How do you weave evidence from at least three sources into one argument instead of summarizing each text in turn?
Integrating evidence from multiple sources: selecting specific and relevant evidence from at least three of the four texts, weaving it across paragraphs organized by reason rather than by source, and explaining how each piece supports the claim, as the Command of Evidence criterion requires.
How to integrate evidence from at least three Regents Part 2 sources: selecting specific and relevant evidence, organizing paragraphs by reason rather than by text, and weaving evidence from several sources into one point. The Command of Evidence criterion rewards highly effective use of specific evidence from multiple texts.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this skill is asking
The Command of Evidence criterion rewards "highly effective use of a wide range of specific and relevant evidence" from the texts, and the task requires evidence from at least three of the four sources. The skill that earns this is integration: weaving evidence from several texts into paragraphs organized around your reasons, rather than touring the texts one by one. This page covers selecting specific evidence, organizing by reason rather than by source, and the point-evidence-explanation pattern that turns a quotation into argument. The transferable skill is synthesis: making several sources work together to support one point.
Organize by reason, not by source
The structural choice that most affects your evidence score is how you group it.
This structure forces synthesis. When a paragraph is built around a reason, you naturally reach across texts for whatever supports it, which is exactly the "wide range of evidence" the rubric rewards. When a paragraph is built around a text, you summarize that text and move on, which the rubric penalizes as retelling rather than arguing.
Selecting specific evidence
Not all evidence is equal; the rubric rewards specific and relevant evidence.
Specificity also makes citation natural: a precise detail comes with a line number, while a vague gesture does not. Reaching for the exact statistic or phrase, rather than paraphrasing the gist, is what lifts Command of Evidence from competent to highly effective.
Point, evidence, explanation
Try this
Q1. Should Part 2 body paragraphs be organized by source or by reason, and why? [Recall]
- Cue. By reason. Organizing by reason forces you to weave evidence from several texts into each point (synthesis), which the Command of Evidence criterion rewards; organizing by source produces summary.
Q2. A student writes "Text 2 says recess improves focus (Text 2, line 9)" and stops. What is missing? [Short explanation]
- Cue. The explanation linking evidence to claim: why this fact supports the argument (for example, a more focused afternoon outweighs the lost instruction time). The pattern is point, evidence, explanation.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of NYSED exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Regents ELA (Part 2, style)6 marksSource-based argument. Two students both argue that schools should teach financial literacy. Student A writes one paragraph summarizing Text 1, then one summarizing Text 2, then one summarizing Text 3. Student B writes paragraphs on cost, on long-term benefit, and on fairness, each drawing evidence from two or three texts. Whose structure scores higher and why? (Scored on the 6-point rubric.)Show worked answer →
Student B scores higher. The Command of Evidence criterion rewards highly effective use of specific and relevant evidence to support the analysis, and Coherence rewards organization by idea. Student B organizes by reason (cost, benefit, fairness) and weaves evidence from several texts into each reason, which is genuine synthesis.
Student A's summary-by-text structure is the most common Part 2 weakness: it retells the sources instead of using them to build an argument. Even with accurate quotations, summarizing each text in turn caps both Content and Analysis (little analysis) and Command of Evidence (evidence not marshalled toward a point). Markers reward evidence organized around reasons, not a tour of the texts.
Regents ELA (Part 2, style)4 marksSource-based argument. A student writes: 'Text 2 says recess improves focus (Text 2, line 9).' Add the missing move that turns this quoted evidence into argument. (Rescoped to a 4-mark analysis task.)Show worked answer →
The missing move is the explanation that links the evidence to the claim: "Text 2 reports that recess improves focus (Text 2, line 9), which supports lengthening the school day's breaks because a more focused afternoon is worth more than the few minutes of instruction it costs." The quotation alone states a fact; the added clause explains how it advances the argument.
Markers reward evidence that is explained, not just cited. The pattern is point, evidence, explanation: state the reason, give the cited evidence, then say why it supports the claim. Evidence with no explanation sits inert and earns little on Command of Evidence.
Related dot points
- Understanding the source-based argument: the Part 2 task (four texts on one issue, take a position, use at least three sources), how it differs from a personal-opinion essay, and what each line of the task directions requires.
What Part 2 of the Regents ELA exam asks: four texts on one issue, establish a precise claim, distinguish it from opposing claims, and use specific evidence from at least three of the texts. How the source-based argument differs from a personal-opinion essay, line by line through the task directions.
- Establishing a precise claim: writing a single, defensible claim that takes a clear position on the Part 2 issue, distinguishing a precise claim from a vague or two-sided one, and placing it so it controls the whole argument.
How to write a precise, defensible claim for the Regents Part 2 argument: taking a clear position on the issue, the difference between a precise claim and a vague or fence-sitting one, and placing the claim so it controls the whole essay. The Content and Analysis criterion rewards a precise and insightful claim.
- Addressing counterclaims: identifying the strongest opposing claim from the texts, acknowledging it fairly, and answering it with a rebuttal that strengthens rather than weakens your position, as the task's direction to distinguish your claim from alternate or opposing claims.
How to distinguish your claim from opposing claims on the Regents Part 2 argument: identifying the strongest counterclaim from the texts, acknowledging it fairly, and rebutting it so your position is strengthened, the move behind the task's instruction to distinguish your claim from alternate or opposing claims.
- Citing sources by text number: attributing every piece of evidence in the Part 2 argument to its source by text number (and line where helpful), why citation is a scored expectation, and how to cite smoothly without breaking the sentence.
How to cite the Regents Part 2 sources by text number: attributing every piece of evidence to its source (and line where helpful), why citation is a scored expectation under Command of Evidence, and how to cite smoothly without breaking the sentence.
- Selecting relevant textual evidence: choosing the smallest specific detail or quotation that proves the exact point, distinguishing relevant evidence from merely true or broadly on-topic detail, across Part 1 evidence questions and both written responses.
How to select textual evidence on the Regents: choosing the smallest specific detail that proves the exact point, and distinguishing relevant evidence from detail that is merely true or broadly on-topic. The Command of Evidence criterion rewards specific, relevant evidence in both written responses.
Sources & how we know this
- Regents Examinations in English Language Arts — NYSED (2025)
- New York State Next Generation English Language Arts Learning Standards — NYSED (2017)