Composition: Composing Argumentative Texts (TEKS.ELA.8.11.C)
Help Questions
Texas 8th Grade ELA › Composition: Composing Argumentative Texts (TEKS.ELA.8.11.C)
During long Texas summers, our city should limit lawn watering to two days a week to conserve water. We all know sprinklers run constantly, and that feels wasteful. Some neighbors say they pay their bills and should water whenever, but droughts affect everyone. I've seen gutters overflowing with runoff in my street, and that can't be right. If the city sets a simple schedule, people will adapt, and we won't run out. Businesses that rely on landscaping might worry, yet healthy grass isn't more important than drinking water. This plan could also lower water bills for families, which would help. Other places do it, and they seem fine. Rules like this are fair because everyone follows them at the same time. It keeps communities responsible.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument?
Add a vivid description of crackling brown lawns to make readers feel the pain of drought and understand why constant watering is wrong.
To address businesses, admit that some companies will lose customers and jobs, but say that is the cost we should accept for fairness.
Add credible data: According to the Texas Water Development Board, outdoor irrigation can account for 30–50% of summer household use, and cities using twice‑weekly watering have cut demand by 10–20% without harming public landscapes; pair the rule with runoff fines and smart‑timer rebates.
Exempt golf courses, homeowners' associations, and new neighborhoods from the schedule so the rule feels friendlier to growth and development.
Explanation
Choice C strengthens the claim with credible, relevant evidence and adds practical measures that improve the policy's logic. A relies on emotion, B concedes too much and undermines the position, and D weakens the policy by creating broad exceptions.
Texas should require middle schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. Early bells push students to learn while still half-asleep, and that just isn't smart. Teens are biologically wired to fall asleep later, so expecting them in class before sunrise is unfair. I hear friends say they eat breakfast on the bus because there's no time, and first-period grades suffer. Some families worry later start times would complicate work schedules and after-school activities, but schools can adjust transportation and sports slots. Protecting students' health should come first. More rest would likely reduce tardies and nurse visits, which helps learning. Starting later could also make roads safer with less drowsy driving. We shouldn't cling to tradition when a better option exists. Students deserve alert classrooms.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument?
Cite the American Academy of Pediatrics and a multi‑district study showing that starts at 8:30 or later increased attendance and first‑period grades and reduced teen car crashes by 16%, addressing health and safety concerns.
Explain that early starts are basically child cruelty and share a personal story about nearly falling asleep in math to make readers feel how awful it is.
Concede that later starts make extracurriculars impossible and propose keeping current times while asking teachers to reduce homework instead of changing the bell schedule.
Argue that because a few well‑known schools start late, any school that starts late will automatically become top‑ranked, so we should do it too.
Explanation
Choice A adds authoritative, relevant evidence and addresses counterarguments about safety and academics. B leans on emotion, C undermines the position by conceding the key point, and D uses faulty cause‑and‑effect reasoning.
In our coastal community, stores should phase out single-use plastic bags and switch to reusable or paper options. Plastic bags blow from parking lots into creeks and then the bay, where animals get tangled. When we do beach cleanups, we see them everywhere. Some shoppers argue bags are convenient and free, but the ocean shouldn't pay the price for that. Stores can offer low-cost reusable bags, and people will adapt after a couple trips. Paper bags aren't perfect, yet they break down faster than plastic in the environment. This policy would make our town cleaner and more responsible for the coast we love. If we want tourism and fishing to stay strong, we need to stop treating the shoreline like a trash can. Right now.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument?
Describe a heartbreaking scene of a sea turtle wrapped in plastic to show why plastic bags feel wrong for our beaches.
Ban thin plastic bags but encourage shoppers to take unlimited thicker plastic bags for durability so people feel better while still using plastic.
Acknowledge that paper bags require trees, so doing nothing is probably safest until someone invents something perfect.
Add evidence from Texas coastal cleanups and pilot programs showing plastic bag litter fell 30–40% in communities with reusable‑bag incentives or fees; note retailer take‑back bins and limited exemptions for sanitation needs.
Explanation
Choice D provides concrete, local evidence and a balanced policy approach that addresses convenience and sanitation without abandoning the goal. A is mostly emotional, B undercuts the solution by increasing plastic use, and C surrenders the claim.
Our district should adopt a policy that allows students to use AI tools for brainstorming and revision only if they include an AI use statement and show drafts. Banning AI entirely won't stop its use; it will just push it underground. With guidance, students can learn to question suggestions and improve their own writing. Teachers already handle calculators and spellcheck responsibly, so we can handle this too. Some worry AI will replace thinking, but a transparent process lets teachers see growth from first draft to final. The policy should also teach citation of any generated ideas. Clear rules would reduce confusion and cheating. Instead of pretending AI doesn't exist, we should teach students to use it ethically and build critical literacy. That prepares graduates better.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument?
Warn that colleges will reject applicants who don't master AI, so students must use it constantly if they want a future.
Cite a district pilot with 1,200 secondary students: requiring AI‑use statements and draft checkpoints reduced plagiarism referrals by 28% and raised revision rubric scores; include examples of permitted vs. prohibited uses to clarify boundaries.
Acknowledge that AI can fabricate facts and propose banning it in English while allowing it freely in other classes to keep things simple.
Note that everyone is already using AI anyway, so resisting it is pointless and schools should just accept whatever students submit.
Explanation
Choice B adds credible, specific results and clarifies procedures, improving logic and practicality. A uses fear and overgeneralization, C weakens the policy with inconsistent rules, and D relies on a bandwagon appeal instead of reasoned support.
