Author's Claims & Evidence

Student Concept Worksheet Answers

Question	Answer
1	Video games should be considered a valid school subject. The claim is the main position being argued. The rest of the passage provides reasons and evidence to support this claim.
2	1) Studies show gaming improves problem-solving skills, hand-eye coordination, and strategic thinking. 2) Schools in Finland have already integrated game-based learning with positive results.
3	B. Hasty Generalization The argument uses ONE example (the brother) to draw a broad conclusion about studying being a waste of time. One person's experience is not enough evidence for such a sweeping claim.
4	This evidence is NOT sufficient (one teacher's opinion is not enough), SOMEWHAT relevant (it relates to the claim about phones in schools), and NOT very credible (no specific study cited, just one person's opinion). The argument needs research studies with measurable data, not just anecdotes.
5	Sample improvements: Add research studies showing how phones affect student attention/grades; include statistics from schools that banned phones vs. those that didn't; cite education experts or psychologists who have studied the issue.

Practice Worksheet Answers

Question	Answer
1	All public schools should require students to wear uniforms.
2	Any TWO of: 1) Students focus more on learning and less on fashion/judging clothing 2) Uniforms reduce peer pressure 3) Uniforms may reduce suspensions and school crime 4) Uniforms cost less than keeping up with fashion trends
3	Statistics: 86% of school leaders believed uniforms had positive impact on peer pressure (NAESP survey) OR 91% decrease in suspensions and 36% decrease in crime at Long Beach Unified. These are RELEVANT (directly about uniforms), CREDIBLE (from named organizations and real school districts), but may not be fully SUFFICIENT (one school district and one survey - more data would strengthen the argument).
4	The author acknowledges the self-expression concern but argues that students can express themselves in other ways (art, music, writing, activities) and that clothing is just one small form of expression. The author claims the benefits outweigh this "minor limitation."
5	B. Additional studies from other school districts showing similar results More data from multiple sources would make the argument more convincing than personal opinions or irrelevant information.
6	Energy drinks should be illegal/banned for anyone under 18.
7	No, this evidence is NOT sufficient. One person's experience (the cousin) cannot prove that all energy drinks are dangerous for all teenagers. This is anecdotal evidence - a single story rather than scientific research. The argument needs medical studies, statistics on adverse effects, or expert opinions from health professionals.
8	C. Bandwagon "Everyone knows" appeals to popular belief rather than actual evidence. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.
9	B. Either/Or (False Dilemma) This presents only two extreme options (full protection or no protection) when there could be many middle-ground solutions like education, parental permission, or regulated sales.
10	Ad Hominem (attacking the person/company rather than the argument) Instead of addressing the companies' arguments about their products, the author attacks their motives ("don't care about health," "only care about money," "corporate greed").
11	Sample improvements: 1) Replace anecdotal evidence with medical research and statistics about energy drink health effects 2) Remove logical fallacies (bandwagon, ad hominem, either/or) and use logical reasoning instead 3) Address counterarguments fairly with evidence rather than dismissing them 4) Use less emotional, more balanced language
12	Passage 2 uses aggressive, emotional language ("ridiculous," "toxic," "propaganda") and makes absolute claims ("should be illegal," "must ban"). Passage 3 uses measured, academic language ("research suggests," "should seriously consider") and acknowledges complexity ("While implementing... requires adjustments"). Passage 3 invites consideration; Passage 2 demands action.
13	Yes, the Johns Hopkins study is credible because: 1) Johns Hopkins is a respected research university known for rigorous methodology 2) The study provides specific, measurable findings (two months of skills lost) 3) The phenomenon has a recognized name ("summer slide"), suggesting this is well-documented research 4) It's relevant to the claim about year-round schooling preventing learning loss.
14	Passage 3 has MUCH stronger evidence. Passage 2 relies on: one anecdote (cousin), bandwagon appeal ("everyone knows"), ad hominem attacks, and emotional language - all weak or fallacious. Passage 3 uses: named university studies (Johns Hopkins), government statistics (National Center for Education Statistics), specific data points (64% of families, two months of learning loss), and logical reasoning.
15	Passage 3 has generally sound reasoning without obvious fallacies. The argument: 1) Makes a moderate claim ("should consider" not "must implement") 2) Uses credible research from named sources 3) Addresses counterarguments fairly (family vacations) with specific solutions (flexible track systems) 4) Acknowledges complexity ("requires adjustments") rather than oversimplifying.
16	Credible research (like Passage 3) makes an argument more persuasive to critical readers because: 1) Evidence can be verified and evaluated 2) It demonstrates the author has studied the issue thoroughly 3) It appeals to logic rather than just emotion 4) It's more likely to convince skeptics. While emotional language may grab attention, it often signals weak reasoning to careful readers and can backfire with audiences who value facts.

