See a Perfect Scoring - GED® Test Extended Response - guide and sample response

Sep 14, 2026

This guide prepares test takers for the GED® Reasoning Through Language Arts and Social Studies extended response tasks. It walks readers through how to analyze arguments from a press release and a letter to the editor, then build an argument that explains why one position is better supported. The material includes download instructions and a perfect scoring sample response, along with explanations of why specific evidence and organization led to full credit.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

Extended Response Instructions

Analyze evidence from the press release and letter to the editor

Build an argument with specific, relevant evidence

Review why the sample earned a perfect score

See a Perfect Scoring GED® Test Extended Response Getting ready to take the GED® test? Use this guide to prepare for the extended responses that you’ll be writing on the Reasoning Through Language Arts and Social Studies test subjects. Take a look at a perfect scoring sample extended response and see the explanations why it received a perfect score. When you’re done reviewing the response, download instructions and passages to practice your own extended response. Extended Response Instructions: Analyze the arguments presented in the press release and the letter to the editor. In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree. This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Download the passages analyzed in this response and practice your own response. Sample Response: Both the press release and the letter to the editor offer positions that are supported by both fact and opinion. The press release seeks to exhort the new bill for expansion of Highway 17, while the letter argues that the passing of the bill could prove detrimental to the district. While both sides make an acceptable case, the latter provides a stronger argument. One example of the letter’s stronger argument is the explanation that federal tax dollars pay for the road, as it will incorporate six different states, therefore eliminating this particular state’s ability to strike the bill down. This proves, with factual information, that the district did not have a fair say in the bill. The notion that few residents will use the road that their tax dollars are providing isan opinion. However, a resident and small-business owner in the town is more credible in the awareness of the town’s concern, as compared to a representative who attended a few meetings in the town hall. Another example of the better supported argument in the letter is the reference to the construction jobs as temporary. The press release praises the new jobs created by the highway construction, as this is a valid point. However, the author of the letter is correct in the fact that the jobs will not create a boom in the district’s economy, or fill in the gap caused by the closures in the manufacturing plants, as the press release leads listeners to believe. The road construction does not solve the long-term issue of unemployment in the town. In addition, the author of the letter counters the argument that new motels, restaraunts, and gas stations along the highway will create permanent jobs for the residents of the town. She explains that,“ only minimum wage jobs will remain.” This is a valid argument also, as unemployed residents that need enough income to support a household would not be much better off. Providing restaurant or motel jobs is very unlikely to feed or support an entire family. It will not pick up the laid-off employees of the manufacturing plants, who may have worked for many years towards promotions and a pension. Another example of the letter’s stronger argument is the author’s explanation of the 2001 study. She concedes that the representative is correct in citing that bypasses are proven to reduce noise and traffic in town, but she argues that the study shows a negative effect on local businesses. This piece of the study was not mentioned by Representative Walls or the press release, and it is a proven fact. This draws more credibility to the argument in the letter. Also, although it is a speculation, it is more reasonable that traveler’s will stick to the main highway and not venture miles off their path into small town when chain gas stations, restaurants, and motels are conveniently located directly at the highway exits. It is less likely that old roads in the towns will become historical locations,

FAQs

What sources must be analyzed for the GED extended response task?

The task requires analyzing the arguments in a press release and a letter to the editor, then using both sources as evidence.

How should the response be structured to earn a high score?

The response should clearly state the writer’s position, explain why it is better supported, and incorporate specific evidence from both sources.

Why did the sample response earn a perfect score?

It developed a clear argument using evidence from the passages, addressed weaknesses in the opposing view, and organized ideas in a coherent way.

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Genevieve