EBQ Strategy:
Claim, Evidence, Reasoning
The EBQ asks you to construct a supported argument from 3 summarized peer-reviewed sources in 45 minutes. This guide uses a practical three-part framework — claim, evidence, reasoning — to organize your approach, along with source mapping, the two-source evidence rule, and how to build a complete reasoning chain.
Time Management: 15-Minute Reading + 30-Minute Writing
The EBQ is the longest component of the exam. The 45 minutes include both a dedicated reading period and a writing period. The single most important pacing decision is what you read first during the reading period — the question prompt, not the sources.
Note on templates in this file: Each task section includes a response template. Use these as flexible response frames that show a reliable structure — not scripts to reproduce word-for-word. A response earns credit for having the right content in the right place, not for matching a specific sentence format.
- Vague or non-contestable claim: A claim that no one could reasonably disagree with (e.g., "mental health is complex") is not a scorable argument. Every word in your claim should narrow what you are committing to defend.
- Both evidence points from the same source: Your second piece of evidence must come from a different source than your first. Using two passages from the same source document counts as one piece of evidence, regardless of how different they seem. This is a rubric requirement.
- Evidence without reasoning: Presenting two pieces of evidence and then restating your claim is not reasoning — it is repetition. Reasoning requires an explicit explanation of how the evidence connects to the claim and what that connection means.
Reading the Sources Strategically
The three sources in an EBQ are not simply a pool of quotes to draw from. They are different perspectives on the same general topic, and understanding how they relate to each other is what separates a strategic reader from one who just picks the first plausible sentences they see.
Mapping Source Relationships
As you read each source, classify its relationship to your potential claim in one of three ways:
Source provides direct evidence that your claim is correct. Best used as a primary evidence point. Cite the specific finding and explain the connection.
Source supports your claim but from a different mechanism, population, or methodology. Ideal for your second evidence point — shows convergent support across different approaches.
Source presents evidence that appears to contradict or limit your claim. Can be used in your reasoning section to acknowledge complexity and then explain why your claim still holds.
Do not default to using whichever two sources come first in the reading order. After reading all three, identify the two that provide the most specific, relevant support for your claim — even if the third source is also related. A well-supported claim using two clearly connected sources is stronger than a sprawling argument that tries to reconcile all three.
You do not need to use all three sources to earn full credit. The rubric requires your second piece of evidence to come from a different source than your first — not that you cite every source provided. Two well-chosen, well-connected sources are sufficient.
What to Annotate During Reading
| Mark This | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Specific findings with numbers or outcomes | These are the most citable evidence points — concrete, specific, harder to misrepresent |
| The study population or context | Knowing who the source studied helps you assess whether it's relevant to your claim's scope |
| The key variable or mechanism | Helps you explain in your reasoning why the evidence supports your specific claim, not just the topic in general |
| Any finding that contradicts your claim | Better to acknowledge it in your reasoning than to be caught ignoring it |
Make a Claim
Your claim is the argument your entire response is built to support. It must be specific enough to be contestable (someone could reasonably disagree), broad enough to be supportable by the provided sources, and directly responsive to the prompt. The claim is usually one or two sentences written at the start of your response.
Three Qualities of a Scorable Claim
"Mental health is affected by many biological and environmental factors."
Unfalsifiable — no one disagrees. Makes no specific argument the sources can support or oppose. Could describe any topic in psychology.
"Therapy helps people with depression."
Direction is right but too vague. Which therapy? Compared to what? "Helps" how? This claim cannot be meaningfully supported or contested without more precision.
"Cognitive behavioral therapy produces greater long-term reductions in depressive symptoms than medication alone for adults with moderate depression."
Specific (CBT vs. medication alone), contestable (someone could argue the opposite), directly addressable by sources on therapy outcomes.
