Which conclusion does the graph support?

Example 1

1. Read the edges first: the title (rides on the two commuter railroads, 2021 to 2024), the key (solid line, LIRR; dashed line, Metro-North), and the unit (rides in a year, in millions).
2. Now take each conclusion and sort it into one of four kinds. Supported: the graph shows it. Goes too far: it stretches the graph into a cause, a prediction, or an “all” or “always” that reaches past the years or groups on the graph. Contradicted: the graph shows the opposite. Not shown: the graph has no numbers about it at all.
3. A: both lines rise at every step, from about 35 to 75 million (LIRR) and from about 27 to 65 million (Metro-North). Supported.
4. B: the graph shows rides rising, but “people moved to the suburbs, so” adds a cause. The graph shows that, not why. Goes too far.
5. C: in 2024 the LIRR line (75) is above the Metro-North line (65). The graph shows the opposite. Contradicted.
6. D: the graph counts rides; it says nothing about where riders were going. Not shown.
7. Only A is supported. That is the answer.

Answer: A

Example 2

1. Split the statement into its two parts: a fact (“ridership grew”) and a reason (“because the town lowered the fare”).
2. The fact is on the graph: 1,800 riders, then 2,200, then 2,600. Ridership did grow.
3. The reason is not. The graph shows how many people rode; nothing on it is about fares. Riders may have grown for many reasons: new jobs on the route, a new school, more buses.
4. A statement that starts from what the graph shows and then adds a cause has gone too far. That is B.
5. Why not “not shown”? Because part of the statement, the growth, is shown. “Not shown” is for a statement about something the graph has no numbers on at all, such as “Most riders are students.”
6. Why not “contradicted”? Nothing on the graph goes against a lower fare; the graph is simply silent about fares.

Answer: B