Response Skills: Reflecting and Adjusting Responses with New Evidence (TEKS.ELA.7.6.I)

Help Questions

Texas 7th Grade ELA › Response Skills: Reflecting and Adjusting Responses with New Evidence (TEKS.ELA.7.6.I)

Questions 1 - 8
1

Text Excerpt: In 1930, astronomer Clyde Tombaugh discovered a tiny, icy world beyond Neptune. For decades, textbooks listed Pluto as the ninth planet. As telescopes improved, however, scientists found many similar objects orbiting in the Kuiper Belt, a distant ring of icy bodies. Pluto is about two-thirds the diameter of Earth's Moon and follows an elongated path that sometimes brings it closer to the Sun than Neptune. The more astronomers looked, the more small, Pluto-like worlds they saw. In the early 2000s, the discovery of an object slightly larger than Pluto, later named Eris, increased pressure to clarify categories. Should every icy body be called a planet? Some argued that keeping Pluto on the list would force schools to add dozens of new "planets," making the term less useful. Others said history and public attachment should count, because names help people connect with science. The debate turned into a bigger question: how should scientists define "planet" in a way that fits new discoveries yet keeps the list meaningful for learners.

Student's Initial Response: Pluto should stay a planet because it orbits the Sun and has always been called one.

New Evidence: In 2006, the International Astronomical Union defined a planet as a body that orbits the Sun, is round, and has "cleared its neighborhood." Pluto hasn't cleared its orbit and shares space with Kuiper Belt objects; Eris is similar in size.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

Pluto is a planet because tradition matters most, and the new definition should be ignored.

Based on the IAU criteria and discoveries like Eris, Pluto fits better as a dwarf planet, though it remains an important Kuiper Belt world.

Pluto isn't even part of our solar system anymore, so it doesn't need a label.

I was totally wrong about everything; we should stop labeling any objects in space.

Explanation

Choice B incorporates the IAU's definition and new discoveries while keeping a reasonable, evidence-based stance. The other options ignore, contradict, or abandon the original thinking without sound reasoning.

2

Text Excerpt: On June 19, 1865, Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced that enslaved people were free under federal law. In the years that followed, communities in Texas marked the date—Juneteenth—with parades, church services, and family gatherings. Many short retellings make it sound as if freedom began instantly and evenly across the state that day. But Texas was vast, with isolated plantations, poor roads, and news that traveled unevenly. Some people learned directly from soldiers on the coast, while others heard weeks or months later when neighbors carried the story inland. Historians study newspapers, letters, and local court records to understand how change unfolded. They find celebrations and joy, but also delays, conflicts over wages, and attempts by some enslavers to hold on to labor through contracts or threats. Juneteenth remembers a specific announcement in Galveston, yet the experience of becoming free was not identical in every county. Understanding both the date and the uneven process helps explain why the holiday remains meaningful today.

Student's Initial Response: Everyone in Texas was freed the same day and immediately started new lives on June 19, 1865.

New Evidence: Letters and reports from summer and fall 1865 show that some plantations delayed the news until after harvest, and people in inland counties learned at different times. Freedpeople often faced resistance and dangerous conditions as they sought wages and safety.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

Juneteenth didn't matter at all because not everyone heard the news immediately.

Freedom spread evenly everywhere, and any delays are just myths.

I now think we can't know anything about Juneteenth since accounts differ.

Juneteenth marks the Galveston announcement of freedom, but the change reached communities unevenly across Texas; recognizing both the date and the gradual process gives a fuller picture.

Explanation

Choice D integrates the new evidence by acknowledging Juneteenth's announcement and the uneven, often delayed reality across Texas. The other options ignore evidence, contradict it, or abandon reasonable interpretation.

3

Text Excerpt: A Texas school district is debating whether to remove flavored milk from cafeteria lines. Supporters of the change say chocolate and strawberry milk add too much sugar to students' diets and that plain milk still provides calcium and protein. Cafeteria staff worry that many students dislike plain milk and will simply skip it, losing nutrients and creating more waste. A neighboring district tried cutting flavored milk entirely for a semester; teachers reported that some students stopped taking milk, while others brought sugary drinks from home. A statewide nutrition group suggests smaller portions, offering flavored milk only on certain days, or switching to lower-sugar recipes. Parents and coaches want strong bones for athletes but also care about overall health. The board plans to review recent studies, listen to community feedback, and test options before making a final policy.

