Use these examples to study structure, specificity, tone, and variation. They are demonstrations—not claims about a real person or organization unless the example itself makes that explicit.
A strong CER response makes a precise claim, chooses evidence that is sufficient and directly relevant, and uses reasoning to connect the evidence to the claim instead of merely repeating either one.
Claim: Plants exposed to longer daily light grew faster. Evidence: The twelve-hour group gained an average of 4.2 centimeters, compared with 2.1 centimeters in the six-hour group. Reasoning: Because light duration was the main condition that differed, the growth difference supports the claim that longer exposure affected growth.
Claim: The narrator distrusts the visitor before the confrontation begins. Evidence: She checks the lock twice and hides the envelope before opening the door. Reasoning: Those defensive actions occur before any explicit threat, showing that suspicion shapes her behavior from the start.
Claim: The bus route is unreliable for shift workers. Evidence: More than one quarter of evening trips arrived at least fifteen minutes late during the sample week. Reasoning: A route can exist on a map yet still fail as dependable work access when delays are frequent enough to threaten clock-in times.
Claim: The policy increased applications but not completed enrollments. Evidence: Applications rose 31 percent while final enrollment changed by only 4 percent. Reasoning: The gap indicates that the policy reduced an early barrier without resolving later steps in the process.
Claim: The author presents memory as unstable. Evidence: The same childhood event is described differently in chapters two and nine. Reasoning: Because the external event is unchanged while the narration shifts, the contrast suggests that recollection changes with the narrator’s later understanding.
Claim: Written decision records reduce repeated discussion. Evidence: After the team introduced one-page decision logs, reopening of settled issues fell in the next sprint review. Reasoning: The logs preserve both the choice and its rationale, giving later readers context that would otherwise need to be recreated.
Claim: The material is a better insulator than the control. Evidence: Its container lost three degrees less heat over twenty minutes. Reasoning: Lower heat loss under the same conditions indicates greater resistance to heat transfer.
Claim: The advertisement relies more on social proof than technical detail. Evidence: Most of the copy cites customer counts, ratings, and testimonials rather than product specifications. Reasoning: The persuasive strategy asks readers to trust other users’ behavior as evidence of value.
Keep the underlying decision or pattern, then replace the subject, evidence, relationship, constraints, and tone with details that belong to your situation. If your final line still works after swapping only one noun, it may be too close to the example.