English Language Arts: Character Analysis (TEKS.ELA.9-12.7.B)
Help Questions
Texas High School ELA › English Language Arts: Character Analysis (TEKS.ELA.9-12.7.B)
On the morning the committee was to vote, Malena folded the unsigned recommendation into her pocket and told herself it was only a precaution. The letter was praise she did not entirely deserve; she had drafted the grant with help from Diego, help she had insisted on calling "informal." He had shrugged and returned to his lab benches, but the shrug lived in her spine. At breakfast, she asked him whether he planned to attend the meeting. He said no, he had data to check. She nodded as if relieved, then walked the long hallway twice, rehearsing a smile that would not tremble. When the chair called for materials, Malena offered her packet last, as if lateness proved humility. Inside, the letter lingered, a page she could include or withhold. The vote tied. Someone asked for clarifications. Malena saw Diego outside the glass, waiting with two coffees and a stillness she recognized as a kind of mercy. She left the letter on the table. During questions, she credited him by name. The tie broke, not in her favor, and the relief was inexplicably clean; she felt, for once, the meeting's air belong to both of them. They walked out equal.
Which choice best explains how Malena's underlying motivation shapes the vote and the easing of tension?
Her ambition to impress the committee leads her to submit first, guaranteeing a unanimous win and calming her nerves.
Diego's indifference is the primary force; his absence alone determines the tie and its break.
Her need to reconcile unearned praise with honesty drives her to acknowledge Diego and withhold the letter, prompting the tie-break against her and resolving the strain through shared ownership.
The committee's procedures—not Malena's choices—fully dictate the outcome, so personal motivations have no effect on the conflict.
Explanation
Malena's guilt and desire for fairness lead her to leave the letter and publicly credit Diego, which alters the vote and diffuses the personal conflict by establishing shared credit.
By noon the bayou forgot its banks and took the street like a long breath held too long. Lidia stacked quilts on the sofa, the old piano glistening with humidity, the family altar balanced on cinder blocks. Mr. Garza idled his truck, calling from the curb that he could fit three more boxes. "We're above the floodplain," Lidia said, as if the word were a charm. Mateo carried the framed wedding photo upstairs, then the shoebox of letters tied with twine, then the bowl of marbles that had belonged to a cousin who never left the valley. He watched his mother stroke the piano's wood, as if apology might seal it. When the water touched the porch, Garza cut the engine and waited anyway. Mateo rolled the piano bench to the stairs and spoke without looking at her: if they left now, he would come back with Garza tomorrow and salvage what the house allowed. Lidia's jaw worked, unbelieving. She had promised her father the house would hold. Then Mateo placed the altar on the highest stair. The promise shifted: not the house, but what it held. She locked the door and climbed into the truck, wet to the knees.
How do Lidia's and Mateo's motivations influence the decision to evacuate and the resolution of their standoff?
Lidia's loyalty to her father's promise keeps her rooted until Mateo reframes the promise by safeguarding the altar, persuading her to evacuate and easing the conflict without abandoning their heritage.
Mr. Garza's impatience forces them to leave, so their personal motivations are irrelevant to the outcome.
The floodplain designation alone convinces Lidia to leave, making Mateo's actions unnecessary to the resolution.
Mateo's fear of water causes a panicked flight that escalates, rather than resolves, the conflict.
Explanation
Lidia resists leaving due to a promise, but Mateo's deliberate act of preserving what matters shifts her understanding, driving the choice to evacuate and resolving tension through a values-based compromise.
At the lawyer's table, Nora arranged the receipts into neat little spines while Eli's knee jostled the underside, tapping a small nervous Morse. Their mother had left instructions in envelopes labeled with dry wit; one read "For the plants," another "For the messes." Eli laughed too loudly at that and then went silent. The lawyer asked about a missing withdrawal. Nora knew where she had found the cash—wedged in Eli's toolbox, stuffed among rags that smelled like solvent and regret—but she slid a blank receipt to the top of the pile instead. "Maybe it was for the contractor," she said, feigning the memory. Eli blinked like someone grateful for fog. Later, when the meeting paused, Nora walked him to the stairwell and held out the real receipt, not as evidence but as a timetable. "Do you want to say it downstairs, or in here?" she asked. Eli looked at the paper until the ink felt like weight. He nodded toward the conference room. He would tell the truth, he said, if she started. Back inside, Nora apologized first for her own delay. Eli followed, the confession loosened by her softness. The inheritance shifted accordingly, but so did their orbit. Together.
Which analysis best captures how Nora's motivation drives the unfolding of the meeting and its resolution?
Eli's impulsiveness alone dictates the confession, so Nora's behavior has little bearing on the outcome.
