Writing Standards: Informative and Explanatory Writing with Complexity (CCSS.W.11-12.2)
Help Questions
Common Core High School ELA › Writing Standards: Informative and Explanatory Writing with Complexity (CCSS.W.11-12.2)
CRISPR is often explained as molecular scissors that can change DNA, which makes it sound straightforward, but most discussions jump between examples without making clear how the pieces fit together. Some labs talk about editing cells in a dish, others mention attempts in the body, and then there are questions about using edits in embryos. Delivery methods like viral vectors and nanoparticles come up, yet their pros and cons are scattered across articles, so it is not obvious why one is chosen over another. Off-target effects are repeatedly mentioned but not in a way that connects measurement techniques with decisions about clinical risk. There are also ethical boards and international statements, but it is unclear how those policies interact with scientific choices. A reader can tell the topic is complicated, with diseases like sickle cell discussed in passing, but the path from identifying a mutation to deciding whether and how to edit it is not laid out in a sequence that shows causes, trade-offs, and implications.
Which revision would best improve the draft's ability to examine and convey the complexity of CRISPR by offering clearer organization, fuller development, and an advanced analytical framework?
Add a compelling patient anecdote describing personal experiences with a clinical trial to make the topic feel more human and engaging.
Open with a paragraph on risks and then alternate every paragraph between risks and benefits to present a balanced view without added definitions.
Insert a detailed list of newer Cas variants and recent publications to demonstrate cutting-edge progress and broaden the evidence base.
Reorganize around a clear process framework (target selection → editing strategy → delivery trade-offs → off-target quantification → regulatory/ethical tiers), define terms like germline vs. somatic and off-target effects, add transitions that explain why each step leads to the next, and incorporate a brief comparative table of delivery options to clarify relationships before concluding with implications for clinical decision-making.
Explanation
Choice D adds a process-based organizing framework, key definitions, purposeful transitions, and a clarifying graphic, thereby developing and explaining complex relationships at a sophisticated level. The other options add interest (A), disrupt logical cohesion (B), or pile on details without clarifying conceptual structure (C).
Quantum computing is said to break encryption, but explanations often switch between hardware and math without explaining the bridge. There are qubits and superposition and then suddenly Shor's algorithm, and somewhere error correction appears, but the reader does not see how noise rates relate to the possibility of factoring large numbers. Meanwhile, some say current devices are too small, but the discussion does not explain why scale matters differently for different algorithms. Classical computers are sometimes contrasted with quantum ones, though the comparison is usually just that one is faster for some problems. The text often lumps together simulation of molecules, search, and cryptography as if they shared the same requirements. It is also not clear how assumptions about adversaries influence claims about risk timelines. There is a lot of vocabulary (coherence time, logical qubits), but the relations among them are assumed rather than shown. The result is a sense of potential without a structure that clarifies what depends on what.
Which revision most effectively organizes and develops the draft to clarify the complex relationships among algorithms, hardware constraints, and cryptographic risk?
Introduce a three-part analytical map: (1) computational model and problem classes (what speedups mean and for which problems), (2) resource requirements from physical to logical qubits via error-correction thresholds, and (3) cryptographic implications under explicit adversary assumptions; add definitions and transitions that trace how noise and scaling determine when Shor's algorithm is practically threatening.
Add an extended section explaining the history of prime numbers and famous mathematicians to enrich the background before discussing encryption.
Reorder the draft to begin with hardware lab anecdotes, then present a glossary of terms, and finally conclude with a short paragraph on algorithms to provide variety.
Simplify by removing error correction and focusing only on the idea that quantum computers are much faster, emphasizing that speed is the main takeaway.
Explanation
Option A supplies a sophisticated organizing schema linking models, resources, and implications, with precise definitions and causal transitions. The others are historical but tangential (B), reorganize without clarifying conceptual dependencies (C), or oversimplify the complexity (D).
Carbon pricing is often presented as either a tax or cap-and-trade, but explanations usually repeat that both put a price on emissions without explaining how design choices change outcomes. People mention efficiency or fairness, yet the reasons that volatility, revenue use, and monitoring affect those goals are not clearly linked. Some descriptions jump from the social cost of carbon to political feasibility and then to offsets without transitions that show causality. Uncertainty is acknowledged, but there is little about how uncertainty in damages versus abatement costs suggests different policy tools. The text names border adjustments and leakage, though it is not obvious how those interact with domestic pricing. Examples from different countries are listed, but the comparisons are not aligned to a common set of criteria. The reader sees many moving parts but does not get a roadmap that traces mechanisms from externalities to instruments to outcomes.
