Combine several sources into one fair answer
Grade 11 Reading Worksheet
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Four Source Notes on Wildflower Strips (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Do strips of wildflowers planted beside crop fields raise the harvest?
Source A: three-year trial by Dr. Amara Lindqvist, a crop scientist at the Rookhaven Agricultural Station, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Lindqvist's team planted wildflower strips along twelve strawberry fields and left twelve similar fields without strips. [2] Fields with strips had about twice as many bees and other pollinating insects visiting the blossoms. [3] Their harvest was about 9 percent larger on average, and fewer berries were small or misshapen. [4] The gain appeared only in the second and third years, after the wildflowers had grown thick.
Source B: survey of 85 farmers by the Rookhaven Growers' Cooperative, 2025; primary, farmers' own reports. [5] Most farmers who had planted strips said that they saw more bees, and about half said their harvests seemed larger. [6] A quarter said the strips took land out of production and were not worth the space. [7] The survey relied on what farmers remembered and did not weigh any harvests.
Source C: two-year study by Dr. Felix Ondaatje, a soil scientist at Tilbury Point College, 2023; primary, measured. [8] Ondaatje compared wheat fields with and without flower strips and found no difference in the size of the harvest. [9] He points out that wheat flowers pollinate themselves, so more bees would not be expected to raise its yield. [10] He did find more ladybugs and other insects that keep crop pests in check in the fields with strips. [11] Those fields needed less pest spray in the second year, although he says two years is too short to be sure.
Source D: article by garden writer Celia Marchetti, Weekend Grower magazine, 2026; secondary, visits to three farms. [12] Marchetti writes that wildflower strips "double the harvest" on the three farms she visited. [13] Her article gives no harvest figures and offers the farmers' impressions as its only evidence for that claim. [14] She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw visitors on summer weekends.
Draft paragraph: (a) Wildflower strips are a simple way to grow a bigger harvest. (b) Marchetti found that the strips "double the harvest" on the farms she visited (Marchetti). (c) She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw weekend visitors (Marchetti). (d) Any farmer who wants a larger crop should plant a strip (Marchetti).
Ari reads the draft paragraph under the cards. Which source does it lean on too much, and what does that make it miss?
- Source D; it should add C's wheat study, which also found a much larger harvest in its fields.
- Source D; it misses A's measured 9 percent gain and C's finding that wheat did not gain.
- Source A; it misses D's report that the strips double the harvest on three farms.
- Source D; it misses C's finding that fields with strips needed less pest spray.
Four Source Notes on Wildflower Strips (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Do strips of wildflowers planted beside crop fields raise the harvest?
Source A: three-year trial by Dr. Amara Lindqvist, a crop scientist at the Rookhaven Agricultural Station, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Lindqvist's team planted wildflower strips along twelve strawberry fields and left twelve similar fields without strips. [2] Fields with strips had about twice as many bees and other pollinating insects visiting the blossoms. [3] Their harvest was about 9 percent larger on average, and fewer berries were small or misshapen. [4] The gain appeared only in the second and third years, after the wildflowers had grown thick.
Source B: survey of 85 farmers by the Rookhaven Growers' Cooperative, 2025; primary, farmers' own reports. [5] Most farmers who had planted strips said that they saw more bees, and about half said their harvests seemed larger. [6] A quarter said the strips took land out of production and were not worth the space. [7] The survey relied on what farmers remembered and did not weigh any harvests.
Source C: two-year study by Dr. Felix Ondaatje, a soil scientist at Tilbury Point College, 2023; primary, measured. [8] Ondaatje compared wheat fields with and without flower strips and found no difference in the size of the harvest. [9] He points out that wheat flowers pollinate themselves, so more bees would not be expected to raise its yield. [10] He did find more ladybugs and other insects that keep crop pests in check in the fields with strips. [11] Those fields needed less pest spray in the second year, although he says two years is too short to be sure.
Source D: article by garden writer Celia Marchetti, Weekend Grower magazine, 2026; secondary, visits to three farms. [12] Marchetti writes that wildflower strips "double the harvest" on the three farms she visited. [13] Her article gives no harvest figures and offers the farmers' impressions as its only evidence for that claim. [14] She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw visitors on summer weekends.
Esme writes a Conflict line for the cards. Which two sources disagree about how large the harvest gain is?
- Sources B and D: B weighed larger harvests, while D reports the farmers' impressions.
