Argument, Counterclaims & Revision — Chapter quiz · English 7: Reading, Evidence & Expression, Grade 7
Write a 400–500-word recommendation for the fictional six-week room trial. Use Sources A, C, and D, acknowledge the questionnaire’s reach, and respond to a plausible counterclaim. Recommend, revise, or decline the proposal with reasons.
Problem 1
- A number proves a claim about everyone.
- Evaluating an argument means criticizing a stronger claim the source never made.
- Every correct response must exactly copy the model wording.
- claim: A conclusion or position an argument asks a reader to accept.
Answer and explanation
claim: A conclusion or position an argument asks a reader to accept.
A conclusion or position an argument asks a reader to accept. The draft enlarges a limited response count into a claim about everyone. Twelve of eighteen respondents selected quieter drawing from two offered options, but the group excluded nonattendees and the response did not promise complete silence. The evidence can support testing an activity time, with further feedback before making a broader conclusion.
Problem 2
Answer and explanation
No. The invited group, voluntary response, wording, options, and missing participants affect what its numbers can establish.
Use the model to discuss reasoning after an independent attempt. A different accurate supported response can be correct; written work needs human marking.
Problem 3
- qualification: Language that limits a claim to the conditions its evidence supports.
- A valid claim must match the model’s recommendation.
- An argument requires absolute certainty.
- Every correct response must exactly copy the model wording.
Answer and explanation
qualification: Language that limits a claim to the conditions its evidence supports.
Language that limits a claim to the conditions its evidence supports. A defensible claim is to test separate activity times and improve notices before adopting a permanent schedule. Source A identifies differing preferences among respondents, and Source D shows a scheduling and notice gap. Source C’s 300-token estimate supports only the listed trial costs. The proposal should collect additional feedback and revisit costs rather than guarantee equal access for everyone.
Problem 4
Answer and explanation
Yes, if the writer explains how it addresses the supplied preferences, access concern, and cost limits. Assess evidence and reasoning rather than matching the model’s preference.
Use the model to discuss reasoning after an independent attempt. A different accurate supported response can be correct; written work needs human marking.
Problem 5
- A counterclaim is an insult directed at an opponent.
- counterclaim: A relevant competing position that a reasonable reader could hold.
- Responding requires pretending the opposing concern has no merit.
- Every correct response must exactly copy the model wording.
Answer and explanation
counterclaim: A relevant competing position that a reasonable reader could hold.
A relevant competing position that a reasonable reader could hold. A single time could simplify supervision and fit the limited paid hours. A response can acknowledge that constraint while proposing a small trial that divides the existing hours, rather than adding unbudgeted sessions. The questionnaire’s differing preferences support testing the arrangement, but actual attendance and supervision needs remain to be checked.
Problem 6
Answer and explanation
No. It substitutes a personal accusation for the scheduling and resource concern. State the competing proposal and reason, then address it with evidence.
Use the model to discuss reasoning after an independent attempt. A different accurate supported response can be correct; written work needs human marking.
Problem 7
- A paragraph formula guarantees reasoning.
- “This is important” fully explains the relevance of evidence.
- coherence: A clear relationship among parts of a text that helps a reader follow its meaning.
- Every correct response must exactly copy the model wording.
Answer and explanation
coherence: A clear relationship among parts of a text that helps a reader follow its meaning.
A clear relationship among parts of a text that helps a reader follow its meaning. Leila increasingly treats a flaw as a reason to revise rather than hide her work. In paragraph 7 she wants to put away the unreadable card but moves it nearer the door instead. The contrast between her impulse and action shows a changed response to embarrassment. The table detail can be omitted unless the paragraph explains its relationship to that claim.
Problem 8
Answer and explanation
No. The sentences must develop a shared point with accurate evidence and explained relationships. The appropriate length depends on the task and evidence.
Use the model to discuss reasoning after an independent attempt. A different accurate supported response can be correct; written work needs human marking.
Problem 9
- Correct punctuation repairs an unsupported claim.
- Revision is only replacing words with longer synonyms.
- Every correct response must exactly copy the model wording.
- revision: A change to meaning, evidence, organization, or effect.
Answer and explanation
revision: A change to meaning, evidence, organization, or effect.
A change to meaning, evidence, organization, or effect. Limit the approval claim to the actual questionnaire responses, add the resident’s access concern as a counterpoint, and replace “free” with the listed 300-token cost. These changes correct scope, include a missing perspective, and accurately represent resources. Punctuation changes alone would leave those reasoning problems intact.
Problem 10
Answer and explanation
It shows each paragraph’s function and the sequence of reasoning. A word count measures length but cannot reveal missing evidence or an unanswered objection.
Use the model to discuss reasoning after an independent attempt. A different accurate supported response can be correct; written work needs human marking.