Student's Initial Response: The district should ban flavored milk completely because health will definitely improve for all students.

New Evidence: A recent multi-district study found full bans reduced milk selection by about one-third and increased waste, with only a modest drop in added sugar. A pilot program showed low-sugar flavored milk kept intake higher while cutting sugar.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

Instead of a full ban, the district should test lower-sugar flavored milk or limit when it's offered, pairing changes with nutrition lessons to cut sugar while keeping intake.

A full ban is still the only logical option; the study results don't matter because sugar is always bad.

We should add more sweet options so students actually drink milk, even if sugar goes up a lot.

The district shouldn't make any decision; it should just ignore the issue entirely.

Explanation

Choice A integrates the new evidence by proposing a compromise that reduces sugar while preserving milk intake. The other choices ignore evidence, contradict health goals, or abandon the decision-making process.

4

Text Excerpt: For much of the 20th century, many textbooks taught that the first people entered the Americas about 13,000 years ago, after glaciers opened an inland route from Siberia. This "Clovis-first" idea was based on distinctive spear points found across North America. In recent decades, archaeologists have uncovered evidence that challenges that timeline. Stone tools and campfire remains at sites in Chile and the Pacific Northwest appear older than 13,000 years. In 2021, researchers reported ancient human footprints preserved in a New Mexico lakebed that may date to more than 20,000 years ago. Dating methods are debated, and scientists carefully test samples to avoid errors. Meanwhile, new ideas about a coastal migration—people traveling by boat along the Pacific shoreline—offer another path that could fit earlier dates. As evidence accumulates, researchers revisit long-held ideas to build a clearer picture of when and how people arrived.

Student's Initial Response: People first came to the Americas about 13,000 years ago through an inland route, and any earlier dates must be wrong.

New Evidence: Multiple sites and the footprint study suggest some people may have been here thousands of years earlier, though scientists continue to evaluate and confirm the dates.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

The old timeline is definitely false, and all people arrived 20,000 years ago by boat.

Nothing can be trusted in archaeology, so we should stop using timelines altogether.

Evidence now points to the possibility of people being in the Americas earlier than 13,000 years ago, perhaps via coastal routes; while debate continues, we should be open to revising the timeline as studies confirm dates.

The Clovis-first idea is still the only valid explanation because it's in older textbooks.

Explanation

Choice C updates the claim to reflect credible new findings while acknowledging ongoing scientific debate. The other choices either overstate the case, dismiss evidence entirely, or ignore new data.

5

Excerpt: On Saturday, dozens of volunteers from Seaside Middle School combed the shoreline, filling bags with bottles, food wrappers, and bits of weathered foam. "Every piece we remove is one less threat to sea life," a science club member said, pointing to a jar of tiny fragments gathered near the tide line. The article praised the group's teamwork and noted that coastal cleanups can prevent larger items from breaking down into microplastics. It also described how ocean currents carry debris from rivers to beaches, where waves grind it into smaller pieces that fish and birds may mistake for food. By day's end, the team had hauled away several hundred pounds of trash, and the reporter concluded that regular cleanups are a practical way for communities to protect local waters and raise awareness about pollution. Student's initial response: Beach cleanups are the most effective way to reduce microplastics in the ocean. New evidence: A recent marine study found most microplastic fibers come from laundry wastewater and tire wear that enter rivers and pass through treatment plants. The study said cleanups remove visible debris but don't address the main sources. Engineers tested filters on washing machines and storm drains and saw significant reductions in fibers downstream.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while keeping a logical connection to the original idea?

Beach cleanups are still the most effective way to reduce microplastics, and no other actions are necessary.

We should stop beach cleanups completely because they don't help the microplastic problem at all.

Beach cleanups help remove large debris and raise awareness, but to cut microplastics overall, communities should also improve wastewater filtration and reduce tire wear.

Microplastics are only from washing machines, so beaches are not dirty and do not need cleaning.

