Lay out an argument’s premises and test each one

Grade 11 Reading Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Thursday Evenings at the Pellham Library (background and three arguments)

   Background: [1] For the past six months the Pellham Public Library has remained open until nine o’clock on Thursday evenings, a change that the town board adopted as a trial. [2] Staff members counted visitors by the hour throughout the trial and found that Thursday evenings averaged 14 visitors an hour, while weekday afternoons between two and six averaged 31. [3] The additional hours cost the town approximately $42 an hour in wages. [4] A short survey distributed to 120 evening visitors revealed that 85 of them could not visit on a weekday between nine and five because of work or school obligations. [5] Of those 120 visitors, 74 used the library’s public computers, which are frequently all occupied on weekday afternoons. [6] The board must decide in June whether to continue the Thursday evening hours.

   Argument A, from Hal Brandt, the library director: [7] The evening visitors arrived at less than half the afternoon rate. [8] A public library with a limited budget cannot afford to operate a second, thinner version of itself every Thursday night. [9] The board should therefore restore the original weekday schedule without delay.

   Argument B, from Maureen Ostrow, a regular patron: [10] The computers are frequently all occupied on weekday afternoons, and 74 of the evening visitors used those same machines. [11] Clearly the evening hours exist to relieve the afternoon crush, and those 74 visitors demonstrate that the arrangement works as intended. [12] The board should therefore continue the evenings for that purpose.

   Argument C, from Lena Pruitt, a board member: [13] Most of the people whom the evening hours serve could not have come on a weekday afternoon. [14] A low hourly count therefore measures how many people the hours reach, not how many the library would otherwise have served. [15] The lower hourly rate is not evidence that the evenings duplicate the afternoons, and the board should not end them on that ground.

2. 1.

   Esme compares the three arguments with the background. Which argument holds, and why?

   • Argument B: sentences 10 and 11 are both true, and shared computers show that the evening hours relieve the afternoon crowd.
   • Argument C: its premise that most evening visitors could not come on a weekday afternoon is supported by sentence 4, where 85 of 120 say so.
   • Argument A: its rates in sentence 2 are accurate, and if the evening visitors could have come in the afternoon, ending the evenings costs them nothing.
   • Argument C: it makes the smallest claim of the three, and a modest conclusion cannot go wrong however its reasons are judged.
3. 2.

   Tala reads “Clearly” in sentence 11. Judged by the background, what gap does it cover?

   • It treats a low hourly count as a sign of waste, though sentence 4 shows the count measures how many people the hours reach rather than how many the library would otherwise have served.
   • It claims the board adopted the evenings for a purpose, but the writer cannot know the board’s intentions without asking its members.
   • It repeats that the afternoon computers are fully taken, which sentence 10 has already said, and adds no new reason for keeping the evenings.
   • It treats the 74 computer users as people who would otherwise crowd the afternoon, but sentence 4 says most evening visitors could not come by day.
4. 3.

   Zee sees that Arguments A and C both start from the lower evening rate in sentence 2. What does each assume about the evening visitors?

   • Both assume they would use the library in the afternoon if the evenings ended, and they differ merely over the wages in sentence 3.
   • Argument A assumes they could have come in the afternoon; Argument C assumes they could not, which sentence 4 supports.
   • Argument A doubts that the rates in sentence 2 are true, while Argument C accepts them and then adds the survey in sentence 4.
   • Argument A assumes they could not have come in the afternoon; Argument C assumes they could, which sentence 4 supports.

5. Road Salt and the Trout of Hollis Creek (background and three arguments)

   Background: [1] Hollis County spreads about 4,200 tons of road salt on its highways each winter, and Hollis Creek flows beneath four of the roads that are treated. [2] In 2016 an ecological survey counted 120 brook trout in a half-mile stretch of the creek just below the busiest crossing; last year the same survey counted only 70. [3] Chloride in that stretch now measures three times the concentration found in the water above the road. [4] A stretch farther upstream on private land, which no road crosses, held 118 trout in 2016 and 121 last year. [5] The survey also found that the water below the crossing emerges from a shallow millpond and runs about four degrees warmer in summer than the water above it. [6] A neighboring county that began pre-wetting its roads with brine, and therefore used a quarter less salt, reports that trout counts in a creek of similar size have stopped declining, although they have not recovered. [7] Hollis County’s brine equipment would cost approximately $90,000 to purchase and install.

