Version A: 'Violent crime rates have fallen significantly since 1990. Therefore, tougher sentencing works.' Version B adds: 'Much of this decline coincides with sentencing reforms of the late 1980s that kept repeat offenders incarcerated longer. This pattern suggests incapacitation contributed to the trend.' Why is Version B a stronger argument?
AVersion B uses more recent statistics, making the evidence more reliable
BVersion B has a longer explanation, and length signals thorough research
CVersion B provides a warrant — an explicit mechanism linking the evidence to the claim — which Version A omits
DVersion B avoids making a causal claim, which is safer than the causal Version A
The evidence is identical in both versions. What Version B adds is the warrant: the specific mechanism (incapacitation of repeat offenders) that explains *why* a correlation between sentencing reform and crime decline might constitute support for the claim. Without that bridge, a reader can ask 'so what?' or identify alternative explanations. The warrant does not have to be airtight — it just needs to make the logical path visible.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A student inserts three accurate statistics into a body paragraph. Each statistic is correctly cited. What is most likely still missing?
AA topic sentence that introduces the paragraph's focus
BExplicit reasoning that explains how each statistic connects to the paragraph's claim
CMore statistics to increase the weight of evidence
DA transition sentence at the end of the paragraph
Accurate evidence without explicit connection is the most common structural flaw in student writing. Three statistics prove nothing on their own — they require the warrant: 'this evidence shows X, which supports my claim that Y because Z.' Without that bridge, the reader has facts but no argument. Adding more evidence would compound the problem; what's needed is reasoning, not volume.
Question 3 True / False
Making the warrant explicit — the reasoning connecting evidence to claim — can sometimes reveal that the connection is weaker than the writer assumed.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
True, and this is one of the most valuable functions of writing out the warrant. The process of articulating 'for this evidence to support my claim, X must be true' surfaces hidden assumptions. If those assumptions turn out to be contestable, the writer discovers the weakness while it can still be addressed. Writers who skip the warrant don't just produce weaker arguments — they also miss the diagnostic opportunity that explicit reasoning provides.
Question 4 True / False
If evidence is strong and clearly relevant, the writer doesn't need to explain how it connects to the claim — a sophisticated reader will make the connection.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
False. This is the most common misconception about evidence and the source of most warrant omissions. The writer sees the connection clearly because they have research context, implicit assumptions, and prior knowledge that the reader lacks. The reader only has the words on the page. Even the clearest and most relevant evidence requires explicit reasoning because readers bring different backgrounds, may generate different interpretations of the same data, and shouldn't have to do the writer's analytical work for them.
Question 5 Short Answer
What question should a writer ask about each piece of evidence to ensure it is properly connected to the claim?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The key question is: 'This evidence shows X — how does X support my claim that Y?' Or more fully: 'For this evidence to support my claim, what must be true?' Answering that question produces the warrant. If the writer cannot answer it, the evidence may not belong in this paragraph, or the claim may need revision. The test is being able to complete the sentence: 'This evidence shows __, which supports my claim that __ because __.'
This three-part sentence structure (evidence → connection → claim, with the 'because' doing the warrant work) is a practical tool for diagnosing missing reasoning. Writers who use it consistently find that some of their evidence actually supports different claims than intended, and that some claims need additional evidence to fill the logical gaps that explicit reasoning reveals.