Which revision best strengthens the draft's capacity to explain the complexity of carbon pricing through advanced organization and development?
Insert several case studies describing public reactions to gas prices to make the discussion more relatable and vivid.
Swap the order of paragraphs so that offsets are discussed first, followed by political feasibility and then the social cost of carbon, to keep readers engaged.
Adopt a comparative analytic framework with explicit criteria (efficiency under cost uncertainty, distributional effects via revenue recycling, price/path volatility, and leakage/border measures); define externalities and instrument mechanics, use transitions to map how each design choice advances or undermines each criterion, and conclude by synthesizing trade-offs for different policy contexts.
Add a long list of recent emissions statistics and projections to provide more quantitative depth, even if not tied to the main arguments.
Explanation
Choice C supplies a criterion-based framework, precise definitions, explicit transitions, and a synthesis of trade-offs—hallmarks of effective explanatory writing on complex policy instruments. The others add interest (A), disrupt logic (B), or increase data volume without clarifying relationships (D).
Explanations of the 2008 financial crisis often list many elements—housing, subprime loans, securitization, ratings, and shadow banking—but the links among them are not shown in an orderly way. Some accounts jump from mortgage brokers to global investors and then to central bank actions without indicating mechanisms that connect these steps. Repo markets are named in passing, while the idea of runs outside traditional banks is asserted rather than developed. Securitization is described as risk spreading, but there is little analysis of how tranching and opacity affected information and incentives. Liquidity is treated as a general shortage rather than a process that feeds on itself. Regulatory changes appear at the end with limited explanation of how they relate to the earlier problems. As a result, the crisis is a collection of factors, not a structured sequence that shows how the originate-to-distribute model and leverage interacted to produce a systemic event.
Which revision would most improve the draft's ability to convey the crisis's complexity through coherent organization, clear causal explanation, and thorough development?
Begin with a vivid narrative of a homeowner facing foreclosure to humanize the topic and then return to the broader financial system.
Impose a causal chain framework (originate-to-distribute incentives → securitization/tranching and information opacity → short-term wholesale funding and collateral dynamics → repo market runs and liquidity spirals), define shadow banking and leverage, add transitions that track feedback loops, incorporate a schematic timeline, and conclude with implications for macroprudential policy.
Rearrange the paragraphs alphabetically by key term (collateral, leverage, liquidity, repo, securitization) to standardize the terminology for readers.
Expand the section on central banks by adding historical anecdotes about earlier crises to make the discussion more comprehensive.
Explanation
Option B supplies a disciplined causal framework, precise definitions, transitions that make feedback mechanisms explicit, and a focused conclusion—improving organization and explanatory depth. The other choices are human-interest or historical add-ons (A, D) or organizational schemes that erode logic (C).
Quantum computers are said to need error correction because qubits are noisy, but the discussion often mixes what is physical and what is logical. People say more qubits mean more power, while others note decoherence ruins computations, and then there is mention of surface codes, thresholds, and magic-state factories. It is not always clear how these pieces fit. For instance, a device might claim fidelity numbers and gate sets, but without connecting those to an algorithm's depth or to the number of repetitions, the reader cannot see why an error-corrected machine is different from NISQ demonstrations. Another issue is resources: sometimes thousands of qubits are invoked for one logical qubit, but it is also said that algorithms like factoring scale differently, so the quantities appear arbitrary. The text jumps between physics, architecture, and applications without a clear path, so relationships blur: noise models relate to code choice, which relates to thresholds, which relates to overhead, which relates to feasibility timelines, but this is merely stated rather than explained.
Which revision most improves the draft's ability to examine and convey the complex relationships among noise, codes, and resources in quantum computing?
Reframe the draft around a staged explanatory pathway: define physical vs. logical qubits, explain noise models and the threshold theorem, then show how surface codes translate physical error rates into logical error rates and resource overhead; use transitions to link each stage and include one concise, worked resource estimate to illustrate scaling.
Add a section explaining classical parallelism, Moore's law slowdowns, and transistor miniaturization before returning to qubit noise, to provide broader computing context.
Resequence the draft chronologically, moving from early quantum algorithms to recent hardware announcements, allowing the reader to see historical milestones before technical definitions.
Streamline by removing discussion of thresholds and magic-state factories and emphasize that scaling to more qubits is the key, leaving details of error correction for later.