The Contestability Test
Before committing to a claim, ask: "Could a reasonable person, using different evidence, argue the opposite?" If the answer is no — if the claim is so obvious or general that disagreement seems impossible — the claim is too weak to function as an argument. Revise it until the answer is yes. (This is sometimes called the "falsifiability" criterion in research methodology, but for your purposes: if no one could disagree with it, it isn't a claim.)
| Claim Type to Avoid | Why It Fails | How to Revise |
|---|---|---|
| Factual description | "Depression is characterized by persistent sadness." — This is a definition, not an argument. | Make a comparative or causal claim: "X is more effective than Y for treating depression." |
| Too broad | "Social media has effects on mental health." — Trivially true; no specific direction or relationship. | Specify the direction, population, and type: "Daily social media use above [X] hours is associated with increased anxiety in adolescents." |
| Scope beyond the sources | A claim about a specific disorder not addressed in any of the three sources. | Make sure your claim is answerable by the sources provided — re-read the sources before finalizing. |
| Opinion without basis | "Schools should teach mindfulness." — A policy recommendation not directly supported by empirical sources. | Reframe as an empirical claim: "Mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to reduce anxiety in school-age children." |
→ A vague claim often uses imprecise terminology. For FRQ-safe distinctions between commonly confused terms: Vocabulary Precision Guide
- Writing the claim after the evidenceSome students write their evidence first and then write a claim that matches what they found. This usually produces a weaker, post-hoc claim. Decide on your claim during the reading period, before writing begins.
- A claim so specific it only describes one sourceIf your claim is essentially a summary of one source's finding, it is not functioning as an argument — it is a restatement. A claim should be broader than any single source and require multiple pieces of evidence to support.
Provide Two Pieces of Evidence
You must provide two pieces of evidence — and each must come from a different source document. This is a rubric requirement, not a suggestion. After presenting each piece of evidence, explain how it connects to your claim. Evidence without that explanation does not function effectively as evidence in the argument — it reads as a citation rather than a supported point.
Your second piece of evidence must come from a different source than the one used for your first evidence point. Using two passages from the same source document counts as one piece of evidence regardless of how different the passages are. Check your source attributions before moving to the reasoning section.
What Counts as Evidence
Evidence is a specific finding, result, or conclusion from one of the provided sources. It is not:
- A general description of what the source is about
- Background information from the introduction
- A verbatim copy of a long paragraph from the source
- Your own prior knowledge about the topic
Effective evidence is a specific, paraphrased finding that you can directly connect to your claim in the next sentence.
Paraphrase, Don't Copy
Reproduce the source's meaning in your own words, and include the specific detail (a number, a comparison, an outcome) that makes it useful as evidence. Verbatim copying of long passages does not demonstrate synthesis — it demonstrates that you can read. The goal is to show you understand what the finding means and why it is relevant.
"According to Source B, participants who received CBT showed a 45% greater reduction in self-reported anxiety scores over 12 weeks compared to those in the waitlist control condition. This supports the claim that CBT produces measurable, clinically significant improvements rather than merely subjective relief."
"Source B talks about CBT and how it helps with anxiety. It says that CBT is effective. This shows that therapy works for people with mental health issues." (No specific finding, no paraphrase, no connection to the claim.)
- Both evidence points from the same sourceCheck your source labels before finishing Task ②. If both say "Source A," one must be replaced with a finding from Source B or C. This is the most mechanically avoidable error on the EBQ.
- Evidence that doesn't connect to the claimAn interesting finding from a source is not useful as evidence if it addresses a different aspect of the topic than your claim does. Evaluate each piece of evidence against your specific claim, not against the topic in general.
Reasoning & Application
Reasoning is the explicit explanation of how your evidence supports your claim and what that connection means. It is not a summary of your evidence, and it is not a restatement of your claim. It is the analytical bridge that explains why the evidence matters for the argument you are making.
Evidence tells you what happened: "Study A found that CBT reduced depression scores by 40% compared to a control group."
Reasoning explains what that means for your argument: "This reduction exceeds the clinical threshold for meaningful improvement and was observed in a randomized controlled trial, making it the strongest type of evidence available for causal claims about treatment efficacy — supporting the argument that CBT produces real, measurable benefit rather than placebo effects."
The step from evidence to reasoning requires you to explain the significance, the mechanism, or the implication — not just repeat the finding.
