %, exceeding single summary labels at 30 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that layer-by-layer labels exceeds single summary labels in identified revisions by follow-up.
layer-by-layer labels: 18, 22, 28, 34 %; single summary labels: 42, 38, 34, 30 %
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 table. The fictional dataset records candor about uncertainty for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that speaking before the council changes more across the measurement period than speaking privately to Ivo.
The team claims that speaking before the council changes more across the measurement period than speaking privately to Ivo.
In the quantitative audit: speaking before the council changes by 19 instances, while speaking privately to Ivo changes by 12 instances 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 quantitative audit: speaking before the council changes by 19 instances, while speaking privately to Ivo changes by 12 instances in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that speaking before the council changes more across the measurement period than speaking privately to Ivo.
speaking before the council: 25, 30, 37, 44 instances; speaking privately to Ivo: 49, 45, 41, 37 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 table. The fictional dataset records surviving leaves for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that low-salt irrigation shows a sustained increase in surviving leaves from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that low-salt irrigation shows a sustained increase in surviving leaves from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: low-salt irrigation rises at every measurement, from 32 leaves at baseline to 54 leaves 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 quantitative audit: low-salt irrigation rises at every measurement, from 32 leaves at baseline to 54 leaves at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that low-salt irrigation shows a sustained increase in surviving leaves from baseline through follow-up.
low-salt irrigation: 32, 38, 46, 54 leaves; high-salt irrigation: 56, 52, 48, 44 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 table. The fictional dataset records correctly completed sample ballots for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that the gap in correctly completed sample ballots between a translated guide and a single-language guide narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in correctly completed sample ballots between a translated guide and a single-language guide narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 13 % 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 13 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in correctly completed sample ballots between a translated guide and a single-language guide narrows across the four measurements.
a translated guide: 19, 26, 35, 44 %; a single-language guide: 43, 39, 35, 31 %
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 table. The fictional dataset records synchronized entries for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal remains below melody-first rehearsal through follow-up for synchronized entries.
The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal remains below melody-first rehearsal through follow-up for synchronized entries.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, rhythm-first rehearsal is 54 %, which is above melody-first rehearsal at 38 %.
The selected values directly challenge the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, rhythm-first rehearsal is 54 %, which is above melody-first rehearsal at 38 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that rhythm-first rehearsal remains below melody-first rehearsal through follow-up for synchronized entries.
rhythm-first rehearsal: 26, 34, 44, 54 %; melody-first rehearsal: 50, 46, 42, 38 %
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 table. The fictional dataset records acceptance of imperfection for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that displaying the patched kite changes more across the measurement period than hiding it in the shed.
The team claims that displaying the patched kite changes more across the measurement period than hiding it in the shed.
In the quantitative audit: displaying the patched kite changes by 16 details, while hiding it in the shed changes by 12 details 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 quantitative audit: displaying the patched kite changes by 16 details, while hiding it in the shed changes by 12 details in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that displaying the patched kite changes more across the measurement period than hiding it in the shed.
displaying the patched kite: 33, 37, 43, 49 details; hiding it in the shed: 57, 53, 49, 45 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 table. The fictional dataset records retained heat for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that reflective coating shows a sustained increase in retained heat from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that reflective coating shows a sustained increase in retained heat from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: reflective coating rises at every measurement, from 20 °C at baseline to 39 °C 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 quantitative audit: reflective coating rises at every measurement, from 20 °C at baseline to 39 °C at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that reflective coating shows a sustained increase in retained heat from baseline through follow-up.
reflective coating: 20, 25, 32, 39 °C; plain coating: 44, 40, 36, 32 °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 the gap in documents contributed between mobile scanning visits and city-only scanning narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in documents contributed between mobile scanning visits and city-only scanning narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 items at baseline to 10 items 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 items at baseline to 10 items at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in documents contributed between mobile scanning visits and city-only scanning narrows across the four measurements.
mobile scanning visits: 27, 33, 41, 49 items; city-only scanning: 51, 47, 43, 39 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 exceeds text-only labels in material-specific observations by follow-up.
The team claims that touchable material samples exceeds text-only labels in material-specific observations by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, touchable material samples reaches 59 comments, exceeding text-only labels at 46 comments.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, touchable material samples reaches 59 comments, exceeding text-only labels at 46 comments. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that touchable material samples exceeds text-only labels in material-specific observations by follow-up.
touchable material samples: 34, 41, 50, 59 comments; text-only labels: 58, 54, 50, 46 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 moving a new colleague's chair closer remains below leaving the chair apart through follow-up for readiness to collaborate.
