SAT Reading and Writing: Command of Evidence - Textual (Medium)
Master medium-difficulty evidence questions by identifying subtle textual support for claims in literary and scientific passages
By NUM8ERS Test Prep Team | Updated October 2025 | 27-minute read
Understanding Medium Command of Evidence Questions
What's Different at Medium Level: Medium Command of Evidence questions move beyond straightforward quote-finding. These questions present more complex passages and require you to identify subtle textual clues that support or challenge claims. Unlike easy questions where evidence is explicit, medium questions demand that you make connections that aren't immediately obvious and interpret nuanced language.
At this level, you'll encounter both literary and scientific passages with layered arguments, implied meanings, and evidence that requires careful interpretation. The correct answer won't always jump off the page—you'll need to think critically about how each piece of evidence relates to the claim.
🎯 What Makes Medium Questions Harder
Challenge 1: Subtler Evidence
The evidence doesn't directly restate the claim. You must recognize how descriptive details, character actions, or research findings imply support for the argument.
Example: Claim says "character was nervous." Evidence shows "hands trembled, voice wavered" (implied nervousness, not stated)
Challenge 2: Competing Evidence
Multiple quotes might seem relevant, but only one provides the most direct or most effective support. You must evaluate strength of evidence.
Example: Three quotes mention the topic, but only one specifically proves the claim
Challenge 3: Contextual Interpretation
You must understand the broader context to determine if a quote truly supports the claim. Surface-level reading isn't enough.
Example: A character's statement might be sarcastic—opposite of its literal meaning
Challenge 4: Technical Passages
Scientific and historical passages use specialized vocabulary and complex sentence structures that require careful parsing.
Example: Research findings with technical terms, multiple variables, or conditional statements
📋 Common Question Formats
Medium questions use these phrasings:
"Which quotation most effectively illustrates the claim?"
You're given a claim and must find the quote that best demonstrates it. Multiple quotes may be relevant, but one is most effective.
"Which finding, if true, would most directly support/challenge the hypothesis?"
You're given a hypothesis from research, then asked what new evidence would strengthen or weaken it. Requires understanding causation and logical relationships.
"Which statement from the text most directly supports the idea that...?"
Similar to the first format but may require identifying implied support rather than explicit restatement.
Top Tips for Medium Command of Evidence Questions
🎯 The 5-Step Strategy
Step 1: Paraphrase the Claim/Hypothesis in Your Own Words
Before looking at answer choices, restate the claim simply and clearly. This helps you focus on what you're actually looking for.
Example:
Claim: "The protagonist experienced conflicting emotions about her decision"
Your paraphrase: "I need evidence showing she had mixed feelings—both positive and negative reactions"
Step 2: Predict What Good Evidence Would Look Like
Based on your paraphrase, imagine what kind of evidence would prove the claim. Don't just look for keywords—think about what would logically demonstrate the point.
For literary claims:
- Character emotions → Look for descriptions of actions, dialogue, or physical reactions
- Thematic ideas → Look for symbolic details or repeated motifs
- Relationships → Look for interactions, dialogue, or narrator's observations
For scientific claims:
- Hypotheses → Look for experimental results that match predictions
- Causal relationships → Look for evidence showing X causes Y
- Comparative statements → Look for data comparing two groups/conditions
Step 3: Evaluate Each Quote for Relevance AND Strength
Don't just ask "Does this relate to the claim?" Ask "Does this prove the claim?" and "Is this the most direct evidence?"
Two-part test for each answer:
Part 1: Is it relevant?
Does this quote relate to the claim's topic?
Part 2: Is it the strongest?
Does this quote provide the most direct, specific, and convincing support?
Step 4: Watch for "Almost Right" Traps
Medium questions include distractors that are partially correct or tangentially related. Learn to recognize these traps:
Common trap types:
- The "Topic Match" trap: Mentions the same topic but doesn't support the specific claim
- The "Opposite Evidence" trap: Actually contradicts or weakens the claim
- The "Weak Support" trap: Provides indirect or minimal support when better evidence exists
- The "Context Misread" trap: Seems supportive if taken out of context, but doesn't fit when you understand the full passage
Step 5: Verify Your Choice by Explaining the Connection
Before finalizing your answer, mentally complete this sentence: "This quote supports the claim because..."
If you can't clearly explain the connection:
You probably haven't found the right answer yet. The correct evidence will have a clear, logical connection to the claim that you can articulate.
⚠️ Critical Skills for Success
- Look beyond surface-level keywords: Don't just match words; match meaning
- Understand implied connections: Evidence may support claims through implication, not direct statement
- Consider tone and context: A character's sarcastic remark means the opposite of its literal words
- Distinguish correlation from causation: In scientific passages, X happening with Y doesn't mean X causes Y
- Pay attention to qualifiers: Words like "may," "suggests," or "indicates" weaken claims; "proves" or "demonstrates" strengthen them
- Read the full context: A quote might seem perfect until you see what comes before or after it
- Eliminate systematically: Cross out clearly wrong answers first, then compare remaining options
- Trust precise language: The correct answer often uses more specific, accurate wording than distractors
Worked Example: Literary Passage
Passage from Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility (1811):
[Character Willoughby is being discussed] Above all, when she heard him declare, that of music and dancing he was passionately fond, she gave him such a look of approbation as secured the largest share of his discourse to herself for the rest of his stay...He acquiesced in all her decisions, caught all her enthusiasm; and long before his visit concluded, they conversed with the familiarity of a long-established acquaintance.