Our school should adopt a no-phone-during-class policy except when teachers include phones in the lesson. Right now, phones buzz on desks and pull attention away from discussions and labs. Students scroll during group work, and it takes time to get everyone back on track. Some people argue students must learn self-control, but constant temptation is unfair to classmates who want to concentrate. A clear, consistent policy would reduce disruptions and make it easier for teachers to teach. While emergencies can happen, the office can still contact students when truly necessary. If we really care about learning, we should not allow devices designed to distract us to dominate class time. This change is reasonable and will raise grades because fewer distractions mean more learning for everyone.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument through better evidence, more logical reasoning, appropriate counterargument handling, or enhanced persuasive craft?
Add: Phones are the poison of our generation, wrecking our attention and destroying our futures, so banning them in class is the only way to save students.
Concede: Because emergencies can happen, students should be allowed to use phones freely during class with no limits, trusting them to stay on task.
Revise to integrate credible evidence and a safeguard: Cite a peer-reviewed study of multiple schools showing higher test scores and fewer behavior referrals after in-class phone bans, and specify that phones remain in backpacks while the office relays urgent messages.
Add: If we allow phones now, soon nobody will speak to each other at all, class will be silent forever, and society will collapse into screen addiction.
Explanation
Option C strengthens the claim with credible research and a reasonable emergency plan, improving logic and counterargument handling. A is emotional without evidence, B undermines the position by removing limits, and D relies on a slippery-slope fallacy.
Our city should adopt a summer watering schedule that limits lawn irrigation to two days per week. Right now, sprinklers run daily in some neighborhoods, even after rain. That wastes water we all share, especially during drought years. Aquifers and reservoirs drop, and then everyone has to scramble. Some homeowners worry their lawns will die, but drought-tolerant grasses and smart irrigation can keep yards healthy. A simple rule would cut waste and still allow gardens to survive. Many cities already use schedules, so we know they are practical. If we start now, we can avoid harsher restrictions later. The city could send tips and give away hose nozzles to help. Protecting our rivers and lakes should be a priority for the whole community.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument through better evidence, more logical reasoning, appropriate counterargument handling, or enhanced persuasive craft?
Add: Reference Texas Water Development Board reports showing increased drought frequency in recent years and document water savings achieved during similar restrictions in Texas cities; propose a 6‑month pilot with meter-based enforcement and exemptions for new landscaping to address fairness.
Add: If we don't act, our rivers will dry up overnight and the landscape will turn into a desert, so we must pass the rule immediately or face doom.
Conclude: Since some neighbors like perfectly green lawns, we should delay any watering rules until the drought ends and everyone agrees.
Add: My uncle waters twice a week and his grass looks fine, so the plan will definitely work for the entire city.
Explanation
Option A adds credible Texas-specific evidence and a practical, fair plan, strengthening reasoning and counterargument handling. B is exaggerated emotional appeal, C concedes the argument away, and D relies on a single anecdote.
Our school should invest part of the activities budget in a library makerspace with tools like 3D printers, sewing machines, and coding kits. A makerspace would help students design prototypes, repair items, and create projects for classes and clubs. Some people say sports need the entire budget, but a makerspace would serve many students, including athletes who want to make posters or build training aids. It could also host after-school workshops led by volunteers. If we want to prepare for the future, we should support creativity and problem solving. I once built a small robot, and it was exciting; other students would feel the same. The library is already open after school, so we would just need modest funding to get started.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument through better evidence, more logical reasoning, appropriate counterargument handling, or enhanced persuasive craft?
Add: Making things is simply more meaningful than watching games, and students will be happier if we fund tools that are fun.
Add a straw man: Sports only teach running in circles, so their budgets should be cut because they don't build real skills.
Propose: Pay for the makerspace by eliminating all sports funding this year; the shock will force people to accept the change.
Revise to include credible evidence and a balanced plan: Cite district survey data and library association studies showing makerspaces increase engagement and project completion; provide a cost breakdown with grants/donations, and address the counterargument by capping start-up costs and scheduling so sports funding and facility access are unaffected.
Explanation
Option D adds research, transparent costs, and addresses the counterargument without undermining athletics. A is vague and emotional, B misrepresents sports (straw man), and C strengthens funding clarity but alienates stakeholders and weakens the overall argument.
Our town should set aside a small grant to restore the old dance hall downtown instead of letting it sit empty. The hall hosted community events for decades and could do so again with weekend concerts and student recitals. Some people argue we should focus only on roads, but reviving the hall would bring customers to nearby shops and give teens a safe place to gather. If we let it crumble, we lose part of our shared story. Volunteers are willing to help, and local bands would perform for low fees. The cost sounds scary, yet small repairs now could prevent bigger bills later. We should celebrate our heritage by putting the building back to work for the community.
Which revision most effectively strengthens the argument through better evidence, more logical reasoning, appropriate counterargument handling, or enhanced persuasive craft?
Add: The dance hall is magical and reminds us of the good old days; if we love our town, we should fix it no matter what.
Revise to include credible evidence and a concrete plan: Note Texas Historical Commission eligibility for preservation support and cite heritage tourism studies showing local spending increases near restored venues; propose a phased budget with private matching funds and clarify that road maintenance uses a separate fund so essential services are not reduced.
Concede: Roads matter more than culture, so we should postpone the dance hall restoration for several years until everything else is paid for.
Add: If we restore the hall, tourists will flood in and solve all our problems; if we don't, our culture will disappear completely.
Explanation
Option B adds credible, Texas-relevant evidence, a funding strategy, and addresses the counterargument about roads. A is nostalgic but unevidenced, C undermines the claim by conceding it away, and D relies on extreme false-dilemma reasoning.