Explanation

Choice C adjusts the claim by adding actions that target the newly identified sources while preserving the value of cleanups, showing thoughtful use of credible evidence.

6

Excerpt: In June 1865, Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Civil War had ended and enslaved people were free. Over time, communities began marking June 19 with gatherings, music, and prayer—what many now call Juneteenth. Newspapers from the period describe crowds listening as the order was read and families celebrating in the streets. The day became a symbol of hope and a reminder of freedom, and later generations kept the tradition alive with parades, picnics, and storytelling. In Texas, Juneteenth grew into a yearly observance of resilience and community, highlighting how the promise of liberty reshaped lives and neighborhoods across the state. Student's initial response: Juneteenth shows that freedom arrived in Texas all at once on June 19, 1865. New evidence: Letters and reports show that some enslavers delayed or resisted the order, and freedom spread unevenly over weeks and months. Freedmen's Bureau records describe continued enforcement efforts. Historians explain that Juneteenth marks the announcement in Texas and the beginning of a longer process toward freedom.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

Juneteenth marked the announcement of freedom in Texas, but freedom spread unevenly and required enforcement; the holiday honors both the moment and the ongoing effort.

Juneteenth isn't important because not everyone heard the news on the same day.

Freedom actually started in 1863, so Juneteenth is false and should be ignored.

Everyone was freed on different days, so June 19 has nothing to do with Texas history.

Explanation

Choice A integrates the new evidence about uneven enforcement while preserving the significance of Juneteenth, demonstrating a reasoned adjustment to understanding.

7

Excerpt: A city report highlighted a sharp drop in cyclist injuries after protected bike lanes were added to three busy streets. The report described new barriers separating riders from traffic and clearer intersections that reduced turns across bike paths. A local nurse said the lanes gave riders predictable space and encouraged more cautious driving. Photos showed wider buffers and fresh paint marking entry points. Comparing the months before and after installation, officials counted fewer crashes near the improvements and praised the project as a model for future streets. Student's initial response: The bike lanes caused the drop in injuries. New evidence: Transportation data show that during the same months, car traffic fell by about one-fifth because a major bridge was closed for repairs. The health department also ran a helmet giveaway and safety campaign at dozens of schools. Analysts say more time and locations are needed to separate the effects of each change.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while staying logical?

The bike lanes had no effect at all; the traffic drop explains everything.

Bike lanes actually increased injuries, but people stopped reporting them.

The bike lanes definitely caused all the safety improvements since they were the newest change.

Bike lanes likely helped reduce injuries, but the traffic decrease and helmet campaign may also have contributed; more data over time would clarify their separate effects.

Explanation

Choice D incorporates the new factors without abandoning the original idea, showing balanced reasoning with credible evidence.

8

Excerpt: In a San Antonio neighborhood that values green lawns, residents take pride in even rows of turf and shady oaks. The local water utility notes that most summer household use comes from lawn irrigation. Neighbors often set automatic sprinklers to run twice a week, pointing to community guidelines that aim to keep yards healthy. Garden clubs teach soil care and drought-tolerant plants, but many still prefer thick grass. People say the routine watering schedule supports property value and neighborhood appearance. Student's initial response: Our twice-a-week watering schedule is sustainable year-round. New evidence: A recent report shows Edwards Aquifer levels dropped below a key threshold late in summer, triggering stricter Stage 2 rules. Utility data indicate irrigation caused the largest spikes in demand, and audits found many systems overwatering at midday. The report recommends cutting irrigation during low aquifer periods, watering only before sunrise, and fixing leaks to protect the regional supply.

Which revision best reflects the new evidence while maintaining logical thinking?

The schedule is perfect and drought rules are overreactions, so nothing should change.

Regular watering supports healthy lawns, but when aquifer levels are low, the community should reduce irrigation, follow time-of-day rules, and repair leaks to protect the water supply.

Lawns are harmful and should be replaced immediately with rocks everywhere, no exceptions.

Aquifer levels dropped only because of leaks, not watering, so the schedule is not a problem.

Explanation

Choice B incorporates credible evidence about aquifer levels and irrigation impacts while preserving a reasonable version of the original goal, showing thoughtful adjustment.