The Three-Move Reasoning Structure
Bring both pieces of evidence together. What do they collectively demonstrate that neither shows alone?
Explicitly state why this combined evidence supports your specific claim. Name the mechanism or logic that makes the connection.
If any source presents complicating evidence, acknowledge it and explain why it does not invalidate your argument.
Acknowledging Alternative Explanations
You are not required to address alternative explanations, but doing so can strengthen your reasoning — if done correctly. The key is to acknowledge the limitation without conceding the argument. Conceding means your claim is wrong. Acknowledging means you recognize that the world is more complex than any single claim, while maintaining that your claim is still the most well-supported position given the available evidence.
"While Source C suggests that individual variation in response to CBT may limit the generalizability of these findings, this does not undermine the overall pattern established across Sources A and B — that CBT consistently outperforms waitlist control conditions across diverse samples. The variability in response rates is a consideration for treatment matching, not a refutation of CBT's efficacy as a general treatment approach."
"Source C shows that CBT doesn't work for everyone, so my claim may not be correct. There are also other effective treatments for depression. Therefore it is hard to say whether CBT is actually the best approach." (This abandons the claim rather than defending it.)
- Restating the evidence instead of reasoningSaying "As I showed above, both sources support my claim" is not reasoning — it is repetition. Reasoning requires you to explain the connection, not just assert that one exists.
- Reasoning that breaks the chainIf your reasoning introduces a new concept, claim, or piece of evidence not connected to what came before, it creates a logical gap. Reasoning should follow from the evidence presented, not introduce new arguments that require their own support.
How the Three Tasks Form a Single Argument
The EBQ is not three separate answers — it is one argument with three structural components. Each component must be consistent with and connected to the others. A response that treats the three tasks as independent sections often produces a claim, evidence, and reasoning that don't fully align.
States the specific, contestable position your response will defend. Everything that follows must support exactly this claim — not a related claim, not a broader topic.
Two specific findings from two different sources that directly address the claim. Each piece of evidence is followed by a sentence connecting it to the claim.
Synthesizes the two pieces of evidence, explains why they collectively support the claim, and — if applicable — acknowledges complicating evidence without abandoning the argument.
- Does your evidence directly address your claim — or does it address a related but different point?
- Does your reasoning use the same terms and refer to the same claim as your opening?
- Do your two pieces of evidence come from two different source documents?
- Does your reasoning explain the connection, or does it simply restate the evidence?
High-Cost Error Catalogue
- Vague or non-contestable claim"Some factors affect mental health" or "therapy can be helpful" — these claims are too vague to defend. Every word in a claim should narrow what you are committing to argue.
- Both evidence points from the same sourceThis is the most mechanically avoidable error. Before finishing the evidence section, check both source labels. If they match, replace one with a specific finding from a different source document.
- Evidence presented without explanationA cited finding that is not connected to the claim in the same paragraph is not functioning as evidence — it is a citation. Follow every piece of evidence immediately with a sentence explaining its connection to the claim.
- Reasoning that restates evidence"As I showed above, both sources support my claim" is not reasoning. Reasoning requires an explicit bridge: why the evidence supports the claim, what mechanism or logic connects them, what their collective implication is.
- Conceding the argument in the reasoning sectionAcknowledging a complicating finding is strategic. Abandoning your claim in response to it defeats the entire response. When you acknowledge complexity, immediately follow with an explanation of why your claim still holds.
- Copying source passages verbatimLong quotations from sources do not demonstrate analytical ability. Paraphrase with precision: state what the source found, in your own words, including the specific detail that makes it relevant as evidence for your claim.
- Incoherence between the three tasksIf your reasoning defends a slightly different claim than the one you stated, or your evidence addresses a different aspect of the topic than your claim, the argument does not hold together. Check coherence before submitting: claim → evidence → reasoning should form one continuous line of argument.
With 2 minutes remaining in the EBQ: read only your claim sentence and your reasoning conclusion. Ask whether the reasoning is clearly completing the argument started in the claim. If the connection is not explicit — one sentence explicitly naming why the evidence supports the specific claim — add it. This single check catches the most common EBQ reasoning gap.