Writing Standards: Writing Arguments with Evidence and Counterclaims (CCSS.W.9-10.1)
Help Questions
Common Core High School ELA › Writing Standards: Writing Arguments with Evidence and Counterclaims (CCSS.W.9-10.1)
Schools should limit smartphone use during instructional time because phones distract students and can harm learning. When notifications buzz, it is almost impossible to focus, and everyone knows scrolling during lectures makes it harder to remember information. Some teachers say phones can be used for quick research, but that usually turns into social media. One survey I saw said a lot of students admit they look at their phones in class, which proves phones are a problem. If schools simply post signs and tell students to put devices away, grades will go up and stress will go down. Also, parents can always call the office if there is an emergency, so we do not need phones out. Overall, strict limits on phones are common sense and will make classrooms calmer. This argument would be even stronger with a clear organization of reasons and evidence and by addressing how the policy would work in practice.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by improving evidence quality, logical reasoning, counterargument handling, or organization?
Insert a paragraph of student testimonials describing how much happier they felt the week their phones were confiscated during class.
Acknowledge that some teachers use phones for polls and exit tickets, then conclude that because phones sometimes support learning, schools should avoid any limits at all.
Integrate peer-reviewed evidence (e.g., a recent meta-analysis and a quasi-experimental study showing improved attention and achievement after in-school phone restrictions), then add a counterargument section that explains emergency contact procedures, accessibility accommodations, and teacher-directed academic uses within a structured policy. Reorganize the draft to present claim, reasons, evidence, counterargument, and conclusion.
Add a statistic that "90% of teens are addicted to phones" without a source and follow with rhetorical questions about whether students can ever be trusted again.
Explanation
Choice C strengthens the claim with credible research, clear policy details, and a fair counterargument section within a logical structure. A relies on emotion, B undermines the claim by eliminating limits entirely, and D uses an unsourced statistic and rhetoric instead of sound evidence.
Our city should ban single-use plastic bags to protect waterways. Plastic bags fly out of trash cans and end up everywhere, which feels wrong for a community that cares about parks. I've seen bags tangled in trees and near storm drains, and cleanup volunteers are frustrated. Some stores say customers like convenience, but convenience is not more important than nature. If we pass a ban, people will just bring reusable bags and the streets will be cleaner. A few nearby towns passed policies and said they were happy, so we should copy them. While this proposal points in a good direction, the argument relies on observations and values more than specific evidence. It would be stronger with data on litter reduction, costs, and how the policy would address concerns from low-income shoppers and small businesses. The organization could also be clearer about reasons, evidence, anticipated objections, and the concluding action.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by adding credible evidence, more logical reasoning, fair counterargument treatment, or improved organization?
Cite municipal waste audits and peer-reviewed lifecycle analyses showing bag bans reduce litter and microplastic loads in waterways; include city cost data for cleanup; then address equity by proposing free reusable-bag distribution and fee waivers for benefit recipients. Reorganize to present claim, reasons with evidence, counterarguments with solutions, and a concise conclusion.
Insert dramatic descriptions and photos of animals suffering from plastic, emphasizing how heartbreaking the situation is for families.
Argue that the ban will instantly create thousands of local green jobs, ensuring economic growth, without detailing mechanisms or timelines.
Counter that litter comes only from irresponsible individuals, so policy is pointless; therefore, the city should do nothing and merely scold people more.
Explanation
Choice A adds verifiable data, addresses equity and business concerns with concrete solutions, and clarifies structure. B relies on emotion, C overpromises with unsupported claims, and D presents a straw-man counterargument that dismisses policy without evidence.
Our district should pause the use of AI proctoring tools during online exams. These systems watch students through webcams and flag "suspicious" behavior, which feels invasive and unfair. Some reports claim they misidentify students who look away or have unstable internet, and that seems discriminatory. Cheating is a problem, but blanket surveillance is not the answer. Administrators argue the software is efficient, yet efficiency shouldn't override student rights. I read an article that said privacy matters to young people, so this policy sends the wrong message. The argument, however, would be stronger with concrete evidence about error rates, disparate impacts, and compliance with privacy laws, as well as reasonable alternatives for test integrity. It also needs a clearer structure that introduces the claim, develops reasons with sources, addresses counterarguments seriously, and ends with a practical recommendation the district could implement immediately.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument through credible evidence, logical reasoning, sound counterargument handling, and clearer organization?