- Sources A and C: A counted bees in strawberry fields, while C counted ladybugs in wheat fields.
- Sources A and B: A counted twice as many bees, while B's farmers said they saw more bees.
- Sources A and D: A measured a gain of about 9 percent, while D says the strips double the harvest.
Four Source Notes on Wildflower Strips (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Do strips of wildflowers planted beside crop fields raise the harvest?
Source A: three-year trial by Dr. Amara Lindqvist, a crop scientist at the Rookhaven Agricultural Station, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Lindqvist's team planted wildflower strips along twelve strawberry fields and left twelve similar fields without strips. [2] Fields with strips had about twice as many bees and other pollinating insects visiting the blossoms. [3] Their harvest was about 9 percent larger on average, and fewer berries were small or misshapen. [4] The gain appeared only in the second and third years, after the wildflowers had grown thick.
Source B: survey of 85 farmers by the Rookhaven Growers' Cooperative, 2025; primary, farmers' own reports. [5] Most farmers who had planted strips said that they saw more bees, and about half said their harvests seemed larger. [6] A quarter said the strips took land out of production and were not worth the space. [7] The survey relied on what farmers remembered and did not weigh any harvests.
Source C: two-year study by Dr. Felix Ondaatje, a soil scientist at Tilbury Point College, 2023; primary, measured. [8] Ondaatje compared wheat fields with and without flower strips and found no difference in the size of the harvest. [9] He points out that wheat flowers pollinate themselves, so more bees would not be expected to raise its yield. [10] He did find more ladybugs and other insects that keep crop pests in check in the fields with strips. [11] Those fields needed less pest spray in the second year, although he says two years is too short to be sure.
Source D: article by garden writer Celia Marchetti, Weekend Grower magazine, 2026; secondary, visits to three farms. [12] Marchetti writes that wildflower strips "double the harvest" on the three farms she visited. [13] Her article gives no harvest figures and offers the farmers' impressions as its only evidence for that claim. [14] She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw visitors on summer weekends.
Draft paragraph: (a) Wildflower strips raise harvests. (b) Fields with strips drew about twice as many bees, and their harvest was about 9 percent larger (Lindqvist). (c) Fewer of the berries were small or misshapen (Lindqvist). (d) Farmers everywhere should plant strips beside their fields.
Jun compares this draft with the four cards. Which source does the draft lean on too much, and what does it miss?
- Source A; it should add C's wheat study as further support for a larger harvest.
- Source C; it misses A's finding that the strawberry gain took two full years to appear.
- Source A; it misses C's finding that wheat, which pollinates itself, did not gain.
- Source A; it misses Marchetti's point that the strips make farms more beautiful.
Four Source Notes on Wildflower Strips (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Do strips of wildflowers planted beside crop fields raise the harvest?
Source A: three-year trial by Dr. Amara Lindqvist, a crop scientist at the Rookhaven Agricultural Station, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Lindqvist's team planted wildflower strips along twelve strawberry fields and left twelve similar fields without strips. [2] Fields with strips had about twice as many bees and other pollinating insects visiting the blossoms. [3] Their harvest was about 9 percent larger on average, and fewer berries were small or misshapen. [4] The gain appeared only in the second and third years, after the wildflowers had grown thick.
Source B: survey of 85 farmers by the Rookhaven Growers' Cooperative, 2025; primary, farmers' own reports. [5] Most farmers who had planted strips said that they saw more bees, and about half said their harvests seemed larger. [6] A quarter said the strips took land out of production and were not worth the space. [7] The survey relied on what farmers remembered and did not weigh any harvests.
Source C: two-year study by Dr. Felix Ondaatje, a soil scientist at Tilbury Point College, 2023; primary, measured. [8] Ondaatje compared wheat fields with and without flower strips and found no difference in the size of the harvest. [9] He points out that wheat flowers pollinate themselves, so more bees would not be expected to raise its yield. [10] He did find more ladybugs and other insects that keep crop pests in check in the fields with strips. [11] Those fields needed less pest spray in the second year, although he says two years is too short to be sure.
Source D: article by garden writer Celia Marchetti, Weekend Grower magazine, 2026; secondary, visits to three farms. [12] Marchetti writes that wildflower strips "double the harvest" on the three farms she visited. [13] Her article gives no harvest figures and offers the farmers' impressions as its only evidence for that claim. [14] She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw visitors on summer weekends.
