Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

My school is deciding whether to require a semester-long personal finance course for graduation. The proposal comes after a student government poll found that 58% of seniors feel “not at all prepared” to manage a credit card, and a local credit union reported that first-time overdraft fees are one of the most common charges for new account holders under twenty. If we can require chemistry and geometry, we can require basic financial literacy.

A personal finance course would give students practical tools. Budgeting, taxes, interest, and loans aren’t “adult problems”; they become student problems the moment someone signs a lease or accepts a college loan package. Schools claim to prepare students for life, yet we often treat money as a taboo topic. Teaching financial concepts explicitly would prevent expensive mistakes and reduce stress.

The course would also make school more equitable. Students with financially savvy parents already get informal lessons at home, while others are left to learn through trial and error. A required class would level the playing field by ensuring everyone receives the same foundational information. It’s unfair that some students graduate knowing how compound interest works and others don’t.

Critics argue that the schedule is already crowded and that adding a requirement will push out electives like art or choir. But electives are optional for a reason, and students can always take them outside of school. Therefore, the finance class should be required.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

Our city council is debating whether to ban single-use plastic bags at grocery stores. The sanitation department reports that plastic bags make up a noticeable portion of storm-drain clogs, and last spring’s flooding cost the city $240,000 in emergency cleanup. Meanwhile, a local river study found plastic film in the stomachs of 12% of sampled fish. Given those facts, allowing stores to hand out thousands of bags every day is basically choosing litter.

A bag ban would reduce waste in a direct, measurable way. People reuse tote bags because they have to, and when behavior changes at checkout, it changes everywhere else too. The idea that “one bag doesn’t matter” collapses when you multiply it by every errand run in a year. If the council wants a policy that actually affects what ends up on sidewalks and in waterways, this is the simplest one.

The ban would also save money long-term. Even if the city spends some funds on enforcement and signage, fewer clogs mean fewer emergency calls and fewer overtime hours. We should stop pretending that cleanup is cheaper than prevention. Cities that have banned bags report cleaner streets, and it makes no sense for us to lag behind.

Opponents say a ban hurts low-income shoppers because reusable bags cost money. But that complaint is exaggerated, and people can just remember to bring their own. The council should pass the ban and prove that public policy can be both practical and responsible.

Question: Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Add the sentence immediately after the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

My city is deciding whether to install speed cameras in school zones. According to the transportation department, 41% of drivers exceed the speed limit in school zones during morning drop-off, and the police department reports that only a small fraction of those violations result in tickets because officers can’t be everywhere at once. Meanwhile, the PTA has documented multiple near-misses at two crosswalks where visibility is poor. If we are serious about child safety, we need consistent enforcement.

Speed cameras would deter speeding because they make consequences predictable. Right now, many drivers gamble that they won’t see an officer, and they win that gamble most days. Cameras change the calculation. When drivers know they will be fined, they slow down, and the safest accident is the one that never happens.

Cameras also reduce biased enforcement. When an officer decides whom to stop, personal judgment can shape outcomes, even unintentionally. A camera records speed, not appearance. If the goal is fairness and safety, automated enforcement is more consistent than sporadic traffic stops.

Some residents argue that speed cameras are a “cash grab” and that the city should fix road design instead. That’s just a slogan people use when they don’t like accountability. The city should install speed cameras in school zones immediately.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage and answer the question.

Some states are proposing stricter limits on students’ smartphone use during the school day. At my high school, teachers report that phone-related distractions are the number-one cause of repeated redirection, and a student council poll found that 48% of students “wish phones were less tempting” in class. Schools should adopt a bell-to-bell phone-free policy, with phones stored in lockers or locked pouches, because attention is a learning resource and schools are responsible for protecting it.

A phone-free day would improve instruction. Teachers could plan discussions without competing with buzzing notifications. Students would practice listening and participating instead of half-watching a lecture while scrolling. Just as schools set rules about hats or hallway passes, they can set rules about devices.

Phone-free policies also help mental health. Constant checking trains students to expect interruption. When students go hours without feeds and notifications, they remember what it feels like to focus. School should be one place where students are not required to perform online.

The argument that students “need” phones for safety is mostly just panic, since schools have office phones and teachers can always call home. If we want students to learn, we have to remove the biggest distraction.

Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the author’s claim?

Read the following student-written argumentative passage and answer the question.

City councils across the country are debating whether to ban gas-powered leaf blowers. My town’s public works department estimated that leaf blowers account for only 3% of neighborhood noise complaints, yet residents still describe them as “constant” and “inescapable” during fall weekends. Because the problem is both environmental and social, the city should phase out gas-powered leaf blowers and replace them with electric models over the next two years.

Gas blowers are small engines that burn fuel inefficiently. Even if one blower doesn’t seem like much, dozens running for hours adds up to unnecessary emissions. Electric models are already common, and prices have dropped as batteries improve. A phase-out would not be radical; it would simply modernize equipment the way cities updated streetlights and buses.

The loudness of gas blowers is also a quality-of-life issue. Noise interrupts sleep for night-shift workers and makes it hard for families to enjoy their own yards. People should not have to choose between fresh air and peace and quiet.

Landscapers who say a ban would “hurt small businesses” are exaggerating because they just don’t want to change their routines. The city can offer rebates for battery equipment and set realistic timelines. If we can regulate restaurant grease disposal and construction hours, we can regulate leaf blowers.

Which revision of the bolded sentence would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the author’s claim?

