Fact vs opinion (analyse tier)

The first sentence gives a specific dollar figure attributable to a checkable record. The second sentence uses a value-laden word, 'shameful', to judge that spending.

A fact can be checked against evidence such as council accounts. An opinion expresses a judgement that cannot be proven true or false, only argued for.

'Shameful waste' is an evaluation, not a measurement, so it signals the writer's viewpoint rather than a checkable quantity.

The distinction is that the first reports a verifiable amount while the second evaluates that amount, matching the choice “The first is a verifiable fact about spending; the second is an opinion evaluating that spending as wrong.”.

Discussing the same topic does not make both statements opinions; the first is still checkable against records.

This reverses the logic entirely: numbers being checkable makes them fact-like, and emotional language makes the second opinion, not the other way round.

The second statement expresses judgement and cannot be confirmed as true from a record, so it is not a fact.

Only the choice “The first is a verifiable fact about spending; the second is an opinion evaluating that spending as wrong.” correctly separates the verifiable figure from the evaluative judgement about it.

'Obviously' is a certainty word that pressures the reader to accept the claim without question, a classic sign of opinion dressed as fact.

The sentence asserts that screen time causes reduced focus, a causal claim stated with no supporting evidence or study cited.

Together, the certainty word and unsupported causal claim disguise a debatable viewpoint as settled truth.

The choice “The certainty word 'obviously' combined with an unproven cause-and-effect claim about focus.” names both features precisely, matching the taught warning about opinion stated as fact.

No statistic appears in the sentence at all, so this option describes something not present in the text.

Referring to a generation does not automatically mean research was used; it can simply be a sweeping generalisation.

Topics themselves are not inherently subjective; screen time habits can be measured, even if effects are debated.

Only the choice “The certainty word 'obviously' combined with an unproven cause-and-effect claim about focus.” identifies the actual linguistic markers that reveal opinion disguised as fact.