Draft so far: Strips may help most where crops need insects, since wheat, which pollinates itself, showed no gain (Ondaatje).
To test the draft's point, which detail should Kira add next?
- C's point that wheat flowers pollinate themselves without help from bees.
- C's finding that the fields with strips needed less pest spray in the second year.
- A's finding that strawberry fields with strips drew twice the bees and gave about 9 percent more fruit.
- B's report that about half of the farmers felt their harvests seemed larger.
Four Source Notes on Wildflower Strips (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Do strips of wildflowers planted beside crop fields raise the harvest?
Source A: three-year trial by Dr. Amara Lindqvist, a crop scientist at the Rookhaven Agricultural Station, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Lindqvist's team planted wildflower strips along twelve strawberry fields and left twelve similar fields without strips. [2] Fields with strips had about twice as many bees and other pollinating insects visiting the blossoms. [3] Their harvest was about 9 percent larger on average, and fewer berries were small or misshapen. [4] The gain appeared only in the second and third years, after the wildflowers had grown thick.
Source B: survey of 85 farmers by the Rookhaven Growers' Cooperative, 2025; primary, farmers' own reports. [5] Most farmers who had planted strips said that they saw more bees, and about half said their harvests seemed larger. [6] A quarter said the strips took land out of production and were not worth the space. [7] The survey relied on what farmers remembered and did not weigh any harvests.
Source C: two-year study by Dr. Felix Ondaatje, a soil scientist at Tilbury Point College, 2023; primary, measured. [8] Ondaatje compared wheat fields with and without flower strips and found no difference in the size of the harvest. [9] He points out that wheat flowers pollinate themselves, so more bees would not be expected to raise its yield. [10] He did find more ladybugs and other insects that keep crop pests in check in the fields with strips. [11] Those fields needed less pest spray in the second year, although he says two years is too short to be sure.
Source D: article by garden writer Celia Marchetti, Weekend Grower magazine, 2026; secondary, visits to three farms. [12] Marchetti writes that wildflower strips "double the harvest" on the three farms she visited. [13] Her article gives no harvest figures and offers the farmers' impressions as its only evidence for that claim. [14] She adds that the strips make farms more beautiful and draw visitors on summer weekends.
Which two sources disagree about whether the strips change the harvest at all, as Luz fills in a second Conflict line?
- Sources C and D: C measured larger wheat harvests, while D gives no figures for its claim.
- Sources A and C: A found a larger strawberry harvest, while C found no change in wheat.
- Sources A and B: A measured a larger harvest, while about half of B's farmers saw one too.
- Sources B and C: B's farmers say the strips cost land, while C measured pest spray.
Four Source Notes on a Summer Reading Program (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Does a summer reading program keep students' reading skills from slipping over the summer?
Source A: study by Dr. Naomi Varga-Ellis, an education researcher at Corriden College, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Varga-Ellis tested 400 fourth and fifth graders in Ashby Falls in June and September; about half had joined the library's summer reading program. [2] Program students held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress. [3] Students who read at least four books gained the most, but only about a third of program students reached four. [4] Because families chose whether to join, she cautions that the program may have drawn students who already liked reading.
Source B: study by Dr. Samuel Okonjo for the Tilbury Point school district, 2025; primary, measured, students chosen at random. [5] Okonjo's team mailed ten free books to 300 randomly chosen students and compared them in the fall with 300 who received none. [6] The students who received books scored slightly higher, though the gain was smaller than in many earlier studies. [7] Because the students were chosen at random, he argues that the gain came from the books, not from the kind of families who sign up.
Source C: report by the Ashby Falls Public Library, which runs the program, 2025; primary, its own counts. [8] The library reports that 1,150 students signed up last summer and, according to their reading logs, read an average of eleven books each. [9] Nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program "excellent" or "good." [10] The report gives no test scores and was written to ask the town for more money.
Source D: article by reporter Gil Thornbury, Hesketh Herald, 2026; secondary, interviews with six teachers. [11] Thornbury writes that four of the six teachers said program students seemed better prepared in the fall. [12] Two teachers saw no difference and noted that the strongest readers tend to join the program anyway. [13] Thornbury concludes that the program "erases the summer slide," a claim none of the teachers made. [14] He adds that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
Draft paragraph: (a) The Ashby Falls summer program clearly works. (b) A record 1,150 students signed up, and their logs show they read an average of eleven books each (Ashby Falls Public Library). (c) Nine in ten parents rated the program excellent or good (Ashby Falls Public Library). (d) The town should give the program more money.
