Writing Standards: Informative and Explanatory Writing (CCSS.W.9-10.2)
Help Questions
Common Core High School ELA › Writing Standards: Informative and Explanatory Writing (CCSS.W.9-10.2)
Photosynthesis is something plants do with light, and cellular respiration is something cells do with oxygen, and both of these are important in life and the environment. In one case, sugar is made, but sometimes energy is released, and this relates to cycles like carbon. Chloroplasts and mitochondria are involved, but when thinking about ecosystems and the atmosphere, it gets confusing because there are organisms that do both, and then there are decomposers too. The process depends on sunlight and temperature and what organisms are present, and also water and nutrients, but not always in the same way. There is also a connection to climate change because carbon dioxide is used or produced, which matters globally somehow. It's not always clear which one happens more, or when, and in different ecosystems there are different outcomes, so it is complicated to explain all at once without making distinctions.
Which revision would best improve the text's ability to examine and convey the complex relationship between photosynthesis and cellular respiration?
Introduce a clear organizing framework that first defines each process, then uses headings such as "Inputs and Outputs," "Energy Transformations," and "Ecosystem Scale," adding precise terms (e.g., chloroplast, ATP, net primary productivity) and transitions to explain how the processes interlock in the carbon cycle across organism, ecosystem, and global levels.
Add a paragraph describing how a home garden grows faster in summer, including a personal anecdote about watering routines and taste differences in tomatoes.
Reorder the paragraphs so mitochondria are described before chloroplasts, without changing explanations or adding connections among cellular, ecosystem, and global scales.
Replace most of the discussion with a one-sentence definition stating that photosynthesis makes food and respiration uses it, because readers do not need details to understand the basic idea.
Explanation
Choice A improves organization and development by defining terms, structuring sections, adding precise vocabulary, and using transitions to clarify the interlocking processes across scales. The other options add anecdotes, disrupt flow, or oversimplify the complexity.
The fall of Rome happened, but not for a single reason, and it wasn't instant. There were emperors and taxes and soldiers, and people were invading, and also there were problems inside. Sometimes the economy wasn't working right and coinage changed, and there were disagreements in leadership and religious differences, and the size of the empire made things slow. Aqueducts and roads still existed, yet cities changed and some places declined while others adapted, which shows things were complicated and not the same everywhere. The Goths are mentioned a lot, and so are the Huns, and the borders moved, and there were famines and maybe diseases. Some historians say it was continuity and not collapse, which is another angle. With all this, it's tricky to say what caused what, or how the parts fit, and the timeline is crowded with events that don't obviously link together.
Which revision would best help readers understand the complex causes and patterns surrounding the fall of Rome?
Add more dates and names of emperors throughout the passage to show how many things were happening during the period.
Reshuffle the sentences into strict chronological order from earliest emperor to latest, without adding analysis of relationships among factors.
Frame the revision with an analytical structure that distinguishes internal (economic instability, political fragmentation, administrative scale) from external pressures (migrations, military incursions, environmental shocks), define the geographic scope (Western Empire), and use transitions to trace cause-and-effect links with specific evidence before concluding with historiographical interpretations of continuity versus collapse.
Reduce the discussion to a single main cause by stating that invading groups destroyed Rome, which keeps the explanation simple and easy to remember.
Explanation
Choice C provides an analytical framework, clarifies scope, uses transitions, and develops evidence to explain relationships among complex causes. The other choices only add names, rely on chronology alone, or oversimplify the issue.
Online platforms show people content and then users keep seeing similar things later, which can be because of what they clicked or watched, but also advertising and time of day and how popular something is. An algorithm is involved, but the text makes it sound almost automatic without explaining the steps or what data even goes in or comes out. It's said that people get into bubbles, but maybe they just like what they like, or maybe the platform wants engagement, and the wording blends these together. The writing also shifts to business models and then back to behavior, which is confusing. There is a mention of a study, but no details, and the terms are not defined consistently. The result is that the causal pathway from a person's action to what they see later is unclear, and there is not a firm sense of how different signals matter.
Which revision most improves the text's ability to explain how recommendation systems shape what users see over time?
Insert a list of popular platforms that use recommendations and add current user counts to show how widespread the technology is.
Define "recommender system," briefly outline the mechanism (input signals like clicks and watch time → model inference → ranking/feedback loop), use precise terms (training data, relevance, engagement), add a concise example that traces one user action to subsequent content exposure, and employ transitions to clarify correlation versus causation before concluding with implications for information diversity.
Move the reference to the study from the middle to the end without changing any definitions or adding explanation of the system's steps.
Replace the explanation with a single statistic about increased screen time to illustrate the overall effect without getting into technical details.
Explanation
Choice B adds definitions, a clear mechanism, precise vocabulary, transitions, and a concrete example that clarifies causal relationships, thereby improving explanatory clarity. The other options add scope without explanation, make superficial rearrangements, or oversimplify.