Nora's protective desire to preserve Eli's dignity leads her to stage a gentle path to truth, enabling his admission and easing the family conflict.
The lawyer's strict procedures would have forced a confession regardless, making Nora's choices incidental to the plot.
Nora is motivated by greed to secure a larger share, which pushes her to expose Eli and worsens the conflict.
Explanation
Nora's compassion shapes events: she temporarily conceals, then invites confession, creating conditions where Eli can admit fault without humiliation, resolving the tension more humanely.
At Friday's football game, the sky lowered until the stadium lights looked like coins at the bottom of a well. Principal Alma Rey watched the anvil cloud roil beyond the cottonwood line and held the microphone the board had loaned as a symbol of trust, not voice. The policy was clear: announcements in English only. Last spring, a parent had been fined for translating at a meeting. Alma scanned the bleachers—grandmothers from the colonias, men in work boots still dusted with gypsum, children with paper flags for homecoming. When the wind snapped the banners straight, she called the marching band director and asked for a drum roll. The sound gathered attention without words. Then Alma spoke in English and, without pausing, in the Spanish of her childhood, naming the nearest storm shelter and the buses already idling. A trustee rose, hand out, but the first row had already started moving. In the scramble, a boy tugged his abuelo toward the ramp, repeating Alma's Spanish, and the motion spread faster than the rain. Under the shelter's tin roof, the trustee stared at the packed benches and said nothing. Later, he would call it a misunderstanding. Alma would call it air. Saved.
How do Alma's motivations and choices shape the evacuation and the softening of institutional resistance?
The band's drumline alone initiates the evacuation, so Alma's decisions are largely symbolic and do not affect the outcome.
A sudden policy change authorizes bilingual announcements, making the evacuation inevitable regardless of Alma's actions.
Spectators panic at the first lightning flash, causing an unplanned rush that renders Alma's role irrelevant.
Alma's commitment to community safety outweighs policy limits, prompting bilingual directions that catalyze an orderly evacuation and mute opposition through effective results.
Explanation
Alma's protective motivation leads her to announce in both languages, directly triggering an orderly evacuation and thereby reducing pushback by demonstrating practical necessity.
Mara arrives early to the museum board's closed session, palms cooled by the condensation of her water glass. The agenda lists a vote on an installation by her former mentor, Del Castillo, the artist who once told her that courage and cruelty are twins. Two years ago, he used her early sketches without credit and then sent a thin apology in the shape of a grant recommendation. Tonight, members expect Mara to recuse herself. She intends to—but not before she watches the debate, she tells herself, to learn which trustees care more about optics than art. When the chair proposes moving the vote up, Mara asks, in her most procedural tone, whether the conflict-of-interest language requires public comment first. She knows that Ms. Alder, the fiercest skeptic, always leaves before the second public session to catch a train. The delay is granted. By the time speakers finish and Alder's chair sits empty, the room's temperature has softened. Mara recuses, and the installation passes with the condition that provenance materials be displayed. Afterward, Mara texts Del Castillo a line with no punctuation: display everything. His reply—an uncomplicated thumbs-up—arrives as she steps into the cooling dark, not triumphal, but steadier than the air she'd brought in.
Which statement best explains how Mara's motivations influence the events and the resolution of the board's conflict?
Mara's perfectionism makes her insist on provenance displays, which always accompany installations, so the outcome is unchanged.
Because Mara wants to preserve her integrity without appearing vindictive, she uses procedural timing to temper opposition, leading to a conditional approval that diffuses the conflict.
Mara's jealousy of Del Castillo forces the chair to reverse the agenda, causing the vote to pass unanimously.
The installation would have passed regardless of Mara's actions because Ms. Alder leaves early every meeting, so her timing has no real effect.
Explanation
Mara's nuanced motivation—to avoid vindictiveness while honoring integrity—drives her procedural delay, softening opposition and producing a conditional approval that resolves tension. The distractors either misstate motives, cite traits without effect, or claim the outcome was inevitable.
In a West Texas August that made the wind taste like salt, Lidia watched the windmill's shadow shrink toward noon. The tanks were low; the herd pushed to the fence that divided their pasture from Mr. Rawls's scrub. Her father, Tomás, stood with the county surveyor, jaw set against the idea of paperwork deciding what rain had once decided. Rawls's pickup idled along the property line, a rifle flaring dull in the cab. Lidia thought of her abuelo's ledger—the careful rainfall tallies and who-drank-when notes kept through three droughts—and of the neighbor boys who sometimes helped mend fence and sometimes stole peaches. She did not want to be the kind of person who remembered only one of those truths. She walked to the trucks with the ledger and a pencil, and she spoke before the men did. The figures were simple, but their arrangement was not: she proposed shared pumping by hours, marked in chalk on the windmill handle, a rotation that treated the creek and the cattle like a commons for the season. Rawls's hand slipped from the rifle. Tomás said nothing until the surveyor nodded. By dusk, chalk smudged their palms. The cows drank in turns, and the line held—for that week, anyway.