Add a vivid story about one student who cried after being flagged and emphasize how frightening it felt.
Move the introduction to the end to create suspense, even if it separates reasons from evidence.
Concede that cheating is so severe that any surveillance is acceptable, and therefore privacy concerns should be ignored for now.
Incorporate independent evaluations (e.g., university and civil-liberties studies) documenting false-positive rates and disparate impact; reference applicable student data privacy requirements and vendor contracts; propose a pause paired with alternatives like authenticated question banks, open-note assessments, and proctored in-person makeups. Organize as claim, evidence, counterargument with mitigation, and conclusion.
Explanation
Choice D supplies credible studies, aligns reasoning with legal and policy constraints, proposes feasible alternatives, and structures the argument coherently. A is largely emotional, B weakens cohesion, and C undermines the claim by dismissing rights concerns.
The district should fund community-based heritage language programs so students can develop bilingualism and maintain cultural ties. Language connects families across generations, and losing it can feel like losing part of oneself. After school, many students want opportunities to practice with mentors from their communities, not just in standard classes. Critics might say budgets are tight, but investing in language is an investment in students' futures. I heard that bilingual students do better, which suggests the district would benefit. Still, this argument relies on values and general statements more than concrete support. It needs evidence about academic outcomes, graduation rates, and college readiness, as well as specifics about scheduling, staffing, and costs. It should also address concerns about time taken from core subjects by explaining how programs could be integrated without disruption. A more formal tone and clearer organization would help persuade a policy audience.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument with credible evidence, logical development, fair counterargument treatment, and coherent organization for a policy audience?
Add a rousing conclusion with slogans and exclamation points declaring that culture will always win if we just believe.
Cite longitudinal research on bilingual education showing gains in literacy and graduation outcomes; include district demographics to demonstrate need; present a cost breakdown with funding sources and a pilot schedule that avoids core-class conflicts. Address concerns about instructional time and equity by proposing opt-in evening or weekend cohorts with transportation support, then conclude with evaluation metrics.
Assert that without these programs, students' cultures will disappear within one year, proving immediate action is the only option.
Propose funding the programs by eliminating arts electives, emphasizing that languages matter more than other subjects.
Explanation
Choice B strengthens the argument with research, relevant data, concrete budgeting and scheduling, and a fair counterargument response, all in a formal, organized structure. A is purely rhetorical, C relies on hyperbole, and D creates a false trade-off that undermines audience concerns and the argument's ethics.
High schools should shift to later start times because adolescents learn better when they aren't forced to wake up before sunrise. Many students report feeling exhausted in first-period classes, and teachers notice more yawning than participation. Our community claims that changing bus routes and after-school schedules would be too complicated, but that argument overlooks student well-being. If we want learners to be alert, we should not set them up to fail by making them arrive when their bodies are still half-asleep. Some suggest teens should just go to bed earlier, yet homework, jobs, and family responsibilities often push bedtimes late. A later start would also help students who commute long distances. Ultimately, the purpose of school is learning, not sticking to a schedule designed decades ago. While there could be minor challenges, they seem manageable compared to the benefits of better focus and improved classroom behavior.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by adding credible evidence and addressing key counterarguments while maintaining a formal, organized structure?
Add a vivid anecdote: "Last week I was so tired I snapped at my mom and nearly fell asleep at a red light," to show how dangerous early starts feel.
Reorder the second and third paragraphs and add a rhetorical question: "Do we want sleepy students or successful scholars?" to make the opening more dramatic.
Incorporate research and logistics: "A policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics and a multi-district study found later start times increased attendance by 3–5% and reduced teen car crashes by double digits. Districts that coordinated bus routes and adjusted athletic schedules maintained participation rates. Therefore, adopting a later start, while planning transportation and activity shifts, aligns student health with operational feasibility."