The team claims that moving a new colleague's chair closer remains below leaving the chair apart through follow-up for readiness to collaborate.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, moving a new colleague's chair closer is 49 actions, which is above leaving the chair apart at 33 actions.
The selected values directly challenge the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, moving a new colleague's chair closer is 49 actions, which is above leaving the chair apart at 33 actions. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that moving a new colleague's chair closer remains below leaving the chair apart through follow-up for readiness to collaborate.
moving a new colleague's chair closer: 21, 29, 39, 49 actions; leaving the chair apart: 45, 41, 37, 33 actions
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 shows a sustained increase in occupied nesting tubes from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that east-facing nest openings shows a sustained increase in occupied nesting tubes from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: east-facing nest openings rises at every measurement, from 28 % at baseline to 44 % 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 quantitative audit: east-facing nest openings rises at every measurement, from 28 % at baseline to 44 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that east-facing nest openings shows a sustained increase in occupied nesting tubes from baseline through follow-up.
east-facing nest openings: 28, 32, 38, 44 %; west-facing openings: 52, 48, 44, 40 %
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 the gap in completed applications between Saturday permit appointments and weekday-only appointments narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in completed applications between Saturday permit appointments and weekday-only appointments narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 applications at baseline to 7 applications 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 applications at baseline to 7 applications at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in completed applications between Saturday permit appointments and weekday-only appointments narrows across the four measurements.
Saturday permit appointments: 35, 40, 47, 54 applications; weekday-only appointments: 59, 55, 51, 47 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 exceeds chronological routes in cross-period comparisons by follow-up.
The team claims that theme-based gallery routes exceeds chronological routes in cross-period comparisons by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, theme-based gallery routes reaches 44 comparisons, exceeding chronological routes at 34 comparisons.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, theme-based gallery routes reaches 44 comparisons, exceeding chronological routes at 34 comparisons. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that theme-based gallery routes exceeds chronological routes in cross-period comparisons by follow-up.
theme-based gallery routes: 22, 28, 36, 44 comparisons; chronological routes: 46, 42, 38, 34 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 sharing the damaged ledger changes more across the measurement period than concealing its missing pages.
The team claims that sharing the damaged ledger changes more across the measurement period than concealing its missing pages.
In the quantitative audit: sharing the damaged ledger changes by 25 choices, while concealing its missing pages 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 quantitative audit: sharing the damaged ledger changes by 25 choices, while concealing its missing pages changes by 12 choices in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that sharing the damaged ledger changes more across the measurement period than concealing its missing pages.
sharing the damaged ledger: 29, 36, 45, 54 choices; concealing its missing pages: 53, 49, 45, 41 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 remains below open exposure through follow-up for retained moisture.
The team claims that porous shade cover remains below open exposure through follow-up for retained moisture.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, porous shade cover is 64 %, which is above open exposure at 48 %.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges the supplied claim.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, porous shade cover is 64 %, which is above open exposure at 48 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that porous shade cover remains below open exposure through follow-up for retained moisture.
porous shade cover: 36, 44, 54, 64 %; open exposure: 60, 56, 52, 48 %
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 the gap in on-time responses between plain-language deadlines and legalistic deadlines narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in on-time responses between plain-language deadlines and legalistic deadlines narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 4 % 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 4 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in on-time responses between plain-language deadlines and legalistic deadlines narrows across the four measurements.
plain-language deadlines: 23, 27, 33, 39 %; legalistic deadlines: 47, 43, 39, 35 %
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 exceeds an urgent musical score in cautious character descriptions by follow-up.
The team claims that a cautious musical score exceeds an urgent musical score in cautious character descriptions by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, a cautious musical score reaches 49 %, exceeding an urgent musical score at 42 %.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, a cautious musical score reaches 49 %, exceeding an urgent musical score at 42 %. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that a cautious musical score exceeds an urgent musical score in cautious character descriptions by follow-up.
a cautious musical score: 30, 35, 42, 49 %; an urgent musical score: 54, 50, 46, 42 %
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 mending the banner visibly changes more across the measurement period than replacing it without a trace.
The team claims that mending the banner visibly changes more across the measurement period than replacing it without a trace.
In the quantitative audit: mending the banner visibly changes by 22 images, while replacing it without a trace changes by 12 images 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 quantitative audit: mending the banner visibly changes by 22 images, while replacing it without a trace changes by 12 images in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that mending the banner visibly changes more across the measurement period than replacing it without a trace.
mending the banner visibly: 37, 43, 51, 59 images; replacing it without a trace: 61, 57, 53, 49 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 shows a sustained increase in post-thaw germination from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that sealed packets shows a sustained increase in post-thaw germination from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: sealed packets rises at every measurement, from 24 % at baseline to 49 % 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 quantitative audit: sealed packets rises at every measurement, from 24 % at baseline to 49 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that sealed packets shows a sustained increase in post-thaw germination from baseline through follow-up.
sealed packets: 24, 31, 40, 49 %; porous packets: 48, 44, 40, 36 %
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 remains below one central desk through follow-up for requests for guidance.
