Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

In my town, the school board is considering starting the high school one hour later next year. Supporters point to a district survey in which 62% of students reported getting fewer than seven hours of sleep on school nights, and the nurse’s office logged a 18% increase in stress-related visits during first period compared with last year. The board also circulated a memo noting that neighboring districts that shifted start times later saw fewer tardies. These numbers make the decision feel obvious: if we want students to learn, we should stop scheduling school as if teenagers have the same sleep cycles as adults.

The main reason to move the bell later is academic performance. When students are exhausted, they don’t “power through”; they stare at the board and copy notes they won’t remember. A later start would make first period a real class instead of a warm-up for consciousness. If we claim school is about learning, then we should align the schedule with basic biology. It’s not radical to say that a student who has slept is more prepared to read, write, and think.

A later start time would also improve safety. Drowsy driving is a real risk for teens, especially those who commute from rural roads. If the district can reduce even a few near-misses by letting students wake up naturally, that is worth more than maintaining an “efficient” morning routine. We make huge investments in security cameras and ID badges, but we ignore a simple change that reduces danger before students even arrive.

Some people argue that changing the schedule would be inconvenient for families, but inconvenience is not a serious reason to keep a harmful system. If parents truly cared about their children’s success, they would adjust their routines instead of demanding that students adjust their brains. The district should adopt a later start time because it would improve learning and safety, and we should not let adult calendars outweigh student health.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

My school is deciding whether to require a semester-long personal finance course for graduation. The proposal comes after a student government poll found that 58% of seniors feel “not at all prepared” to manage a credit card, and a local credit union reported that first-time overdraft fees are one of the most common charges for new account holders under twenty. If we can require chemistry and geometry, we can require basic financial literacy.

A personal finance course would give students practical tools. Budgeting, taxes, interest, and loans aren’t “adult problems”; they become student problems the moment someone signs a lease or accepts a college loan package. Schools claim to prepare students for life, yet we often treat money as a taboo topic. Teaching financial concepts explicitly would prevent expensive mistakes and reduce stress.

The course would also make school more equitable. Students with financially savvy parents already get informal lessons at home, while others are left to learn through trial and error. A required class would level the playing field by ensuring everyone receives the same foundational information. It’s unfair that some students graduate knowing how compound interest works and others don’t.

Critics argue that the schedule is already crowded and that adding a requirement will push out electives like art or choir. But electives are optional for a reason, and students can always take them outside of school. Therefore, the finance class should be required.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

Colleges should stop requiring standardized test scores for admission. In a recent admissions newsletter, a regional university reported that applicants from higher-income zip codes submitted test scores at nearly twice the rate of applicants from lower-income zip codes, which suggests that access to prep resources shapes who even feels confident enough to test. The same newsletter noted that first-year GPA correlated more strongly with high school course rigor than with test scores. If colleges say they value potential, they should evaluate students based on what they actually did over four years.

Test-optional policies make admissions fairer. A single Saturday morning should not outweigh years of consistent work, especially when some students have tutors and others have jobs. Removing the requirement would reduce stress and encourage students to apply to colleges that fit them rather than colleges that fit their test scores. It would also reduce the incentive to treat education like a game of strategies.

Test requirements also narrow what schools teach. When tests dominate, students and teachers feel pressured to practice test formats instead of reading deeply or writing creatively. Education becomes less about curiosity and more about coaching. If colleges truly want thinkers, they should stop rewarding test-taking.

Some people argue that tests provide an objective comparison across schools with different grading standards. But grades already show who worked hard, so we don’t need another metric. Colleges should eliminate test requirements.

Question: Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert one sentence immediately after the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

School districts should limit student smartphone use during the school day. In a teacher survey conducted in my district, 76% of respondents said phones are the most common distraction in class, and the assistant principal reported that hallway conflicts often start with social media posts made during lunch. Even students admit it: in a student newspaper poll, more than half said they check their phones “at least every 10 minutes” during school. A device that constantly interrupts attention is not compatible with sustained learning.

Limiting phones would improve focus. Students cannot practice deep reading or complex problem-solving while their pockets vibrate with notifications. A phone ban is not about controlling students; it is about creating an environment where thinking is possible. Schools already set rules for behavior that affects others, and constant phone use affects everyone in the room.

Restrictions would also reduce cheating and conflict. When phones are available, it is easier to photograph tests or coordinate answers. It is also easier to record classmates without consent and spread rumors instantly. If schools want to protect students, they should reduce the tool that amplifies drama.

Some parents argue that they need to reach their children quickly during emergencies. That argument is overblown because the office can always call home if something happens. Schools should implement phone-free classrooms and hold the line.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

My city is deciding whether to install speed cameras in school zones. According to the transportation department, 41% of drivers exceed the speed limit in school zones during morning drop-off, and the police department reports that only a small fraction of those violations result in tickets because officers can’t be everywhere at once. Meanwhile, the PTA has documented multiple near-misses at two crosswalks where visibility is poor. If we are serious about child safety, we need consistent enforcement.

