Response Skills: Reflecting On And Adjusting Responses As New Evidence Is Presented (TEKS.ELA.6.6.I)
Help Questions
Texas 6th Grade ELA › Response Skills: Reflecting On And Adjusting Responses As New Evidence Is Presented (TEKS.ELA.6.6.I)
At Jefferson Middle School, the student council proposed adding more recycling bins in hallways. In September, they presented a plan to the principal, explaining how bins could cut trash and save custodians time. Weeks went by with no visible changes. By November, some students were frustrated. The announcements still reminded everyone to recycle, but the number of bins stayed the same. At lunch, rumors spread that the principal did not think recycling mattered. A few council members wrote a letter urging faster action and posted a complaint on the school website. Winter break came and went with no update. Meanwhile, the art club was allowed to purchase new display cases quickly. The council compared that approval to their stalled request and felt ignored. They began drafting a petition to bring to the January family meeting, hoping parents would help persuade the principal to act on the proposal and finally add more bins around the building.
Student's initial response: The principal doesn't care about the environment and is ignoring the student council.
New evidence: At the January meeting, the principal shared an email thread showing the district asked the school to test a small pilot of two new bins near the cafeteria first, collect data on contamination, and then apply for a grant to fund the rest in the spring.
Which revised response best reflects the new evidence?
The principal should be replaced for ignoring student voices and refusing to add any recycling bins.
The principal appears to support recycling but had to follow a pilot-and-grant process, so the delay was to gather data and secure funding.
The principal secretly banned recycling at school and doesn't want students to know.
The student council should give up because recycling clearly isn't a priority for anyone.
Explanation
The new evidence shows the principal was following a district pilot and grant process, not refusing recycling. Choice B incorporates that information. The other options ignore or contradict the email and the plan to expand bins later.
Maya spotted her neighbor Mr. Lee's bike leaning against the fence. She had promised to water his plants while he was out of town. That afternoon, Maya's little brother twisted his ankle at the park two miles away. Their mom was at work and couldn't leave until her break. Maya paced their porch. The bus schedule showed a 25-minute wait. She pictured her brother sitting on the curb, wincing. The nearest clinic was several blocks from the park. The house phone had a low battery. Maya glanced again at the bike. She had seen Mr. Lee ride it many times. It looked sturdy and had a basket. She told herself it would only be for a short ride, just to get her brother to the clinic faster. She rolled the bike onto the sidewalk, hesitated, and then climbed on. Later, when she returned the bike, she left a Thank you! note on the fence and hurried back to check on the plants before the sun got too low.
Student's initial response: Maya was irresponsible for taking the bike without permission.
New evidence: A neighbor showed Maya's phone log. Maya had texted Mr. Lee explaining the emergency, and he quickly replied giving permission. Another neighbor confirmed seeing Maya return the bike carefully.
Which revised response best reflects the new evidence?
Maya is still irresponsible; emergencies never justify borrowing anything under any circumstances.
Maya never borrowed a bike at all; the whole story is made up.
Maya is selfish because owning a phone proves she didn't need help.
Maya handled a difficult situation reasonably: she got permission and acted quickly to help her brother, though leaving a clearer note could help next time.
Explanation
The new evidence shows Maya requested and received permission due to an emergency. Choice D updates the judgment to reflect that context. The other choices ignore the permission or contradict the facts.
A neighborhood group started a small community garden on an empty lot. In the spring, volunteers built raised beds and planted tomatoes, peppers, and herbs. By late summer, the harvest was smaller than expected. Some plants looked wilted, and the total amount picked fit into just a few baskets. A few neighbors called the project a failure. They said the garden took too much time for too little food. The group had hoped to donate extra produce to a nearby pantry, but there wasn't much extra to share. The budget also felt tight after buying soil, lumber, and hoses. Still, the gardeners kept weekly meetings, recorded what grew well, and saved seeds. They also noticed more butterflies and bees visiting the flowers they planted along the fence. When fall arrived, they cleaned the beds, added leaves, and mapped out new irrigation ideas for next year.
Student's initial response: The garden failed because it didn't produce enough food and cost too much.
New evidence: The county announced a severe drought and water restrictions that summer. Soil tests showed improved nutrients in the garden by fall, and the pantry offered a small grant to support better irrigation next season.
Which revised response best reflects the new evidence?
The garden wasn't a total failure; drought limited yields, but the team improved soil, attracted pollinators, and has funding and plans to grow more next year.
The garden failed completely and should be shut down because small harvests are unacceptable no matter the reason.
Heavy rain ruined the harvest, so they have no excuse for low production.
Only vegetables that taste amazing matter; soil and pollinators don't count at all.
Explanation
The new evidence explains the low harvest (drought) and shows progress (better soil, pollinators, and a grant). Choice A adjusts the response to include those facts. The other choices ignore or contradict the new information.
At the district science fair, a robotics club won first place. Some students thought the head judge seemed impressed by anything with gears and lights. They noticed the judge chatting with the winning team during setup and assumed there was favoritism. A few competitors said their environmental projects were more important than a robot and complained the results were unfair. The awards assembly was loud and rushed, and no one explained the scoring in detail. On the ride home, several students posted online that the judge was biased toward the robotics club. Later that night, the fair's website updated with a link to the full scoring rubric and each team's category scores. The rubric included creativity, process documentation, testing, accuracy, and presentation, with multiple judges scoring each area.
Student's initial response: The judge was biased and gave the robotics club an unfair win.
New evidence: The posted scores show the robotics team led in every category with consistent ratings from three different judges, not just the head judge.
Which revised response best reflects the new evidence?
The head judge was probably even more biased than we thought.
The robotics team must have cheated because no one can score highest in every category.
Based on the rubric and multiple judges' consistent scores, the win seems fair; the robotics team met the criteria better this time.
The rubric should count team spirit instead, so the results don't matter.
Explanation
The new evidence shows multiple judges used a rubric and agreed on high scores for the robotics team. Choice C updates the conclusion to reflect those facts. The other options ignore the posted scores or add unrelated claims.