Skip to main content
Common Core LiteracyGrades 11–12Science & Technical

RST.11-12.8: Checking a Study’s Data and Conclusions

Also written as CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.11-12.8 · Cluster: Integration of Knowledge and Ideas.

All 29 Grades 11–12 Literacy Standards

The Official Wording

Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information.

Common Core State Standards, Grades 11-12, Reading: Science & Technical Subjects · Read it at the source · Checked October 14, 2026

What RST.11-12.8 Means in Plain English

Juniors and seniors judge a study part by part, its hypothesis, data, analysis and conclusions, recalculating the numbers themselves when they can and testing the conclusions against other sources. A city report on permeable pavement claims an 80 percent cut in runoff that its own data do not support.

Ninth and tenth grade (RST.9-10.8) assessed whether reasoning and evidence support an author’s claim or recommendation. Grades 11-12 check the data directly and bring in outside sources to confirm or challenge the conclusions. This is the last band of the line, the critical reading college and career readiness requires.

RST.11-12.8 I Can Statements

  • I can judge whether a hypothesis is clear and testable.
  • I can recalculate a study’s results from its raw data.
  • I can use another source to confirm or challenge a conclusion.

RST.11-12.8 Worked Example

The city report and the state review are invented for this page. The weak answer trusts the report’s math, and the strong one checks it.

Read the Story
Hypothesis: Replacing the asphalt in a city parking lot with permeable pavement, which lets rain soak through into a gravel bed below, will cut the lot’s stormwater runoff by at least 75 percent.Data: Over six summer storms, the largest dropping 0.8 inches of rain, outflow meters recorded 1,800 gallons of runoff from the permeable test lot and 6,000 gallons from a matching asphalt lot next to it.Analysis and conclusion: Runoff fell by 80 percent, so the pavement beats its target. We recommend it for all 14 city lots, where it will control runoff from even the heaviest storms for its full 20-year design life.From a state transportation department review of 40 permeable lots: lots that were never vacuum-swept lost half or more of their ability to absorb water within five years, as fine sediment clogged the pores.
A short passage written for this page.
Question: Evaluate the report’s hypothesis, data, analysis and conclusion. Check the numbers yourself, and use the state review to corroborate or challenge the recommendation.
Not Yet“The study is strong. The hypothesis was clear, the team measured six storms with meters, and the analysis shows an 80 percent reduction, which beats the 75 percent target. The city should put permeable pavement in all 14 lots.”It accepts the report’s arithmetic and conclusion without checking either. The 80 percent figure is wrong, and the answer never brings in the state review, which undercuts the 20-year promise.
Meets the Standard“The hypothesis is clear and testable, and comparing the test lot with a matching asphalt lot beside it is a fair design. The analysis fails, though. From the report’s own data, 6,000 minus 1,800 is 4,200 gallons, and 4,200 out of 6,000 is 70 percent, not 80, so the hypothesis of at least 75 percent is not supported. The conclusion also outruns the data twice. Six summer storms, none above 0.8 inches, cannot show how the pavement handles ‘even the heaviest storms.’ And the state review challenges the 20-year claim: unswept lots lost half or more of their absorption within five years, and the report mentions no sweeping plan. A fair conclusion: the pavement cut runoff by 70 percent in small summer storms, and the city should test it through a winter and heavier storms, and budget for vacuum sweeping, before converting all 14 lots.”It judges each part separately, recomputes the result from the raw data, separates what six small storms can show from what the conclusion claims, and uses the outside source to test the recommendation.
Question Stems to Use
Is the hypothesis testable? What result would prove it wrong?Do the numbers in the analysis match the data? Recalculate them.What range of conditions did the data cover, and does the conclusion stay inside it?Does the outside source support or challenge the conclusion? On which point?What would a fair conclusion from these data say?

Common Mistakes with RST.11-12.8

Trusting the reported math

“The analysis shows an 80 percent reduction, which beats the target.”

Try this: Have students recompute every derived number from the raw data before reading the analysis, and compare their result with the report’s.

Letting the conclusion outrun the data

“It worked in six storms, so it will work in every storm for 20 years.”

Try this: Ask students to list the conditions the data covered, like season and storm size, and underline any conclusion that reaches beyond them.

Evaluating without other sources

An evaluation that judges the report only by its own internal logic

Try this: Pair every study with one outside source, and require students to say which specific claim it corroborates and which it challenges.

Where RST.11-12.8 Fits

Comes BeforeRST.9-10.8Assess whether the reasoning and evidence in a text support its claim or recommendation.
AlongsideRH.11-12.8Evaluate an author’s premises, claims and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other information.
HSS-IC.6Evaluate reports based on data, from how the study was designed to the conclusions it draws.
Comes NextWHST.11-12.1Write arguments that weigh claims and counterclaims with the most relevant data and evidence.RST.11-12.9Synthesize several sources into one coherent explanation, resolving conflicts when possible.

Practice RST.11-12.8

Quick Check

  1. What reduction do the report’s own numbers actually show?
  2. Is the hypothesis supported?
  3. Which claim does the state review challenge?

RST.11-12.8: Other Names

RST.11-12.8CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.11-12.8

Common Core State Standards © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved. Official wording from the Common Core State Standards PDFs at corestandards.org, last checked October 14, 2026. The explanation, I can statements, example, mistakes and practice on this page are EMStudio’s own, written beside the official wording. They are not part of the standard.