Refute opponents by asserting: "If people truly cared about learning, they would stop making excuses and force earlier bedtimes instead of resisting change."
Explanation
Option C strengthens the claim with credible evidence and addresses logistical counterarguments, improving organization and tone. The other options rely on emotion, rhetoric, or dismissive reasoning that weakens the argument.
Our city should restrict single-use plastics because they clog waterways and harm wildlife. Anyone who has seen photos of ocean animals caught in plastic knows this is unacceptable. If we ban items like straws and bags, the problem will basically disappear, and our streets will look cleaner overnight. Businesses might complain about costs, but profit should not matter when the environment is at stake. People can just bring reusable bags and metal straws; it's not that hard. The city already runs a recycling program, so enforcement would be easy. We should pass a ban immediately, and if people forget their reusables, that's their fault. This is a moral issue, and moral issues don't need complicated plans. The longer we wait, the more plastics will pile up. A bold move now will send a message that our city cares about the planet and refuses to tolerate waste.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by adding relevant local evidence, addressing economic concerns, and improving the logical organization?
Add: "According to the city's most recent waste audit, single-use plastics make up a large share of litter in storm drains, and comparable cities saw measurable litter reductions within a year of targeted bans paired with education and exemptions for accessibility. A phased transition with small-business support and clear enforcement guidelines would reduce costs and increase compliance."
Add: "Sea turtles are adorable and tragic to imagine in danger, so we should act now before more cute animals suffer."
Add: "Global oil prices fluctuate frequently, proving plastic is unstable as a commodity, so any use of plastic is irrational."
Add: "Opponents are greedy polluters who hate nature, so their cost concerns can be ignored entirely."
Explanation
Option A introduces specific local data, realistic implementation, and addresses cost concerns, thereby improving reasoning and structure. The other options rely on emotion, irrelevance, or ad hominem attacks.
Schools increasingly use AI-assisted grading tools, but students deserve transparency about how these systems evaluate their work. Right now, algorithms can flag essays for tone or structure in ways that feel mysterious. If an AI can influence a grade, the student should know why. Some say proprietary technology prevents disclosure, yet keeping students in the dark erodes trust. I'm not saying we should forbid all AI; I'm saying invisible criteria are unfair. We should require that any AI used in grading be explained to students. Administrators argue that teachers oversee the process, but oversight is not the same as clarity. If we value fairness, we should demand more information. Releasing details about the entire codebase may be unrealistic, but opacity undermines learning. Our policy should promote responsible use, though it's hard to balance transparency and innovation without creating confusion.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by supplying credible evidence, clarifying the claim, and addressing a key counterargument?
Add: "If an algorithm can grade us, what's next—robots teaching empathy? That dystopia proves secret grading is wrong."
Add: "Anyone opposing transparency wants students to be ignorant, so their objections are not worth considering."
Add a long quote from a popular blog post by a tech influencer explaining why AI grading 'feels creepy,' to show the student perspective.
Add: "Peer-reviewed studies have documented algorithmic bias and error rates in automated scoring. A sound policy should require schools to disclose the model's purpose, the types of features it evaluates, known error ranges, and how human review can override AI outputs. To address proprietary concerns, districts can share audit summaries and validation results without revealing source code, thereby balancing transparency with intellectual property."
Explanation
Option D introduces credible research, clarifies what 'transparency' entails, and addresses proprietary concerns with a balanced solution, strengthening logic and organization. The other options rely on fear, ad hominem, or non-credible sources.
Our district should expand heritage language programs because they preserve culture and help students communicate with family members. These classes make school feel welcoming, which matters for belonging. While some worry about budgets, the district spends money on many things students don't remember anyway. If we offered more heritage courses, students would likely show more pride and maybe better grades. Critics say there aren't enough qualified teachers, but we can find them if we try. The community also hosts cultural events that show interest in language learning, so the demand is there. A larger program could even make our district look more innovative to colleges. This is a chance to do something that feels right and celebrates diversity. The costs would pay off somehow. We should expand next year and figure out the details as we go, because waiting only delays benefits for students who are ready now.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument by providing credible evidence, addressing resource concerns, and improving organization and tone?