Network effects are when things get more popular because more people use them, which is like virality, but also kind of about size and cost savings, and platforms get big. With ride-hailing apps, more drivers mean more riders, and then prices change and wait times change, but also marketing matters and the brand, so it's hard to separate. Sometimes the product is better with more people, but not always, because there can be congestion, and switching can be hard, and standards show up. The writing here mixes economies of scale with network effects and doesn't specify the difference. It also jumps from local cities to global markets without explaining how one level leads to the other. Examples are mentioned but not developed, and the conclusion just repeats that it's complicated without saying why or what the key relationships are.
Which revision would most clearly examine the complexity of network effects in platform markets?
Open with a personal story about trying a new app with friends, then describe how everyone joined after a weekend trip because it seemed fun.
Organize the discussion by brand (one app per paragraph) and compare their advertising campaigns without defining key economic terms.
Simplify the concept to "more users equals better" and remove mention of congestion, lock-in, or multi-sided dynamics to avoid confusing readers.
Begin with a precise definition that distinguishes network effects from economies of scale, develop subsections on direct and indirect network effects, use a step-by-step ride-hailing example (drivers ↔ riders ↔ wait times/prices) to show feedback loops, and add transitions from city-level dynamics to national dominance and lock-in before concluding with conditions when network effects can backfire.
Explanation
Choice D uses precise definitions, a clear organizational scheme, concrete examples, and logical transitions to analyze feedback loops and limits, improving clarity and development. The other options are anecdotal, brand-focused without analysis, or oversimplify the concept.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is presented as a solution to rising emissions, but the way it operates, where it fits, and whether it works are difficult to see in the current discussion. Factories and power plants release carbon dioxide, and there are machines that take it out of flue gas, and sometimes people talk about minerals underground or in basalts, and there is also "direct air capture." Some of these ideas cost a lot and involve pipelines, yet other ideas say the best approach is just to plant trees, which is different. In debates, numbers like tons and percentages appear without the same baselines. There are also concerns about leaks but not every source explains the chemistry or the reason that storing carbon in rock is permanent compared to other things. Renewable energy shows up in the argument too, even though it is an alternative rather than the same process.
Which revision would best help this draft clearly examine and convey the complex ideas and relationships surrounding CCS?
Add a paragraph listing the top ten emitters by country and a brief history of coal-fired power.
Define CCS up front, then organize the draft into capture (post-combustion vs. direct air), transport, and storage sections with brief explanations of the underlying chemistry and risk; use consistent baselines for cost and $\text{CO}_2$ removed; add a simple figure showing the flow from source to reservoir; finish by comparing CCS to renewables using the same criteria.
Move the discussion of leaks to the first sentence and end with an anecdote about a tree-planting day to make the tone more personal.
Replace technical terms with simpler words and combine everything into one paragraph to keep the pace brisk.
Explanation
Option B improves organization with clear sections, defines key terms, explains mechanisms, uses consistent comparisons, and adds a clarifying figure—enhancing the text's ability to analyze and convey complexity.
After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles affected Germany, which is often described as a cause of World War II, but the connections are not always described in a way that shows how the steps move. The treaty had many parts like reparations, territory, the League of Nations, and military limits, and people at the time disagreed about it. There were elections and economic issues like inflation, and some leaders used speeches about national pride. In textbooks, clauses like Article 231 are mentioned, but it is not clear why that would change voters' ideas or production in factories or diplomacy. Meanwhile, other countries also had treaties, and there were border changes that did not get the same attention. When people say "it created resentment," the term can mean many things: anger, or policies, or something about culture, and then the 1930s global depression arrives and is treated as a separate event.
Which revision best strengthens the draft's explanatory analysis of how the Treaty of Versailles contributed to later conflict?
Insert quotations from three front-line soldiers about trench conditions to show how war felt to individuals.
Move the League of Nations critique to the concluding sentence and pose a rhetorical question about whether the treaty was fair.
Shorten the discussion by stating that the treaty directly caused World War II and remove exceptions and other countries.
Introduce a clear thesis that the treaty destabilized the interwar order through economic burdens, political humiliation, and strategic constraints; define each mechanism, trace causal links from specific clauses (reparations schedules, Article 231, demilitarized zones) to voter behavior, industrial output, and diplomacy with dated examples; add transitions that mark sequence and interaction; conclude by weighing the role of the global depression.
Explanation
Option D provides an analytical framework, defines mechanisms, traces cause-and-effect with evidence and transitions, and situates the treaty among other factors, thereby clarifying complex relationships.
Blockchain is discussed in supply chains as a way to make things transparent, but the meanings and mechanisms blur together with examples, which makes it hard to tell what problem is being solved. For coffee beans, there is a story about scanning bags and following them, and then medical devices show up when someone mentions recalls, and it switches to tokens and mining without explaining how records are written. A phrase like "immutability" appears, but then the text brings up barcodes and cloud spreadsheets, and it is unclear whether those are the same kind of database. There are also costs, yet sometimes costs are called investment or just technology. People say fraud decreases if you put data on a chain, but there is little about who types the data or whether a mistake can be corrected. Speed is said to improve, but shipping time and server time are not separated.
Which revision would most effectively organize and develop this draft to explain how blockchain affects supply chains?