Explanation
Option A imposes a clear conceptual sequence with precise definitions, coherent transitions, and a concrete example, thereby clarifying intricate relationships. The other options add context, disrupt logic, or oversimplify the complexity.
The policy of putting a price on carbon is discussed as either a tax or a cap-and-trade system, but the way the arguments move around makes it difficult to see the trade-offs. One part notes efficiency, then jumps to politics, then to leakage where firms move, and later to who pays, and then to volatility, and after that it mentions revenue recycling like dividends or cutting other taxes. The difference between price certainty and quantity certainty is named without clarifying how uncertainty about damages or abatement costs matters. Permit allocation appears as free allowances versus auctions, but without showing how that connects to equity or to incentives. Measurement, reporting, and verification are said to be necessary, and offsets show up, but additionality is only named. The reader can't track a through-line: are we comparing criteria or telling a story of adoption? The relationships among design choices, distributional outcomes, and political durability are asserted rather than explained, and the order does not build conceptual clarity.
Which revision most strengthens the draft's college-level explanation of carbon pricing by organizing complex trade-offs and clarifying relationships?
Insert a detailed case study of one jurisdiction's auction design and list the exact number of permits per sector to make the policy feel concrete.
Reorganize by political chronology, narrating early European experiments before North American programs, saving definitions and criteria for an appendix.
Adopt a comparative analytical framework with three signposted criteria—efficiency, equity, and feasibility—define key terms (leakage, revenue recycling, additionality), and use parallel sections with transitions to contrast carbon taxes and cap-and-trade on each criterion, illustrated by one brief, relevant example per section.
Conclude with a moral appeal that climate change is urgent, so any carbon price is good, while trimming technical distinctions to avoid confusing readers.
Explanation
Option C introduces an explicit evaluative framework, defines domain-specific terms, and uses coherent comparison, improving organization and clarity of complex relationships. Others add tangents, disrupt logical structure, or oversimplify.
Predictive policing is described as software that looks at crime data and then informs patrols, but many parts are placed side by side without explaining causality. There is concern about bias because the data reflect policing patterns, not crime, and also about fairness metrics like equalized odds are briefly named, along with the base-rate problem, but then the text veers into dashboards and vendor secrecy. Feedback loops are referenced, where more patrols lead to more recorded incidents, yet the mechanisms remain cloudy: is the loop measurement error, deployment choice, or legal discretion? The piece mentions community trust and chilling effects and transparency mandates, but it is not clear how legal standards, technical metrics, and organizational incentives interact. The categories blur: data provenance, model training and evaluation, policy constraints, and oversight are all present, yet the reader lacks a structure to see how a change in one area alters the others. The text gestures at reform ideas without anchoring them in a coherent framework.
Which revision most improves the text's capacity to examine and convey the complex mechanisms and interactions in predictive policing?
Remove most technical terms and focus on a general claim that algorithms can be biased, keeping the tone conversational to increase accessibility.
Add a section on facial recognition accuracy debates to broaden the surveillance context before returning to patrol allocation.
Organize the draft around lengthy quotations from activists, vendors, and police chiefs to present multiple perspectives without synthesizing them.
Narrow scope to two core mechanisms—measurement bias and deployment feedback—define key terms, map a causal loop in prose (data collection → model → patrol allocation → observed incidents → data), and use transitions to show how legal standards and fairness metrics intervene at each step, illustrated with one concrete hotspot example.
Explanation
Option D sharpens focus, defines concepts, and traces causal relationships with clear transitions and a targeted example, yielding sophisticated explanatory coherence. The others either oversimplify, digress, or avoid analysis.
The Columbian Exchange is often framed as the transfer of crops, animals, and diseases across the Atlantic, and this draft lists many items, but it does not organize why some transfers became decisive. It mentions smallpox and demographic collapse in the Americas, then shifts to potatoes in Europe and population growth, then to horses reshaping mobility, and then to silver mining and labor coercion, and finally to sugar plantations and global trade routes. The connections are hinted at—disease opening space for colonial institutions, calorie gains enabling urbanization, ecological changes supporting extractive economies—but the argument does not stabilize into an analytic pattern. There is no periodization or geographic focus, so New Spain, the Andes, and the Caribbean appear interchangeably. Countervailing effects, like new vulnerabilities to famine or the role of local ecologies, are named but not explored. As a result, significance is asserted rather than derived from a clear chain of causation.
Which revision would best enhance the draft's sophisticated explanatory power about the Columbian Exchange's complex causal dynamics?