Based on the text, what is true about the relationship between the characters?
Claim: Willoughby actively sought to earn the character's approval and attention.
Which quotation most effectively illustrates this claim?
A) "of music and dancing he was passionately fond"
B) "she gave him such a look of approbation"
C) "He acquiesced in all her decisions, caught all her enthusiasm"
D) "they conversed with the familiarity of a long-established acquaintance"
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Paraphrase the Claim
Original claim: "Willoughby actively sought to earn the character's approval and attention"
My paraphrase: I need evidence showing Willoughby deliberately tried to make her like him and pay attention to him. He took action to win her over.
Step 2: Predict Good Evidence
Good evidence would show Willoughby doing things to please her—agreeing with her, showing interest in what she likes, adapting his behavior to match her preferences. Not just what he likes, but what he does to earn approval.
Step 3: Evaluate Each Choice
Option A: "of music and dancing he was passionately fond"
❌ Topic match, but wrong focus. This tells us what Willoughby likes, but doesn't show him seeking approval or attention. It's just his personal preference. Relevant to the scene, but doesn't prove the claim about his behavior.
Option B: "she gave him such a look of approbation"
❌ Shows her reaction, not his action. This proves she approved of him, but doesn't show him actively seeking that approval. The claim is about his behavior, not her response.
Option C: "He acquiesced in all her decisions, caught all her enthusiasm"
✅ Perfect match! This shows Willoughby's deliberate actions to please her. "Acquiesced in all her decisions" = agreed with everything she said (seeking approval). "Caught all her enthusiasm" = matched her energy and interests (seeking attention). Both verbs describe him actively adapting to earn her favor.
Option D: "they conversed with the familiarity of a long-established acquaintance"
❌ Result, not cause. This describes the outcome (they became comfortable), but doesn't show the specific behavior (him seeking approval) that led to it. It's evidence of rapport, not evidence of his active effort.
Step 4: Verify the Connection
"Option C supports the claim because it shows Willoughby performing specific actions (acquiescing, catching enthusiasm) designed to align himself with the character's preferences. These are deliberate behaviors aimed at earning approval and securing attention." ✓ Clear connection!
Correct Answer: C
💡 Key Lesson: In literary passages, look for evidence of action and behavior, not just description or outcomes. The claim was about what Willoughby did, so the evidence must show his actions. Options A, B, and D were all relevant to the scene but didn't directly prove the claim about his behavior.
Worked Example: Scientific Passage
Roasted green chiles are a popular ingredient in Southwestern cuisine, but the traditional roasting method of burning propane is not environmentally friendly. To see if solar power could provide a better alternative, engineer Kenneth Armijo and his team roasted batches of green chiles using between 38 and 42 heliostats, which are devices that concentrate sunlight. The team was successful in reaching the same roasting temperature used in traditional propane roasting, but they found that propane yielded faster results. While the fastest solar-roasted green chiles took six minutes, batches using propane took only four.
Armijo hypothesizes that they can reduce the roasting time for solar-roasted green chiles by using more heliostats.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support Armijo's hypothesis?
A) The temperature inside the roasting drum is distributed more evenly when roasting green chiles with solar power than with propane.
B) Attempts to roast green chiles using 50 heliostats yield results in fewer than six minutes.
C) Green chile connoisseurs prefer the flavor of solar-roasted green chiles over the flavor of propane-roasted green chiles.
D) The skins of solar-roasted green chiles are easier to peel than the skins of propane-roasted green chiles.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Paraphrase the Hypothesis
Hypothesis: "Using more heliostats can reduce roasting time for solar-roasted green chiles"
My paraphrase: Increasing the number of heliostats (from 38-42 to something higher) will make the roasting happen faster (less than 6 minutes).
Step 2: Predict Supporting Evidence
To support this hypothesis, I need evidence showing that when they used MORE heliostats (more than 42), the roasting time was LESS (shorter than 6 minutes). This would prove the causal relationship: more heliostats → faster roasting.
Step 3: Evaluate Each Choice
Option A: Temperature is distributed more evenly with solar power
❌ Irrelevant to the hypothesis. Even distribution is about quality, not speed. The hypothesis is specifically about reducing time, not about temperature distribution. This might be an advantage of solar roasting, but doesn't support the claim about more heliostats reducing time.
Option B: Using 50 heliostats yields results in fewer than six minutes
✅ Direct support! This provides exactly the evidence needed: 50 heliostats (more than the 38-42 they used) results in <6 minutes (faster than the 6 minutes they achieved). This directly tests and confirms the hypothesis: more heliostats = reduced time.