Milo reads the draft beside the cards. Which source does it lean on too much, and what does that make it miss?
- Source C; it misses the town council's vote in May on expanding the program.
- Source C; it should add A's study, which also found that students read about eleven books over the summer.
- Source D; it gives teachers' impressions but misses A's and B's measured results.
- Source C; it gives sign-ups and ratings but no scores, and misses A's and B's measured results.
Four Source Notes on a Summer Reading Program (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Does a summer reading program keep students' reading skills from slipping over the summer?
Source A: study by Dr. Naomi Varga-Ellis, an education researcher at Corriden College, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Varga-Ellis tested 400 fourth and fifth graders in Ashby Falls in June and September; about half had joined the library's summer reading program. [2] Program students held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress. [3] Students who read at least four books gained the most, but only about a third of program students reached four. [4] Because families chose whether to join, she cautions that the program may have drawn students who already liked reading.
Source B: study by Dr. Samuel Okonjo for the Tilbury Point school district, 2025; primary, measured, students chosen at random. [5] Okonjo's team mailed ten free books to 300 randomly chosen students and compared them in the fall with 300 who received none. [6] The students who received books scored slightly higher, though the gain was smaller than in many earlier studies. [7] Because the students were chosen at random, he argues that the gain came from the books, not from the kind of families who sign up.
Source C: report by the Ashby Falls Public Library, which runs the program, 2025; primary, its own counts. [8] The library reports that 1,150 students signed up last summer and, according to their reading logs, read an average of eleven books each. [9] Nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program "excellent" or "good." [10] The report gives no test scores and was written to ask the town for more money.
Source D: article by reporter Gil Thornbury, Hesketh Herald, 2026; secondary, interviews with six teachers. [11] Thornbury writes that four of the six teachers said program students seemed better prepared in the fall. [12] Two teachers saw no difference and noted that the strongest readers tend to join the program anyway. [13] Thornbury concludes that the program "erases the summer slide," a claim none of the teachers made. [14] He adds that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
Draft so far: Program students in Ashby Falls held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress (Varga-Ellis).
Noah wants the next detail to answer the research question. Which detail should the writer integrate next?
- D's report that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
- A's finding that similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress.
- B's random test, in which students mailed books scored slightly higher, a real but smaller gain.
- C's report that nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program excellent or good.
Four Source Notes on a Summer Reading Program (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Does a summer reading program keep students' reading skills from slipping over the summer?
Source A: study by Dr. Naomi Varga-Ellis, an education researcher at Corriden College, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Varga-Ellis tested 400 fourth and fifth graders in Ashby Falls in June and September; about half had joined the library's summer reading program. [2] Program students held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress. [3] Students who read at least four books gained the most, but only about a third of program students reached four. [4] Because families chose whether to join, she cautions that the program may have drawn students who already liked reading.
Source B: study by Dr. Samuel Okonjo for the Tilbury Point school district, 2025; primary, measured, students chosen at random. [5] Okonjo's team mailed ten free books to 300 randomly chosen students and compared them in the fall with 300 who received none. [6] The students who received books scored slightly higher, though the gain was smaller than in many earlier studies. [7] Because the students were chosen at random, he argues that the gain came from the books, not from the kind of families who sign up.
Source C: report by the Ashby Falls Public Library, which runs the program, 2025; primary, its own counts. [8] The library reports that 1,150 students signed up last summer and, according to their reading logs, read an average of eleven books each. [9] Nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program "excellent" or "good." [10] The report gives no test scores and was written to ask the town for more money.
Source D: article by reporter Gil Thornbury, Hesketh Herald, 2026; secondary, interviews with six teachers. [11] Thornbury writes that four of the six teachers said program students seemed better prepared in the fall. [12] Two teachers saw no difference and noted that the strongest readers tend to join the program anyway. [13] Thornbury concludes that the program "erases the summer slide," a claim none of the teachers made. [14] He adds that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
Pia starts the Conflict line. Which two sources disagree about how large the program's effect is?
- Sources B and D: B found a slight gain from books, while D says the program erases the summer slide.
- Sources C and D: C ran a random test, while D rests on interviews with six teachers.