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

My city is deciding whether to install speed cameras in school zones. According to the transportation department, 41% of drivers exceed the speed limit in school zones during morning drop-off, and the police department reports that only a small fraction of those violations result in tickets because officers can’t be everywhere at once. Meanwhile, the PTA has documented multiple near-misses at two crosswalks where visibility is poor. If we are serious about child safety, we need consistent enforcement.

Speed cameras would deter speeding because they make consequences predictable. Right now, many drivers gamble that they won’t see an officer, and they win that gamble most days. Cameras change the calculation. When drivers know they will be fined, they slow down, and the safest accident is the one that never happens.

Cameras also reduce biased enforcement. When an officer decides whom to stop, personal judgment can shape outcomes, even unintentionally. A camera records speed, not appearance. If the goal is fairness and safety, automated enforcement is more consistent than sporadic traffic stops.

Some residents argue that speed cameras are a “cash grab” and that the city should fix road design instead. That’s just a slogan people use when they don’t like accountability. The city should install speed cameras in school zones immediately.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.​

Read the student essay excerpt below, then answer the question.

Cities across the country are adding protected bike lanes, and our city should do the same. Protected lanes reduce crashes by separating cyclists from fast-moving cars, and they make biking realistic for people who aren’t already fearless. More biking also means less traffic and cleaner air. Critics like to frame bike lanes as a “war on cars,” but that’s backwards: giving people options is how you reduce congestion for drivers too.

The loudest objection is that removing a lane of parking will hurt small businesses. But that assumes customers only arrive by car. In walkable shopping districts, pedestrians and cyclists often stop more frequently, and streets with calmer traffic can actually become more inviting places to spend time.

If business owners complain about bike lanes, they should adapt instead of expecting the whole city to cater to them.

Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert after the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage and answer the question.

School boards are debating whether to replace traditional letter grades with standards-based grading (SBG), which reports specific skills rather than averaging points. After my school piloted SBG in ninth-grade math, the department reported fewer missing assignments and more retakes completed, suggesting students focused more on learning than on chasing points. Because grades should communicate mastery, not compliance, schools should expand standards-based grading.

SBG is clearer than a single letter. A “B” can hide gaps: a student might be excellent at solving equations but weak at word problems. With standards, teachers can show exactly what a student can do and what still needs practice. That helps students study smarter and helps parents understand progress.

SBG also encourages revision. In the real world, people improve drafts and fix mistakes; they are not defined forever by their first attempt. Allowing retakes makes school more like real learning and less like a points game.

Students who complain that SBG is “confusing” just don’t like being held accountable for actual skills. The system is better because it rewards mastery.

Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position, inserted immediately after the bolded sentence?

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

In my town, the school board is considering starting the high school one hour later next year. Supporters point to a district survey in which 62% of students reported getting fewer than seven hours of sleep on school nights, and the nurse’s office logged a 18% increase in stress-related visits during first period compared with last year. The board also circulated a memo noting that neighboring districts that shifted start times later saw fewer tardies. These numbers make the decision feel obvious: if we want students to learn, we should stop scheduling school as if teenagers have the same sleep cycles as adults.

The main reason to move the bell later is academic performance. When students are exhausted, they don’t “power through”; they stare at the board and copy notes they won’t remember. A later start would make first period a real class instead of a warm-up for consciousness. If we claim school is about learning, then we should align the schedule with basic biology. It’s not radical to say that a student who has slept is more prepared to read, write, and think.

A later start time would also improve safety. Drowsy driving is a real risk for teens, especially those who commute from rural roads. If the district can reduce even a few near-misses by letting students wake up naturally, that is worth more than maintaining an “efficient” morning routine. We make huge investments in security cameras and ID badges, but we ignore a simple change that reduces danger before students even arrive.

Some people argue that changing the schedule would be inconvenient for families, but inconvenience is not a serious reason to keep a harmful system. If parents truly cared about their children’s success, they would adjust their routines instead of demanding that students adjust their brains. The district should adopt a later start time because it would improve learning and safety, and we should not let adult calendars outweigh student health.

Question: Which revision would best incorporate an opposing view without weakening the writer’s claim?

Consider revising the bolded sentence.

Read the following student-written argumentative passage (embedded here) and answer the question that follows.

Colleges should stop requiring standardized test scores for admission. In a recent admissions newsletter, a regional university reported that applicants from higher-income zip codes submitted test scores at nearly twice the rate of applicants from lower-income zip codes, which suggests that access to prep resources shapes who even feels confident enough to test. The same newsletter noted that first-year GPA correlated more strongly with high school course rigor than with test scores. If colleges say they value potential, they should evaluate students based on what they actually did over four years.

Test-optional policies make admissions fairer. A single Saturday morning should not outweigh years of consistent work, especially when some students have tutors and others have jobs. Removing the requirement would reduce stress and encourage students to apply to colleges that fit them rather than colleges that fit their test scores. It would also reduce the incentive to treat education like a game of strategies.

Test requirements also narrow what schools teach. When tests dominate, students and teachers feel pressured to practice test formats instead of reading deeply or writing creatively. Education becomes less about curiosity and more about coaching. If colleges truly want thinkers, they should stop rewarding test-taking.

Some people argue that tests provide an objective comparison across schools with different grading standards. But grades already show who worked hard, so we don’t need another metric. Colleges should eliminate test requirements.

Question: Which addition would most effectively acknowledge a counterargument while maintaining the author’s position?

Insert one sentence immediately after the bolded sentence.