Start with a precise definition of blockchain and how blocks link via hashes; explain why records are append-only; then apply this mechanism to two traced scenarios (coffee beans and medical device recalls) showing who inputs data and how verification works; include a comparison table for transparency, cost, and speed; acknowledge limits such as data-entry errors and scalability; conclude with implications for accountability.
Add a sidebar about cryptocurrency price swings to show how volatility affects investor excitement.
Lead with the coffee story in narrative form, move technical explanations to an appendix, and drop the section on immutability to avoid jargon.
Replace domain-specific terms with everyday language and remove case studies so the overview is not too detailed.
Explanation
Option A introduces clear concepts, explains mechanisms, applies them in structured case studies, uses comparative support, and treats limitations—improving clarity and analytical depth.
Gentrification is often described as neighborhood change with new shops, rising rents, and differences in who lives there, but the explanations shift between stories and numbers in a way that doesn't show how the pieces connect. One person mentions a cafe and another mentions eviction court filings, and sometimes a map is shown while talking about architecture, and the property tax discussion arrives later with a budget anecdote. It is not clear whether displacement is being measured or only assumed, and the time frame ranges from a few months to several decades without a reason. Some readers want to know whether schools or parks change, but the examples jump to tourism or art festivals. When investors are mentioned, the text moves to interest rates briefly and then to community meetings, but it does not link those to rent burdens or what benefits, if any, stay with long-term residents.
Which revision best clarifies and develops the complex relationships in this draft about gentrification?
Add interview excerpts from one rapidly changing neighborhood to illustrate residents' feelings, without altering structure.
Present facts strictly in chronological order from the first coffee shop opening to the latest rent report to clarify sequence.
Frame the analysis around three effects—displacement, amenity change, and tax-base shifts—define each, use transitions that mark cause and correlation, incorporate a simple map graphic of rent changes by tract to support claims, and close by linking policy tools (rent stabilization, inclusionary zoning) to those effects.
Condense the draft to under 100 words by removing most data and focusing on general impressions.
Explanation
Option C imposes a clear analytical structure, defines key concepts, integrates appropriate evidence and visuals, and connects findings to implications, strengthening explanatory coherence.
CRISPR is sometimes called molecular scissors that cut DNA, which sounds simple, but it's also about ethics, and people worry about designer babies. In bacteria, something happens with sequences that remember viruses, although not everyone agrees how this changes public policy yet. One paper mentions Cas9 and guides, and also patents and agriculture benefits, and that is important because crops could be made resilient while diseases might be cured in humans, although off-target effects are a thing that happens and regulation is different in countries. The process has steps, but it can be explained as just cutting and pasting, and then there's a debate about whether somatic editing is okay, but germline editing is another topic that raises questions. Overall, gene editing is powerful. People should think about it thoughtfully since many stakeholders are involved and there are technical issues like mosaicism, but the main idea is science moves fast.
Which revision most improves this draft's ability to examine and convey its complex ideas about CRISPR?
Add statistics about how many labs use CRISPR and a paragraph summarizing famous patent lawsuits.
Open with the ethical debate and conclude with a brief mention of what CRISPR is to keep readers engaged.
Define CRISPR, Cas9, and guide RNA up front; separate "How It Works" from "Applications and Ethics" with clear transitions; explain off-target effects vs. mosaicism and distinguish somatic vs. germline editing; end with a conclusion that weighs benefits against risks.
Simplify by stating that CRISPR can be good or bad depending on rules, avoiding technical details to keep it accessible.
Explanation
Option C improves organization with clear sections, defines key terms, and analyzes technical and ethical distinctions, helping readers grasp complex mechanisms and trade-offs.
Historians talk about the fall of the Roman Republic as if it happened quickly when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but the Republic also had laws and assemblies and farms and money problems, which didn't always get fixed. Populares and optimates disagreed, but citizens did military service and later armies became loyal to generals more than the state, which connects to land redistribution proposals that were controversial. Sulla, Gracchi, and Pompey are names that appear, and corruption is mentioned, but also festivals and the size of the empire, which made governing harder and sometimes better. Senators argued; also, there were external wars and triumphs and then civil wars, and there were reforms that partly worked. People sometimes compare it to democracies now, which is interesting, but the real cause is hard to say because there are many. The Republic ended and became an empire, although some institutions stayed around anyway.
Which revision best clarifies the complex causes and relationships behind the fall of the Roman Republic?
Organize by distinguishing long-term structural pressures (land inequality, patronage, military reform) from short-term triggers (Caesar's march), using headings and transitions; define populares/optimates; explain the shift in legion loyalty; conclude with implications for republican governance.
Open with a detailed narrative of Caesar's assassination and then jump back to the Gracchi without transitions, removing most discussion of institutions.
Add vivid descriptions of festivals and public architecture to provide a richer sense of Roman life.
Reduce the argument to the maxim that "power corrupts," framing the fall as an inevitable moral decline.
Explanation
Option A improves explanatory clarity by structuring causes, defining key terms, and analyzing relationships, enabling readers to see how factors interacted over time.