Grade 8 ELA | FL B.E.S.T. Standard: ELA.8.R.2.4
TEACHER USE ONLY - Please keep secure and do not distribute to students
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 | Claim: Social media companies should be required to verify users' ages.
The claim is what the author wants you to believe or act on - in this case, a policy recommendation. |
| 2 | The evidence includes a statistic (42% of children under 13 have social media accounts) from a "recent study." The strength is moderate - it's specific data, but we don't know the source of the study, sample size, or methodology. It's relevant but not fully credible without source verification. |
| 3 | This is AD HOMINEM - attacking the person (Mayor Johnson drives a luxury car) rather than addressing his actual argument about improving public transit. Whether Johnson personally takes the bus doesn't affect whether the transit plan is good or bad. |
| 4 | To strengthen the evidence, the author could: cite medical studies linking energy drinks to heart problems, provide statistics on emergency room visits related to energy drinks, quote medical experts, or include data on ingredient safety. One personal anecdote isn't sufficient evidence for a broad claim. |
| 5 | Analyzing arguments critically matters because: (1) A claim can be true but poorly argued - we need good reasons, not just correct conclusions. (2) A claim can be false but well-argued - persuasive doesn't mean correct. (3) Critical analysis helps us make informed decisions based on evidence quality, not just whether we already agree. (4) It protects us from manipulation and misinformation. |
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 | B. Our city council should immediately ban all single-use plastics
The claim is the policy action being advocated - the ban. The other options are supporting evidence or context. |
| 2 | Two strong pieces: (1) EPA statistic (35 million tons, 8.7% recycled) - from a credible government source, specific numbers, directly relevant. (2) Science journal study (8 million metric tons enter oceans) - peer-reviewed source, quantified data. Both are from authoritative sources with specific, verifiable data that directly supports the claim about plastic's environmental impact. |
| 3 | The author acknowledges the counterargument (costs) and responds with: alternatives becoming affordable, consumer preference for eco-friendly options, and real-world examples (Seattle, San Francisco succeeded). This is fairly effective - it addresses the concern directly with evidence. However, it could be stronger with specific cost comparisons or economic data from those cities. |
| 4 | Additional evidence that would strengthen: specific cost comparisons (paper vs. plastic), data showing economic impact on businesses in ban cities, addressing potential job losses, considering gradual phase-in vs. immediate ban, more data on recycling improvement as an alternative, or evidence about enforcement and compliance. |
| 5 | B. Ad Hominem (attack the person)
Calling opponents "old-fashioned" attacks their character rather than addressing their actual concerns about gaming. |
| 6 | This is BANDWAGON fallacy - arguing that because millions do it and "turn out fine," it must be acceptable. This is weak because: popularity doesn't prove benefit, "fine" is vague and unmeasured, we don't know if those kids would be better off without games, and correlation doesn't prove causation. |
| 7 | This evidence is weak because: (1) It's a single anecdote, not representative data. (2) Correlation doesn't equal causation - maybe the nephew is smart despite gaming, not because of it. (3) It's from a biased source (family member). (4) "Smart" is undefined. One example can't prove a general claim. |
| 8 | The false dilemma: "either you let your kids play games and prepare them for the digital future, or you keep them away from technology and watch them fall behind." This presents only two extremes when many options exist: moderation, specific types of games, time limits, supervised play, etc. Real decisions aren't all-or-nothing. |
| 9 | Three improvements: (1) Replace personal anecdotes with research studies on gaming benefits. (2) Remove personal attacks ("old-fashioned") and address actual concerns about excessive gaming. (3) Acknowledge limitations - instead of false dilemma, discuss balanced approaches with moderation. Also: define "good" outcomes specifically, distinguish between game types. |
| 10 | A = Statistics on crash rates (D); B = American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation (A); C = Minnesota study results (B); D = Biological shift during puberty (C) |
| 11 | The author acknowledges the counterarguments are "legitimate concerns" rather than dismissing them, then suggests solutions (adjusted schedules, community partnerships). This is effective because it shows intellectual honesty and addresses opposition respectfully. However, the solutions are vague - specific examples of how other districts solved these problems would strengthen it. |
| 12 | The analogy is reasonably effective because it helps readers relate by imagining themselves working at 3 AM. However, it's not perfect because adults choose careers knowing hours, and 3 AM is more extreme than 7 AM. A better analogy might be asking adults to do complex tasks in their least productive hours. The analogy works rhetorically but isn't a perfect logical parallel. |
| 13 | Argument 3 uses much stronger evidence: peer-reviewed medical organization (AAP), specific research study with large sample (9,000+ students), quantified results (crash rates dropped), scientific explanation (biological shift). Argument 2 relies on personal anecdotes, celebrity reference, bandwagon appeal, and vague claims. Argument 3 has credible sources; Argument 2's sources are personal/questionable. |
| 14 | Possible improvements: (1) Include specific success stories of districts that solved logistical challenges. (2) Address academic outcomes more directly - while it mentions test scores stay stable, more data would strengthen this. (3) Consider economic impact on families who rely on older kids being home after school. (4) Include teacher perspectives and buy-in. |
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 | C. School districts should implement formal student evaluations of teachers |
| 2 | B. It directly addresses whether students can accurately assess teaching quality |
| 3 | B. False analogy - the situations may not be truly comparable
College students are older, have chosen to be there, pay tuition, and evaluate differently than K-12 students would. |
| 4 | B. By acknowledging the concern but offering solutions (limited weight, specific questions) |
| 5 | A and C. The college comparison may not apply well to younger students; The author characterizes opposing teachers as "patronizing" without addressing their actual concerns |
| 6 | B. Ad hominem - attacking the character of those who disagree
Calling opponents "patronizing" attacks their attitude rather than engaging with whether their concern is valid. |
| 7 | B. Reframing the debate to make opposition seem cowardly |
| 8 | B. Data from schools that have actually implemented student evaluations at the K-12 level |
| 9 | See rubric and sample response below. |
| 10 | See rubric and sample response below. |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 2 | Identifies at least 2 specific strengths AND 2 specific weaknesses with textual support |
| 1 | Identifies strengths and weaknesses but lacks specificity or textual support |
| 0 | Fails to meaningfully identify both strengths and weaknesses |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 2 | Suggests at least 2 specific, actionable improvements with clear explanations of why they would strengthen the argument |
| 1 | Suggestions are vague or lack explanation of why they would help |
| 0 | Fails to provide meaningful improvement suggestions |