   Argument A, from a state biologist: [8] The trout declined only below the crossing, but that stretch also runs warmer, so the contrast alone cannot demonstrate that salt is the cause. [9] The neighboring county’s trout counts stopped declining after its salt use dropped by a quarter, which is consistent with the idea that salt contributes to the loss. [10] Cutting salt is therefore a reasonable first step, though it may not restore the trout population.

   Argument B, from the county engineer: [11] Trout declined by more than forty percent below the crossing and did not decline at all upstream. [12] Salt is the one substance the county deliberately puts into the creek’s watershed, so salt must be the cause. [13] The county should reduce its use of salt this winter, beginning with the highways that cross the creek.

   Argument C, from a county commissioner: [14] The chloride below the crossing is three times as concentrated as the chloride above it. [15] As any biologist will tell you, that is a poisoning of the creek. [16] The county must therefore stop salting at once and begin an immediate investigation.

6. 4.

   Pia reads “As any biologist will tell you” in sentence 15. Judged by the background, what gap does it cover?

   • It repeats the ratio in sentence 3 in stronger words and adds no step toward the conclusion that the county must stop salting.
   • It treats salt as the one thing the county puts in the creek, though sentence 5 shows the water below the crossing also runs warmer.
   • It leans on authority to skip whether the chloride is high enough to harm trout; sentence 3 gives only a ratio, not a harmful level.
   • It names no biologist, so the claim cannot be checked, and a claim that cannot be checked should not move the county.
7. 5.

   Milo sees that Arguments A and B both start from trout falling below the crossing and not upstream. What does each assume about the two stretches?

   • Argument B assumes salt is the only difference between them; Argument A allows that the warmer water, sentence 5, may matter too.
   • Argument B doubts the upstream counts in sentence 4, while Argument A accepts them and adds the neighboring county’s result.
   • Both assume the two stretches differ only in salt, and they differ over whether the neighboring county’s result in sentence 6 is needed.
   • Argument B allows that the warmer water may matter; Argument A assumes salt is the only difference between the two stretches.

8. A Bicycle Lane for Alder Street (background and three arguments)

   Background: [1] Alder Street carries about 9,000 cars a day through the Eastgate shopping district, and the merchants there fear that a protected bicycle lane would cost them customers. [2] The proposed lane would replace 40 of the street’s 120 curbside parking spaces. [3] A city count found 60 bicycles an hour passing along Alder Street at lunchtime last May. [4] An intercept survey of 200 Alder Street shoppers found that 46 had arrived by bicycle, 31 on foot, 20 by bus and 103 by car. [5] The same survey established that shoppers arriving by car spent about $22 a visit and came about once a month, while shoppers arriving by bicycle spent about $14 a visit and came about 2.4 times a month. [6] The council will vote next month on whether to build the lane.

   Argument A, from Ruth Okonjo, who chairs the merchants’ association: [7] Shoppers who arrive by car spend considerably more on each visit than shoppers who arrive by bicycle. [8] The proposed lane would take away a third of our customers’ parking. [9] A lane that takes parking away from the bigger spenders will therefore reduce our sales.

   Argument B, from Inés Calder, a council analyst: [10] Over the course of a month, the average shopper who arrives by bicycle spends about $34 on Alder Street, and the average shopper who arrives by car spends about $22. [11] Losing a car shopper and gaining a bicycle shopper would therefore leave the street ahead. [12] The lane would pay for itself in sales if it attracted just two new bicycle shoppers for every three car shoppers it drove away.

   Argument C, from Dev Raman, a cycling advocate: [13] Sixty bicycles an hour already ride along Alder Street, even though the street offers them no safe place to ride. [14] Build a protected lane, and many more cyclists will come. [15] Every new rider is a new customer, and the lane will therefore raise sales considerably.

9. 6.

   Ren compares the three arguments with the background. Which argument holds, and why?

   • Argument C: sentence 3 shows many riders already use Alder Street, and a safe lane would bring more of them to the shops.
   • Argument A: sentence 5 shows car shoppers spend more on each visit, and a lane that takes a third of the parking will turn some of them away.
   • Argument B: it uses exact dollar figures, and an argument built on numbers is safe from error, however the numbers are used or combined.
   • Argument B: it combines the per-visit spending and the visits per month in sentence 5, and its conclusion follows if the survey’s averages hold.
10. 7.