Expand the inventory of transferred species and foods, adding more examples from both hemispheres to show the Exchange's breadth.
Establish an analytic framework of ecological imperialism that links pathogens, staple crops, domesticated animals, and colonial institutions; periodize into early contact, consolidation, and integration; define key terms; and use transitions to trace causality from mortality shocks to labor regimes and market structures, with one brief counterexample to test the model.
Restructure by continent (Americas vs. Europe) so all New World effects precede Old World effects, without interweaving them.
Condense the argument to a single thesis that the Exchange was generally beneficial to the world despite disruptions, minimizing discussion of regional variation.
Explanation
Option B imposes a clear analytical model, precise definitions, and causal sequencing with attention to nuance, thereby clarifying complex relationships. The other options list, segregate, or overgeneralize rather than explain.
CRISPR is discussed as a gene-editing tool that changes DNA, but the explanation often mixes the scissors metaphor with policies, making it unclear how the steps connect to the consequences. Cas9 is guided by RNA to make cuts, and there are questions about off-target effects, and then clinical trials, and also agriculture applications that are not the same as germline editing. Some countries have moratoria and others encourage innovation, which has to do with different risk perceptions, although risk itself is described vaguely here. Another point is that editing efficiency varies by cell type, which matters for therapies, and ethical issues about consent or future generations are raised without specifying what kinds of uncertainty come from the molecular level versus the social level. The description of delivery methods like viral vectors appears before the part about why delivery changes specificity, so the reader must fill in the connection. Overall, the draft states many pieces but does not show a structured pathway through mechanism, uncertainty, and evaluation.
Which revision would most improve the draft's ability to examine and convey its complex ideas with clearer organization, stronger development, and an advanced analytical framework?
Open with a dramatic case study of a child's rare disease and intersperse brief reflections between the current technical and ethical paragraphs to make the topic more relatable.
Move the paragraph on regulatory differences to the beginning and follow it immediately with the delivery-methods paragraph, leaving the molecular steps and risk discussion for the end.
Establish a guiding thesis and organize the piece in three sections—mechanism (guide RNA, cleavage, repair pathways), sources of uncertainty (off-targets, delivery, mosaicism), and evaluation (therapeutic vs germline, consent, intergenerational risk)—with explicit transitions linking molecular uncertainties to ethical criteria; define domain-specific terms as introduced and end with a synthesis that articulates policy implications and remaining open questions.
Add an additional paragraph summarizing recent CRISPR news across medicine, agriculture, and basic research, highlighting international headlines and notable companies.
Explanation
Choice C provides a clear sequencing of mechanism, uncertainties, and evaluation, adds precise definitions, and uses transitions to link molecular details to ethical stakes, thereby improving organization and analytical clarity. The other options add interest or content but do not structure the complexity or clarify relationships.
Accounts of the Great Migration note that many Black southerners moved north, but the relationships among wages, terror, and culture are hard to follow when details show up out of sequence. Railroads and labor recruiters are mentioned, and later there is a discussion of redlining, while the timeline jumps from World War I to the 1960s and back to the Chicago Defender without indicating whether these are causes or consequences. Music appears as a symbol of change, but economic clustering and municipal policy are only partly defined, so the reader cannot sort household decisions from citywide effects. Housing covenants, factory shifts, and school segregation show up as examples, although it is not clear which ones belong to origin regions or to destinations. There is a claim about political influence in urban machines, but the linking logic between arrival neighborhoods and electoral coalitions is not set up. The piece asserts significance but does not explain how different scales and time periods interact to produce durable outcomes.
Which revision best improves the draft's ability to examine and convey complex ideas through stronger organization, clearer explanation of relationships, and fuller development?
Frame the analysis with a push–pull causal model and periodize the movement into distinct waves; define key terms such as redlining and agglomeration economies; then trace consequences at the household, neighborhood, and city scales with transitions signaling shifts in time and scope, concluding with a synthesis that explains how these levels interact.
Replace the causal analysis with a curated list of influential artists and venues, arranged by city, to showcase cultural vibrancy.
Reorganize the material alphabetically by states and neighborhoods to ease reference, treating causes and consequences together under each letter.
Add a comparative detour on European immigration flows to Northeast cities in the late nineteenth century, emphasizing port entries and quotas.
Explanation
Choice A supplies a causal framework, periodization, defined terms, and scale-based organization with transitions and a synthesizing conclusion, all of which clarify complex relationships. The other options either distract, disrupt logical flow, or substitute lists for analysis.