Add: "Our school hosts amazing cultural festivals that everyone loves, which proves heritage classes create joy and should be expanded immediately."
Add: "A longitudinal study of districts with heritage language programs found higher graduation and AP pass rates for bilingual students, controlling for prior achievement and socioeconomic status. A cost analysis showed per-pupil expenses comparable to elective courses. To address staffing and scheduling, the district could start with pilot sections and partner with local universities for credentialed instructors, phasing growth as enrollment data justify expansion."
Add: "Opponents are stuck in the past and don't care about diversity, so their budget excuses shouldn't be taken seriously."
Add: "A quick survey of my class showed 90% want heritage courses, which proves the entire district will benefit; therefore funding should be unlimited."
Explanation
Option B strengthens the claim with research, a realistic cost frame, and feasible implementation steps, maintaining formal tone. The other options rely on emotion, dismissive language, or weak, overgeneralized evidence.
Our city should ban single-use plastic bags because they clutter streets and harm wildlife. I often see bags tangled in trees or blowing across parking lots, and it is obvious they don't just disappear. Residents want cleaner neighborhoods, and a ban is a clear way to signal that we care. Some argue that a ban is inconvenient or that paper bags are worse for the environment, but small inconveniences are worth it if they make our city greener. Plus, stores can switch to other options and people can bring their own. A ban would show leadership and push people toward better habits. Other places have done similar things and seem fine. While the specifics would need to be worked out later, we should pass the ban soon so people can start adjusting and the city can get ahead of mounting waste before it becomes even more of an eyesore.
Which revision would most effectively strengthen this argument through better evidence, reasoning, counterargument handling, or organization?
Add dramatic photos of littered beaches and describe sea animals in distress to stir readers' emotions, then repeat the call to act immediately.
Characterize opponents as people who hate nature and prefer trash everywhere, and argue that any alternative to plastic must be perfect to be acceptable.
Insert a statistic from an unverified blog claiming a 100% drop in waste after bans, while removing the paragraph that acknowledges concerns about paper bags.
Include comparative evidence from multiple cities showing measurable reductions in litter and storm-drain blockages after bag bans; address equity by proposing free or low-cost reusable bags and exemptions for certain uses; clarify organization by presenting claim, reasons with credible sources, counterclaim, and a reasoned rebuttal before the conclusion.
Explanation
Choice D adds credible comparative evidence, anticipates equity and environmental counterarguments, and improves structure. The others rely on emotion, straw men, or unreliable data that weakens the case.
A major tech company's AI ethics charter promises transparency, fairness, and accountability, but the document's commitments are too vague to guide real oversight. It says systems will be transparent, yet it does not explain what information will be shared or when. The charter also claims it will avoid bias, but offers no clear process for measuring or correcting it. Supporters might argue that the charter must be flexible to adapt to changing technology. Flexibility is important, but flexibility without specificity can become a way to avoid responsibility. Without concrete standards, the public cannot evaluate whether the company follows through. The company should revise the charter to make its promises measurable so outside reviewers can check progress. Vague statements might sound inspiring, but they leave stakeholders guessing, and guessing is not the same as accountability in areas that affect hiring, lending, and public safety.
Which revision would most effectively strengthen this argument through better evidence, reasoning, counterargument handling, or organization?
Quote or paraphrase specific clauses from the charter's transparency and fairness sections; define what counts as an audit, disclosure timeline, and bias metric; reference accepted external standards for auditing; then acknowledge the need to protect trade secrets while arguing for tiered disclosures that balance innovation with accountability, and reorganize to present claim, text evidence, counterclaim, and rebuttal before concluding.
Add sarcastic remarks about how corporations never tell the truth, and assert that any ethical promise is automatically meaningless.
Remove the counterargument about flexibility to tighten the focus, and expand the final paragraph with more repeated statements that vagueness is bad.
Insert highly technical jargon about machine learning models without connecting it to the charter's language, and demand full public release of all source code as the only acceptable solution.
Explanation
Choice A grounds the critique in precise text evidence, uses clear definitions and external standards, and addresses a reasonable counterargument. The others rely on sarcasm, omission, or impractical claims.