Speed cameras would deter speeding because they make consequences predictable. Right now, many drivers gamble that they won’t see an officer, and they win that gamble most days. Cameras change the calculation. When drivers know they will be fined, they slow down, and the safest accident is the one that never happens.

Cameras also reduce biased enforcement. When an officer decides whom to stop, personal judgment can shape outcomes, even unintentionally. A camera records speed, not appearance. If the goal is fairness and safety, automated enforcement is more consistent than sporadic traffic stops.

Some residents argue that speed cameras are a “cash grab” and that the city should fix road design instead. That’s just a slogan people use when they don’t like accountability. The city should install speed cameras in school zones immediately.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.​

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

Our county library is considering eliminating late fees for all materials. The proposal comes after a staff report showed that 72% of outstanding fees are under $10, yet those small balances account for most blocked accounts. In other words, the library is spending staff time chasing tiny debts while keeping people—especially kids—from borrowing books. Meanwhile, nearby counties that removed late fees reported increased returns and higher circulation.

Late fees were originally meant to teach responsibility, but in practice they teach avoidance. When someone owes $6, they don’t come in to pay it; they stop coming in at all. The library becomes a place that punishes people for being late instead of a place that helps them learn. If the mission is literacy and access, locking out patrons over pocket change contradicts that mission.

Removing fees would also make the library more efficient. Staff could focus on programming and helping patrons instead of printing notices and taking payments. The library already has ways to encourage returns, such as replacement charges for items that are truly lost. Eliminating late fees doesn’t mean eliminating accountability; it means using consequences that make sense.

Some residents argue that without late fees, people will never bring items back. That fear is basically just speculation, and it shouldn’t dictate policy. The county should remove late fees and prioritize access over petty penalties.

Question: Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert one sentence immediately after the bolded sentence.​

Read the student essay excerpt below, then answer the question.

A growing number of colleges are bringing back required physical education credits. At first, this sounds old-fashioned, but it is exactly what students need. College life often means long hours sitting in lectures, studying in libraries, and scrolling on phones in dorm rooms. Meanwhile, anxiety and depression rates have risen on campuses, and movement is one of the simplest, cheapest ways to improve mood and sleep. A one-credit fitness requirement would not turn anyone into an athlete; it would simply push students to build a routine, like learning to cook or manage time.

Opponents complain that college is for academics, not “mandatory gym class.” But that argument treats the mind as if it floats separate from the body. If students can’t handle one hour a week of movement, they aren’t ready for adulthood.

Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert after the bolded sentence.

Read the student essay excerpt below, then answer the question.

The district is considering starting school at 8:45 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m. This later start time would improve learning because teenagers’ sleep cycles shift naturally, making early mornings especially punishing. When students are tired, they don’t just yawn; they retain less, behave worse, and rely on caffeine to get through the day. If we claim we care about academic achievement, we should align schedules with basic biology.

Some parents argue that later start times disrupt childcare and after-school sports. While those concerns are understandable, they are not unsolvable. Districts can adjust bus routes, coordinate with community centers for morning supervision, and shift practice times slightly.

Honestly, the people who oppose later start times care more about convenience than kids.

Which revision would best incorporate the opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Read the student essay excerpt below, then answer the question.

In my town, the school board is considering replacing most printed textbooks with district-issued tablets. Supporters say tablets will “modernize learning” and save money. But the board’s own budget memo admits the district would spend $420,000 up front on devices and repairs, while printed textbook replacement typically costs about $110,000 per year. Even if the numbers break even after a few years, the real issue is what students lose when everything becomes a screen. Studies from child development researchers have repeatedly linked heavy screen exposure to reduced attention spans, and anyone who has watched a class of teenagers knows that a device is not just a “learning tool”—it is also a portal to distractions. If the district truly wants better learning, it should invest in smaller class sizes and updated libraries rather than betting on fragile technology.

Some people argue that tablets are lighter and more convenient than backpacks full of books, but that is just a minor comfort compared to the academic cost. The board should vote no on the tablet plan and keep printed textbooks as the default classroom resource.

Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert after the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage and answer the question.

Museums often charge admission fees, but many are funded partly by public money and donations. In my state, the largest art museum receives a yearly city subsidy and still charges $18 per adult. That price makes a “public” institution feel like a private club. Museums should offer free general admission, at least one major day each week, because access to art and history should not depend on someone’s wallet.

Free admission would increase attendance and strengthen community ties. Families could visit casually instead of treating the museum like a rare splurge. Students could return multiple times for projects. When people interact with exhibits more often, they build cultural knowledge and civic pride.

Some administrators claim fees are necessary for operations, but museums already fundraise aggressively and run gift shops, cafes, and special ticketed exhibits. If the goal is education, then the basic door should not be paywalled. A weekly free day is a reasonable compromise that still allows museums to earn revenue on other days.

Honestly, the “we need admission fees” argument is just an excuse to keep museums elite. Museums should stop pretending they are inclusive while charging families at the entrance.

Which aspect of the passage most limits the author’s engagement with opposing perspectives?