Incorporate Counterarguments Into Claim Construction Practice Test

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.