Incorporate Counterarguments Into Claim Construction Practice Test
•15 QuestionsRead 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.
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.