The team claims that rotating neighborhood desks remains below one central desk through follow-up for requests for guidance.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, rotating neighborhood desks is 59 requests, which is above one central desk at 43 requests.
The selected values directly challenge the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, rotating neighborhood desks is 59 requests, which is above one central desk at 43 requests. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that rotating neighborhood desks remains below one central desk through follow-up for requests for guidance.
rotating neighborhood desks: 31, 39, 49, 59 requests; one central desk: 55, 51, 47, 43 requests
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 exceeds one official recording in delivery-specific observations by follow-up.
The team claims that several reader recordings exceeds one official recording in delivery-specific observations by follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, several reader recordings reaches 34 observations, exceeding one official recording at 30 observations.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, several reader recordings reaches 34 observations, exceeding one official recording at 30 observations. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that several reader recordings exceeds one official recording in delivery-specific observations by follow-up.
several reader recordings: 18, 22, 28, 34 observations; one official recording: 42, 38, 34, 30 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 handing Amara the lantern changes more across the measurement period than keeping the lantern.
The team claims that handing Amara the lantern changes more across the measurement period than keeping the lantern.
In the quantitative audit: handing Amara the lantern changes by 19 gestures, while keeping the lantern changes by 12 gestures 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 quantitative audit: handing Amara the lantern changes by 19 gestures, while keeping the lantern changes by 12 gestures in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that handing Amara the lantern changes more across the measurement period than keeping the lantern.
handing Amara the lantern: 25, 30, 37, 44 gestures; keeping the lantern: 49, 45, 41, 37 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 shows a sustained increase in insects retained after high flow from baseline through follow-up.
The team claims that flat stream stones shows a sustained increase in insects retained after high flow from baseline through follow-up.
In the quantitative audit: flat stream stones rises at every measurement, from 32 % at baseline to 54 % 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 quantitative audit: flat stream stones rises at every measurement, from 32 % at baseline to 54 % at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that flat stream stones shows a sustained increase in insects retained after high flow from baseline through follow-up.
flat stream stones: 32, 38, 46, 54 %; rounded stream stones: 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 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 the gap in trips ending near the clinic between a route extended near a clinic and the earlier route narrows across the four measurements.
The team claims that the gap in trips ending near the clinic between a route extended near a clinic and the earlier route narrows across the four measurements.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 trips at baseline to 13 trips 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 trips at baseline to 13 trips at follow-up. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that the gap in trips ending near the clinic between a route extended near a clinic and the earlier route narrows across the four measurements.
a route extended near a clinic: 19, 26, 35, 44 trips; the earlier route: 43, 39, 35, 31 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 line graph. The fictional dataset records identified revisions for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that infrared underdrawing images remains below finished-image-only displays through follow-up for identified revisions.
The team claims that infrared underdrawing images remains below finished-image-only displays through follow-up for identified revisions.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, infrared underdrawing images is 54 revisions, which is above finished-image-only displays at 38 revisions.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, infrared underdrawing images is 54 revisions, which is above finished-image-only displays at 38 revisions. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that infrared underdrawing images remains below finished-image-only displays through follow-up for identified revisions.
infrared underdrawing images: 26, 34, 44, 54 revisions; finished-image-only displays: 50, 46, 42, 38 revisions
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 line graph. The fictional dataset records openness to improvisation for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that allowing street rhythm into the finale changes more across the measurement period than closing out every outside sound.
The team claims that allowing street rhythm into the finale changes more across the measurement period than closing out every outside sound.
In the quantitative audit: allowing street rhythm into the finale changes by 16 stage choices, while closing out every outside sound changes by 12 stage choices 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 quantitative audit: allowing street rhythm into the finale changes by 16 stage choices, while closing out every outside sound changes by 12 stage choices in the opposite direction. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that allowing street rhythm into the finale changes more across the measurement period than closing out every outside sound.
allowing street rhythm into the finale: 33, 37, 43, 49 stage choices; closing out every outside sound: 57, 53, 49, 45 stage 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 garden plots, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line 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 quantitative audit: dense ground cover rises at every measurement, from 20 % at baseline to 39 % 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 quantitative audit: dense ground cover rises at every measurement, from 20 % at baseline to 39 % 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: 20, 25, 32, 39 %; bare soil: 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 archive users, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 10 % 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 % at baseline to 10 % 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: 27, 33, 41, 49 %; single-language metadata: 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 theater audiences, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, seats surrounding the stage reaches 59 %, exceeding fixed front-facing rows at 46 %.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, seats surrounding the stage reaches 59 %, exceeding fixed front-facing rows at 46 %. 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: 34, 41, 50, 59 %; fixed front-facing rows: 58, 54, 50, 46 %
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 Noor in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line graph. The fictional dataset records openness to shared discovery for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots remains below restricting every slot through follow-up for openness to shared discovery.
