Explain how a structural choice advances an argument or explanation.
Core Idea
When the SAT asks how a structural choice "serves" the argument, it wants you to connect the author's technique (an analogy, a concession, an example) to the specific point it strengthens.
Understanding
This concept goes one level deeper than identifying function. You're not just labeling a sentence as "an example" — you're explaining how that example makes the author's argument more convincing or the explanation clearer.
Think of it as a two-part answer: the move (what the author does structurally) and the payoff (how that move helps the argument). An author might open with a surprising statistic — the move is to grab attention, but the payoff is to establish that the problem is more widespread than readers assume, which sets up the argument for a particular solution.
The wrong answers on these questions often get the move right but the payoff wrong, or vice versa. An answer might correctly say a sentence "provides a counterexample" but then claim it undermines the author's point, when it actually strengthens it by showing the author has considered objections.
Worked Example
Economist Raj Chetty found that children who moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods before age 13 earned significantly more as adults than those who moved later. Critics noted that families who chose to move may have been more motivated in general. Chetty responded by analyzing outcomes among families selected by lottery, finding the same positive effects — effectively ruling out self-selection bias.
How does the third sentence function in relation to the passage's overall argument?
Select an answer to see the explanation