Option C: Connoisseurs prefer the flavor of solar-roasted chiles
❌ About flavor, not time. Preference is unrelated to the hypothesis about reducing roasting time. This would support a different claim (solar roasting produces better-tasting chiles) but says nothing about whether more heliostats speed up the process.
Option D: Skins are easier to peel with solar roasting
❌ Another quality issue, not time. Like option A and C, this discusses a potential benefit of solar roasting but has nothing to do with the specific hypothesis about using more heliostats to reduce roasting time.
Step 4: Verify the Causal Connection
"Option B supports the hypothesis because it provides experimental evidence that increasing heliostats (from 38-42 to 50) directly caused a reduction in roasting time (from 6 minutes to less than 6). This is a test of the proposed causal relationship." ✓ Clear cause-effect connection!
Correct Answer: B
💡 Key Lesson: For scientific hypotheses, look for evidence that directly tests the proposed relationship. The hypothesis claimed more heliostats → less time, so the evidence must show exactly that: higher number → shorter duration. Options A, C, and D all discussed solar roasting but addressed different aspects (distribution, flavor, peeling ease) unrelated to the time-reduction hypothesis.
Quick Example
Marine biologist Camille Jazmin Gaynus studies coral reefs, vital underwater ecosystems that provide habitat to approximately 25% of all marine species. In her research, Gaynus has documented alarming rates of coral bleaching, a phenomenon where corals lose their color and become vulnerable to disease. Her data shows that bleaching events have increased significantly over the past two decades, with some reef systems experiencing multiple bleaching events in a single decade.
Based on the text, which statement about Gaynus's research is true?
A) Gaynus has identified solutions to reverse coral bleaching in affected reef systems.
B) Gaynus's research indicates coral bleaching has become more frequent in recent years.
C) Gaynus discovered that 25% of marine species are threatened by coral bleaching.
D) Gaynus focuses exclusively on reef systems that have experienced bleaching only once.
Quick Analysis:
Strategy: Look for what the text explicitly states about Gaynus's findings.
Evidence check:
A) ❌ No mention of solutions—only documents the problem
B) ✓ Directly stated: "bleaching events have increased significantly over the past two decades"
C) ❌ Distortion: 25% refers to how many species live in reefs, not how many are threatened by bleaching
D) ❌ Opposite: text mentions "multiple bleaching events," not single events
Answer: B
The text explicitly states that "bleaching events have increased significantly" over two decades, directly supporting option B. The other options either add information not in the text (A), misinterpret statistics (C), or contradict what's stated (D).
Key Takeaways
- Paraphrase first: Always restate the claim in your own words before evaluating evidence
- Look beyond keywords: Don't just match words—match meaning and logical connections
- Distinguish action from outcome: In literary passages, focus on what characters do, not just results
- Verify causation in science: For hypotheses, find evidence directly testing the proposed cause-effect relationship
- Watch for subtle distinctions: Multiple options may be relevant; choose the most direct and strongest support
- Avoid "almost right" traps: Distractors often relate to the topic but don't prove the specific claim
- Context matters: A quote out of context may seem perfect but fail when you consider surrounding sentences
- Test your reasoning: If you can't explain how the evidence supports the claim, keep looking
- Eliminate systematically: Cross out clearly wrong answers, then compare remaining options carefully
- Read all evidence: Don't stop at the first option that seems reasonable
Study Strategy & Resources
📚 Build Core Skills
- Practice identifying implied meanings
- Learn to distinguish strong vs. weak evidence
- Study cause-effect relationships in science
- Analyze character actions in literature
- Develop prediction skills before reading answers
🎯 Daily Practice
- Complete 5-7 medium evidence questions daily
- Practice with both literary and scientific passages
- Time yourself: 60-90 seconds per question
- Explain your reasoning for each answer
- Use official College Board questions
💡 Develop Intuition
- Read actively looking for evidence
- Practice paraphrasing complex claims
- Identify distractors in practice questions
- Study wrong answer patterns
- Build vocabulary for scientific passages
📖 Related Skills
- Command of Evidence: Quantitative
- Central Ideas and Details
- Inferences
- Cross-Text Connections
🎓 NUM8ERS Evidence Analysis Mastery
At NUM8ERS in Dubai, our SAT specialists have developed the "Claim-Evidence Connection Method" specifically for medium-level textual evidence questions. We teach students to systematically evaluate the logical relationship between claims and evidence, moving beyond simple keyword matching to deeper analytical thinking. Our approach emphasizes that medium questions reward careful reasoning—not just reading comprehension, but critical evaluation of how evidence functions.
Our comprehensive training includes: Claim paraphrasing drills, evidence strength evaluation exercises, literary vs. scientific passage strategies, systematic distractor identification practice, timed evidence analysis with detailed feedback, and diagnostic assessment tracking progress across both passage types. NUM8ERS students typically improve their medium evidence question accuracy by 25-30 percentage points after completing our focused training. The key breakthrough comes when students learn to articulate why evidence supports claims rather than just recognizing surface-level connections—transforming medium questions from challenging puzzles into systematic, solvable problems.