Consider how Paul’s glasses are an example of the claim, evidence, reasoning framework. That is, think about how different parties use the claim, evidence, reasoning formula to account for Paul’s remarkably thick glasses.
For most of the story, claim, evidence, reasoning is used to reinforce the belief that Paul has to wear glasses with such thick lenses because he looked at the eclipse one summer.
Remember, claim, evidence, reasoning starts with a question. The question here is: why does Paul have to wear especially thick glasses? The claim provides the answer. The answer is that Paul has to wear such thick glasses because he looked at the eclipse. The evidence behind this claim is that, before the eclipse, Paul did not have to wear glasses of any kind. Using reason, one deduces that Paul impaired his sight by looking at the eclipse, which brought on the need for thick glasses. As Paul says,
Teachers and other adults seemed to value me as an example. I was the living proof that you shouldn’t look at an eclipse or you’ll go blind.
Paul doubts this claim, evidence, reasoning. He says it “puzzles” him. Yet he goes along with it because it makes him “somebody.” As the story progresses, and his older brother, Erik, becomes increasingly belligerent, Paul forms his own claim, evidence, reasoning concerning his glasses.
Paul’s claim, evidence, reasoning, doesn’t have to do with the eclipse but with Erik. Paul’s claim is that Erik and his friend sprayed him in the eyes with spray paint. His evidence is his memory and Erik’s general behavior. His evidence is corroborated by his parents, who finally tell him the truth. The real reason why Paul has to wear his glasses is because Erik and his friend purposely put harmful chemicals in his eyes.
With the one example of Paul and his glasses, there are two kinds of claim, evidence, reasoning at work. There’s the misinformed claim, evidence, reasoning that persists for most of the novel. There’s the accurate claim, evidence, reasoning that comes to light near the end.