You have been told to “support your answer with evidence” for years. At the earlier level the standard adds two demanding words: your evidence must be strong and thorough. Strong means the quote you choose actually proves the exact point you are making — not something loosely related to it. Thorough means you cite enough, and that you account for both what the text says explicitly (right there in the words) and what it asks you to infer (the conclusion the words point to without stating). Most lost points at this level are not wrong claims — they are right claims propped up by weak or partial evidence.
Strong evidence proves the exact point
A quotation is only as good as the claim it is attached to. Weak evidence is on the right topic but does not prove your specific point; strong evidence lands directly on it. Before you commit to a quote, ask one question: if a skeptic read only this line, would it force them to agree with me? If not, you have a related detail, not proof.
| Claim | Weak evidence (related, not proof) | Strong evidence (proves the exact point) |
|---|---|---|
| The narrator distrusts her uncle | “Her uncle visited every Sunday.” | “She counted the silver after he left, the way she never did for anyone else.” |
| The town is dying | “It was a small town.” | “The grocer kept the lights off in half the store; there was no one left to sell to.” |
| He has stopped hoping | “He sat by the window.” | “He had stopped checking the mail; letters were for people still waiting on an answer.” |
Same topic, different power: strong evidence forces the conclusion; weak evidence merely allows it.
Thorough means enough — and both explicit and inferred
Thorough is not the same as long. It means you have cited enough evidence to carry the claim, and that you have handled the two kinds the standard names: the explicit (stated outright) and the inferential (the text gives you the dots; you draw the line). A thorough answer usually pairs one explicit detail with one inference the text clearly supports — and stops there, because padding with a third loosely-related quote weakens, not strengthens.
[Diagram — see the figure in the print workbook.]
An inference is a conclusion built from textual clues, not a guess from outside the text. “He must be lonely” is an inference only if the text gives you the evidence for it; otherwise it is just your opinion.
Worked example 1
A reader claims: “The grandmother in this passage is proud, not poor.” Which detail is the strongest evidence, and what inference makes the answer thorough?
The Good Cups — Original passage
When the inspector came to assess the house, Grandmother set out the good cups — the thin ones with the gold rims that none of us were allowed to breathe near. She had been turning down the heat all winter to make the coal last, and the kitchen was cold enough that the tea steamed like a kettle. But she poured as if the radiators were roaring.
“You will tell them the house is well kept,” she said to me afterward, not as a question. She did not say do not tell them we are struggling. She did not have to. She had spent her one luxury — the cups, the last good tea — on a stranger whose report she would never read, because the alternative was to let him leave thinking less of her.
Strongest explicit evidence: “She had spent her one luxury... on a stranger whose report she would never read, because the alternative was to let him leave thinking less of her.” This proves the exact point — pride — because it shows her choosing image over comfort even when there is no practical gain. A weaker choice would be “the kitchen was cold,” which proves she is cold, perhaps poor, but says nothing about pride.
The inference that makes it thorough: the text never says the word “poor,” yet “turning down the heat all winter to make the coal last” lets us infer real hardship. Pairing the explicit pride with the inferred poverty is what makes the answer thorough: she is both, and the proud display only matters because the poverty is real. Notice we used exactly two pieces — one stated, one inferred — and did not pad.
Worked example 2
Two students answer “How do we know the narrator no longer trusts the town?” One cites weak evidence, one strong. Explain the difference.
Student A quotes: “The narrator had lived in the town his whole life.” Student B quotes: “He still waved at the neighbors, but he had started locking a door that, for forty years, had never owned a key.”
Student A’s quote is weak: living somewhere a long time is related to the topic of the town but does not prove distrust. A skeptic could read it and conclude the opposite — that he loves the place. It allows many conclusions, so it forces none.
Student B’s quote is strong because it lands on the exact point. The contrast inside it — still waving (keeping up appearances) but now locking a never-locked door — forces the inference that trust has broken, even though the passage never uses the word “distrust.” That is the move the standard rewards: cite the line that makes the conclusion unavoidable, and let the controlled inference do the rest.
Common trap: Quote-dumping is not the same as being thorough
Under pressure, students pile on three or four quotations and hope quantity reads as rigor. It does the opposite. A pile that includes one off-point quote tells the reader you cannot tell strong evidence from weak. Thorough means sufficient and on-target, not maximum. Cite the line that proves it explicitly, add the inference the text supports, and resist the urge to keep going. One sharp pair beats four blurry quotes every time.
Hack: Prove it, then push
After you pick a quote, run two fast questions. Prove it? — if a skeptic read only this line, would it force my exact claim? If not, the evidence is weak; find a sharper line. Push? — is there one more piece, ideally something the text implies rather than states, that I should add to be thorough? “Prove it, then push” gets you strong and thorough in two breaths — and the “push” reminds you to claim the inference, which is where the higher marks live.