FAST Format Quiz Answers

Question	Answer
1	B. Social media platforms should require users to be at least 16 years old. This is the central claim stated in the opening sentence. Other options are supporting reasons or overgeneralizations.
2	A. The JAMA Pediatrics study about brain changes in middle schoolers JAMA Pediatrics is a peer-reviewed medical journal with rigorous standards. This is the most credible source cited because it involves measurable scientific research.
3	B. By arguing that online connections lack depth and may increase isolation The author acknowledges the counterargument (social media helps connection) then responds with evidence suggesting these connections aren't as beneficial as in-person relationships.
4	B. Data comparing mental health outcomes in countries with different age restrictions This would directly test whether age restrictions actually improve outcomes - the strongest evidence for the specific claim being made.
5	B. Hasty Generalization The author uses one observation of one elephant to conclude that ALL zoo animals must be miserable. This is drawing a sweeping conclusion from insufficient evidence.
6	C. Ad Hominem This statement attacks the character of people who support zoos (calling them supporters of animal cruelty) rather than addressing their actual arguments.
7	B. Passage 1, because it cites specific studies from credible sources Passage 1 cites APA research, JAMA Pediatrics studies, and named experts. Passage 2 relies on personal observation and emotional appeals.
8	See rubric and sample response below.
9	See rubric and sample response below.
10	See rubric and sample response below.

Question 8 Scoring Rubric

Score	Criteria
2	Identifies TWO specific improvements with clear explanations of what evidence or changes would strengthen the argument
1	Identifies ONE improvement with explanation OR two improvements without clear explanation
0	Does not identify valid improvements or suggestions are irrelevant

Sample 2-Point Response for Question 8:
First, the author should replace anecdotal evidence (the single elephant) with scientific research about animal welfare in zoos - studies measuring stress hormones, lifespans, or behavior patterns across many animals. Second, the author should address the counterargument about conservation fairly instead of dismissing it as "propaganda." They could acknowledge any conservation successes while still arguing the costs outweigh benefits.

Question 9 Scoring Rubric

Score	Criteria
2	Clearly contrasts both approaches with specific evidence from BOTH texts showing how they differ in supporting their claims
1	Contrasts approaches but with limited or one-sided evidence
0	Does not meaningfully compare the approaches or lacks text evidence

Sample 2-Point Response for Question 9:
Passage 1 supports its claim with credible research - citing the APA, JAMA Pediatrics studies, and named experts like Sean Parker. It also addresses counterarguments fairly by acknowledging social media benefits before explaining why they're outweighed by risks. Passage 2 relies on emotional appeals and logical fallacies instead: personal anecdotes (one elephant), hasty generalizations ("all zoo animals must be miserable"), and ad hominem attacks on zoo supporters. While both want to protect vulnerable groups, Passage 1 uses evidence-based reasoning while Passage 2 uses emotional manipulation.

Question 10 Scoring Rubric

Score	Criteria
4	Thoroughly evaluates using multiple criteria (claim, reasons, evidence, counterarguments), identifies BOTH strengths and weaknesses with specific evidence
3	Evaluates using multiple criteria with some evidence, but analysis may be uneven
2	Addresses some criteria with evidence, but missing significant elements
1	Minimal evaluation with limited criteria or evidence
0	Does not meaningfully evaluate the argument

Sample 4-Point Response for Question 10:
Passage 1 does several things well: It has a clear, arguable claim (age restrictions for social media). It provides credible evidence from respected sources (APA, JAMA Pediatrics, a former Facebook executive). It uses logical reasoning to connect evidence to claims (addictive design affects developing brains). It addresses counterarguments fairly (acknowledges connection benefits but explains limitations). Areas for improvement: The argument could include more specific data about what happens after age restrictions are implemented - do they actually improve teen mental health? Also, while Sean Parker's admission is compelling, it's somewhat dated. More recent insider perspectives would strengthen the argument.

Key Concepts Quick Reference

Term	Definition	How to Identify
Claim	The main point or position being argued	Look for statements that take a stance and can be debated
Reason	Explanation of WHY the claim should be accepted	Often follows "because" or explains the "why"
Evidence	Facts, statistics, examples, or expert opinions that prove reasons	Look for specific data, studies, quotes, or examples
Hasty Generalization	Drawing big conclusions from too few examples	"My friend..." "One time..." used to prove broad claims
Bandwagon	Arguing something is true because many believe it	"Everyone knows..." "Most people agree..."
Ad Hominem	Attacking the person instead of their argument	Focuses on WHO is speaking rather than WHAT they said
Either/Or (False Dilemma)	Presenting only two options when more exist	"Either we... or we..." with no middle ground
False Cause	Assuming one thing caused another because they happened together	Correlation presented as causation without evidence

Evidence Evaluation Checklist

Criterion	Strong Evidence	Weak Evidence
Sufficient	Multiple sources, studies, or examples	One anecdote or single example
Relevant	Directly connects to and supports the claim	Off-topic or only loosely related
Credible	From experts, peer-reviewed journals, respected institutions	From biased sources, unqualified opinions, or outdated data

Author's Claims & Evidence - Answer Keys