    Noah reads “Every new rider is a new customer” in sentence 15. Judged by the background, what gap does it cover?

    • It assumes riders passing along the street will stop to shop, but sentence 3 counts bicycles passing, not shoppers arriving.
    • It repeats that sixty bicycles an hour already ride on Alder Street, which sentence 13 has said, and adds no step toward higher sales.
    • It judges a shopper by spending on a single visit, though sentence 5 shows that bicycle shoppers come far more often.
    • It predicts that many more riders will come, which no study supports, so it is a guess about the future and nothing more.
11. 8.

    Jun sees that Arguments A and B both start from the shoppers’ spending in sentence 5. How does each measure a shopper’s worth?

    • Argument A measures spending on one visit; Argument B measures spending over a month, and sentence 5 gives the visit counts that make them differ.
    • Argument A measures spending over a month; Argument B measures spending on one visit, and sentence 5 gives the visit counts that make them differ.
    • Both measure spending on one visit and differ solely in how many parking spaces they say the lane would remove.
    • Argument A uses the car shoppers’ figures from sentence 5, while Argument B ignores them and relies on the bicycle count in sentence 3.

12. Sugary Drinks at Clarke High School (background and three arguments)

    Background: [1] Clarke High School’s vending machines earn about $38,000 a year, which pays for club travel and equipment, and sugary drinks account for two thirds of the machines’ sales. [2] A school survey of 400 students found that 41 percent buy at least one sugary drink on a typical school day, according to responses collected during the autumn term. [3] A convenience store stands 300 feet from the school’s north gate, and Clarke students are permitted to leave campus at lunch. [4] Two years ago Dunmore High School, which keeps its campus closed at lunch, removed its sugary-drink machines; its own survey found that the share of students buying a sugary drink on a typical day fell from 38 percent to 19 percent over the following year. [5] The school board will vote in October on whether to remove Clarke’s sugary-drink machines from the cafeteria and the gymnasium.

    Argument A, from the school nurse: [6] When Dunmore removed its machines, the share of students buying sugary drinks was cut in half. [7] Clarke’s students are the same age as Dunmore’s students and currently buy sugary drinks at about the same rate as those students did. [8] Removing Clarke’s machines will therefore cut the share of Clarke students who buy sugary drinks in half.

    Argument B, from the booster club treasurer: [9] The machines earn $38,000 a year for the school’s clubs, and two thirds of that income comes from sugary drinks. [10] Without those drinks, the school’s clubs would lose about $25,000 a year in travel funding. [11] Obviously no school can possibly afford to lose that much of its annual income, so the machines must remain exactly as they are.

    Argument C, from a board member: [12] Dunmore’s students could not leave campus at lunch, but Clarke’s students can, and a store stands 300 feet from the north gate. [13] Students who want a sugary drink and find the machines empty can simply walk to the convenience store during their lunch period. [14] Dunmore’s result is therefore a poor guide to what removal would accomplish at Clarke High School.

13. 9.

    Luz reads “Obviously” in sentence 11. Judged by the background, what gap does it cover?

    • It claims that no school can afford the loss, a sweeping statement about schools across the country that the writer has not checked or supported.
    • It skips whether students would buy the machines’ other drinks instead; sentence 1 shows that a third of the sales are not sugary drinks already.
    • It repeats that the machines earn $38,000, which sentence 9 has said, and adds no step toward the conclusion that the machines must stay exactly as they are.
    • It assumes Clarke students have no other place to buy sugary drinks, though sentence 3 puts a store just 300 feet from the north gate, within easy walking distance.
14. 10.

    Ari sees that Arguments A and C both start from Dunmore’s result in sentence 4. What does each assume about where Clarke students can buy drinks?

    • Argument A notes the nearby store in sentence 3; Argument C assumes the machines are Clarke students’ only source, as at Dunmore.
    • Both assume the machines are the only source, and they differ only over whether Dunmore’s result in sentence 4 is accurate.
    • Argument A assumes the machines are their only source, as at Dunmore; Argument C notes the nearby store in sentence 3.
    • Argument A doubts Dunmore’s result in sentence 4, while Argument C accepts it and adds that Clarke’s machines earn $38,000.