How do Lidia's motivations shape the escalating conflict over water and its tentative resolution?
Because Lidia hates paperwork, she ignores the surveyor and the men settle matters themselves, proving droughts resolve with patience.
Lidia's skill with repairing windmills convinces Rawls; since machines matter more than people, peace follows.
Assuming Rawls is secretly generous, Lidia waits for him to propose sharing, and the eventual agreement has nothing to do with her choices.
Motivated by a blend of loyalty to her father and pragmatic concern for the herd, Lidia initiates a data-backed compromise that redirects a looming armed standoff into a negotiated rotation, shaping the resolution.
Explanation
Lidia's measured, community-minded pragmatism—shown through the ledger and proposed rotation—directly redirects a volatile standoff into a fragile, workable truce. The other options misattribute skills, invent motives, or deny her causal impact.
Rowan read the essay three times before she could stop hearing the mother's voice stitched into it: a voice borrowed from a private journal the author, Jonah, had found in a box of winter scarves. The piece was brilliant, needle-fine in its insights and cruel in the way brilliance can be when shown the wrong light. The press could use a book like this; donors had already signaled interest. Rowan called rights, then hung up. She wrote a letter instead, not legal but human, explaining that publication would make the mother's grief perform for strangers. Jonah wrote back by phone—first anger, then a silence like paper settling—and withdrew not just the essay but the whole manuscript. At the board meeting, a donor asked whether Rowan understood her job. She said yes. She also said no. She took responsibility for the loss. Sales projections dipped. Months later, a postcard arrived from Jonah with four unadorned words that made Rowan breathe easier than she had in weeks. When the next acquisitions cycle began, the team adjusted their guidelines, not with a policy headline, but with a habit of asking who was being carried and who was being carried off.
Which analysis best captures how Rowan's motivations drive the plot's turning points and the eventual easing of tensions?
Rowan's commitment to ethical boundaries leads her to remove the essay and accept fallout, which precipitates Jonah's withdrawal and eventually eases the conflict by clarifying values for the press.
Rowan's introversion causes the board to cancel the anthology, resolving the issue through avoidance.
The press would have lost Jonah anyway because donors were already angry; Rowan's letter doesn't matter.
Rowan is motivated by career ambition, so she publishes the essay to boost sales, sparking controversy that forces compromises.
Explanation
Rowan's ethically driven choice triggers Jonah's withdrawal and tensions with donors, but it also guides the press toward clearer values, softening the conflict over time. The distractors misstate her motives, ignore textual causality, or contradict events.
Two weeks after the bayou rose into their living room, Aunt Reina said she would make Sunday menudo anyway. The drywall had been cut to a ragged waistline; fans labored at the edges like insects. Cam, who had learned building codes from YouTube and a summer job, wanted Abuelo nowhere near the damp. But tradition carries its own airflow, and Reina, ladle in hand, called it medicine. Cam mapped a different cure: folding tables under the carport, cords to three box fans, stockpots simmering on camp burners outside. She texted neighbors for spare fans and a canopy; by noon, someone rolled over a pair of dehumidifiers, humming like small engines. Abuelo arrived, hat in hand, eyes bright at the smell. He sat on the porch with a blanket over the splintered rail while the radio coaxed a thin ribbon of accordion through the afternoon. Reina's mouth pressed thin when Cam blocked the doorway, then eased when the first bowl found its way to Abuelo's hands, steam haloing in the safer air. By evening, the makeshift line ran smooth, and the neighbor kids carried bowls across the street. The living room stayed closed; the ritual didn't. The quarrel cooled into a plan.
How does Cam's underlying motivation influence the unfolding events and the resolution of the dispute with Aunt Reina?
Because the weather cleared, the family would have eaten outside regardless; Cam's actions don't guide the outcome.
Cam's love of cooking makes her insist on more spice, which brings everyone together and resolves the dispute.
Motivated by balancing health concerns with respect for tradition, Cam redesigns the gathering to the porch and mobilizes neighbors, transforming a brewing argument into a collaborative solution that protects Abuelo and keeps the ritual.
Cam overrules Aunt Reina and cancels the meal, ending the conflict by avoiding risk.
Explanation
Cam's dual motive—safety and honoring tradition—drives concrete choices (outdoor setup, neighbors' help) that shift the conflict from a stalemate to a workable compromise preserving both values.