- Sources A and D: A found that program students held steady, while D says the program erases the slide.
- Sources A and B: A tested fourth and fifth graders, while B mailed books to chosen students.
Four Source Notes on a Summer Reading Program (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Does a summer reading program keep students' reading skills from slipping over the summer?
Source A: study by Dr. Naomi Varga-Ellis, an education researcher at Corriden College, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Varga-Ellis tested 400 fourth and fifth graders in Ashby Falls in June and September; about half had joined the library's summer reading program. [2] Program students held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress. [3] Students who read at least four books gained the most, but only about a third of program students reached four. [4] Because families chose whether to join, she cautions that the program may have drawn students who already liked reading.
Source B: study by Dr. Samuel Okonjo for the Tilbury Point school district, 2025; primary, measured, students chosen at random. [5] Okonjo's team mailed ten free books to 300 randomly chosen students and compared them in the fall with 300 who received none. [6] The students who received books scored slightly higher, though the gain was smaller than in many earlier studies. [7] Because the students were chosen at random, he argues that the gain came from the books, not from the kind of families who sign up.
Source C: report by the Ashby Falls Public Library, which runs the program, 2025; primary, its own counts. [8] The library reports that 1,150 students signed up last summer and, according to their reading logs, read an average of eleven books each. [9] Nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program "excellent" or "good." [10] The report gives no test scores and was written to ask the town for more money.
Source D: article by reporter Gil Thornbury, Hesketh Herald, 2026; secondary, interviews with six teachers. [11] Thornbury writes that four of the six teachers said program students seemed better prepared in the fall. [12] Two teachers saw no difference and noted that the strongest readers tend to join the program anyway. [13] Thornbury concludes that the program "erases the summer slide," a claim none of the teachers made. [14] He adds that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
Draft so far: When books were mailed to randomly chosen students, those students scored slightly higher in the fall (Okonjo).
Which detail should Tala integrate next so that the draft answers the research question fairly?
- B's point that the students who received books were chosen at random.
- C's report that a record 1,150 students signed up for the program last summer.
- D's claim that the program "erases the summer slide" for the students who join.
- A's finding that program students held steady, with A's caution that eager readers may have joined.
Four Source Notes on a Summer Reading Program (research notes: four sources on one question)
Research question: Does a summer reading program keep students' reading skills from slipping over the summer?
Source A: study by Dr. Naomi Varga-Ellis, an education researcher at Corriden College, 2024; primary, measured. [1] Varga-Ellis tested 400 fourth and fifth graders in Ashby Falls in June and September; about half had joined the library's summer reading program. [2] Program students held their reading scores steady, while similar students who did not join lost about two months of progress. [3] Students who read at least four books gained the most, but only about a third of program students reached four. [4] Because families chose whether to join, she cautions that the program may have drawn students who already liked reading.
Source B: study by Dr. Samuel Okonjo for the Tilbury Point school district, 2025; primary, measured, students chosen at random. [5] Okonjo's team mailed ten free books to 300 randomly chosen students and compared them in the fall with 300 who received none. [6] The students who received books scored slightly higher, though the gain was smaller than in many earlier studies. [7] Because the students were chosen at random, he argues that the gain came from the books, not from the kind of families who sign up.
Source C: report by the Ashby Falls Public Library, which runs the program, 2025; primary, its own counts. [8] The library reports that 1,150 students signed up last summer and, according to their reading logs, read an average of eleven books each. [9] Nine in ten parents who returned a form rated the program "excellent" or "good." [10] The report gives no test scores and was written to ask the town for more money.
Source D: article by reporter Gil Thornbury, Hesketh Herald, 2026; secondary, interviews with six teachers. [11] Thornbury writes that four of the six teachers said program students seemed better prepared in the fall. [12] Two teachers saw no difference and noted that the strongest readers tend to join the program anyway. [13] Thornbury concludes that the program "erases the summer slide," a claim none of the teachers made. [14] He adds that the town council will vote in May on whether to expand the program.
Which two sources disagree about how much program students read, as Zee writes a second Conflict line?
- Sources A and C: only a third of A's program students read four books, while C reports eleven each.
- Sources B and C: B mailed ten books to each student, while C counted eleven books read by each.
- Sources A and B: A counted books from reading logs, while B gave a reading test in the fall.
- Sources A and D: A's readers of four books gained most, while D's teachers saw better-prepared students.