The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots remains below restricting every slot through follow-up for openness to shared discovery.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, opening unscheduled viewing slots is 49 decisions, which is above restricting every slot at 33 decisions.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, opening unscheduled viewing slots is 49 decisions, which is above restricting every slot at 33 decisions. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that opening unscheduled viewing slots remains below restricting every slot through follow-up for openness to shared discovery.
opening unscheduled viewing slots: 21, 29, 39, 49 decisions; restricting every slot: 45, 41, 37, 33 decisions
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 line 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 quantitative audit: high recycled-glass content rises at every measurement, from 28 % at baseline to 44 % 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 quantitative audit: high recycled-glass content rises at every measurement, from 28 % at baseline to 44 % 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: 28, 32, 38, 44 %; low recycled-glass content: 52, 48, 44, 40 %
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 line 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 questions at baseline to 7 questions 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 questions at baseline to 7 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: 35, 40, 47, 54 questions; standard room audio: 59, 55, 51, 47 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 line 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, captions shown after viewing reaches 44 interpretations, exceeding captions shown before viewing at 34 interpretations.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, captions shown after viewing reaches 44 interpretations, exceeding captions shown before viewing at 34 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: 22, 28, 36, 44 interpretations; captions shown before viewing: 46, 42, 38, 34 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 line 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 quantitative audit: asking Leena to redraw the route changes by 25 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 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 quantitative audit: asking Leena to redraw the route changes by 25 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: 29, 36, 45, 54 actions; insisting on his damaged map: 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 model turbine blades, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line graph. The fictional dataset records noise reduction for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that textured trailing edges remains below plain trailing edges through follow-up for noise reduction.
The team claims that textured trailing edges remains below plain trailing edges through follow-up for noise reduction.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, textured trailing edges is 64 dB, which is above plain trailing edges at 48 dB.
The selected values directly challenge 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 challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, textured trailing edges is 64 dB, which is above plain trailing edges at 48 dB. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that textured trailing edges remains below plain trailing edges through follow-up for noise reduction.
textured trailing edges: 36, 44, 54, 64 dB; plain trailing edges: 60, 56, 52, 48 dB
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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 line 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 quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 codes at baseline to 4 codes at follow-up.
The selected values directly illustrate 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 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.
In the quantitative audit: The conditions' gap narrows from 24 codes at baseline to 4 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: 23, 27, 33, 39 codes; a city-hall-only box: 47, 43, 39, 35 codes
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 ceramic fragments, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, organization by tool marks reaches 49 matches, exceeding organization by color at 42 matches.
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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, organization by tool marks reaches 49 matches, exceeding organization by color at 42 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: 30, 35, 42, 49 matches; organization by color: 54, 50, 46, 42 matches
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 Inez in an original story, researchers recorded the original synthetic data shown in the line 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 quantitative audit: adding a substitute in pencil changes by 22 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 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 quantitative audit: adding a substitute in pencil changes by 22 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: 37, 43, 51, 59 details; erasing the original line: 61, 57, 53, 49 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 line 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 quantitative audit: less frequent deep watering rises at every measurement, from 24 cm at baseline to 49 cm 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 quantitative audit: less frequent deep watering rises at every measurement, from 24 cm at baseline to 49 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: 24, 31, 40, 49 cm; daily shallow watering: 48, 44, 40, 36 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 line graph. The fictional dataset records participation for two named conditions across four measurements. The team claims that after-work voting remains below noon-only voting through follow-up for participation.
The team claims that after-work voting remains below noon-only voting through follow-up for participation.
In the quantitative audit: At follow-up, after-work voting is 59 voters, which is above noon-only voting at 43 voters.
The selected values directly challenge the claim using the correct categories, series, and units.
Correct. The statement cites the exact relevant values and directly challenges 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 quantitative audit: At follow-up, after-work voting is 59 voters, which is above noon-only voting at 43 voters. This comparison directly addresses the relationship and scope specified in the claim.
The team claims that after-work voting remains below noon-only voting through follow-up for participation.
after-work voting: 31, 39, 49, 59 voters; noon-only voting: 55, 51, 47, 43 voters
The prompt asks for evidence that challenges 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.