United States
Hong KongFTCE Evaluating an Argument
Skill 2 of Competency 3 reads "Evaluate specific claims in text based on relevancy, sufficiency, and validity of reasoning".
- Three separate tests.
- Relevancy asks whether the evidence bears on the claim, sufficiency whether there is enough, validity whether the conclusion follows.
On this page8 sections
The rule hands you the marking scheme. Three tests, named in the skill statement, and an argument can pass two and still fail.
The three tests in order
| Test | The question | Typical failure |
|---|---|---|
| Relevancy | Does this evidence bear on this claim? | A statistic about a different population or period |
| Sufficiency | Is there enough of it? | One anecdote supporting a general claim |
| Validity | Does the conclusion follow? | Correlation presented as cause |
Run them in that order, because relevancy is fastest to check and disposes of the most options. If the evidence is about something else, nothing downstream matters.
The reasoning failures that actually appear
- Correlation treated as causation. Two things moved together, so one caused the other.
- Sample too small or unrepresentative. One district, one year, one class.
- The comparison group is missing. Scores rose, but rose compared with what?
- Circular support. The evidence restates the claim in different words.
The missing comparison group is the one to watch for in education passages, because school data almost always needs a baseline and passages almost never state one.
A passage argues a summer program improved outcomes: Students who attended the summer program scored higher in the fall than those who did not. Which most weakens the argument?
- The program cost more per student than the district expected.
- Attendance at the program was voluntary, and students who signed up had higher scores the previous spring.
- A neighboring district runs a similar program.
- Some students who attended missed several sessions.
Strengthen and weaken items
The same three tests answer both directions. A weakener attacks the link between the evidence and the claim; a strengthener closes a gap in it. Neither one is usually a new fact about the topic, and options that add topic detail without touching the reasoning are the standard wrong answers.
Ask one question of every option: does this change how well the evidence supports the claim? If the answer is no, it is a distractor however interesting it is.
If Reading is the subtest you failed
Be realistic about what a retake changes. Reading has the highest published cut of the three multiple-choice subtests, at most 70% correct for a scaled 200, which is about 21 of 30. It also has the smallest gap between first attempt and best attempt: 78% and 86% in 2025, eight points, against fifteen for English Language Skills.
That combination says the same thing twice. Reading is not a memorization failure and sitting it again with the same habits is unlikely to change the outcome. Argument evaluation is one of the few parts of this subtest that responds directly to a method rather than to years of reading, which is why we would start here.
A retake is a fresh single-subtest registration at USD 32.50, and Rule 6A-4.0021(3)(d) requires at least thirty days since your previous administration of that subtest.
What we would practice
Take any opinion column. Write the claim in one sentence, list the evidence in bullets, then decide which of the three tests it fails. Most columns fail sufficiency. Doing this ten times is worth more than reading fifty practice questions, because it forces you to produce the judgment instead of recognizing it in someone else's.
Check relevance before counting evidence
Relevant evidence bears directly on the claim being made. A source can be reliable and still irrelevant to a particular conclusion. A national report on employment may provide useful context for a local job-training proposal, but it does not by itself show that the proposal will work in one neighborhood. Identify the exact claim, then ask whether each fact measures or explains the outcome at issue.
Anecdotes can illustrate an experience but often provide weak support for claims about how common something is. A survey or experiment may offer broader evidence, but its design, sample, and measure still matter. Evidence is not strong merely because it is numerical, vivid, or attributed to an expert. Evaluate what it actually establishes.
Judge sufficiency and source quality
Sufficiency asks whether the amount and variety of evidence justify the scope of the conclusion. One successful pilot may justify further testing, but not necessarily immediate expansion to every school. A larger representative sample, replication, or comparison group can support a broader claim. The required amount of evidence depends on how consequential and wide-ranging the conclusion is.
Source quality depends on expertise, method, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest. A source’s credentials matter when they relate to the subject; a famous person is not an authority on every topic. Check whether the evidence is current, whether the method is described, and whether other credible sources reach similar conclusions. A financial interest is a reason to examine methods carefully, not proof that a statement is false.
Test validity and hidden assumptions
An argument is valid in a broad reading sense when its reasons logically support its conclusion. A hidden assumption may connect the two. If a writer claims that a new schedule will reduce absences because students prefer later starts, the reasoning assumes that preference will translate into attendance and that other constraints will not offset the change. Make the bridge explicit, then ask whether evidence supports it.
Look for alternative explanations and counterevidence. If test scores rose after a program began, the rise may reflect the program, but it may also reflect changed assessment difficulty, tutoring, or student selection. A strong causal claim requires a design that addresses such alternatives. If the evidence supports association only, the argument should use language such as linked to or associated with rather than caused by.
- State the claim and its population or scope precisely.
- Ask whether each piece of evidence directly relates to that claim.
- Check source, method, sample, timing, and potential conflicts.
- Decide whether the evidence is sufficient for the breadth of the conclusion.
- Identify assumptions, alternatives, and relevant counterevidence.
Common questions
What are the three tests for a claim on the FTCE?
Relevancy, sufficiency and validity of reasoning, named in skill 2 of Competency 3. Relevancy asks whether the evidence bears on the claim, sufficiency whether there is enough of it, and validity whether the conclusion actually follows.
How do I answer a weaken-the-argument question?
Attack the link between the evidence and the claim rather than the topic. An option that raises cost, mentions a similar program elsewhere, or adds detail without touching the reasoning is a distractor, however plausible it sounds.
What is the most common reasoning error in these passages?
Correlation presented as causation, usually with no comparison group. Education passages report that something rose after a change was made, and the missing question is what it rose against. Watch for a baseline the passage never supplies.
Does retaking the Reading subtest usually work?
Less reliably than the others. The published 2025 figures are 78% at first attempt and 86% at best attempt, an eight-point gain against fifteen for English Language Skills and the essay. A retake without a change of method is a poor bet here.