Remove details that do not belong
Grade 8 Reading Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
A Trail for Marlow's Old Rail Line (student draft: opinion essay)
[1] Marlow's old rail line, which runs eleven miles from the grain elevator to the river landing, has been closed to trains since 1985. [2] The town should turn the corridor into a paved trail rather than leave it to weeds or sell it off in pieces to neighboring landowners.
[3] A trail would bring new customers to the shops on Main Street. [4] Towns with trails on old rail lines report that cyclists stop for meals and supplies, and a county tourism office found that trail users spent twenty dollars per visit. [5] Because the rails were pulled up decades ago, the roadbed is already graded and nearly flat, which makes the surface easy to pave. [6] The owners of the two bakeries nearest the grain elevator say that Saturday is their weakest day, because traffic on Main Street is thin before noon. [7] The Marlow Harvest Run, which draws about three hundred runners each October, now follows country roads with little shade.
[8] The town can also afford the project without raising local taxes. [9] State and federal grants, which towns request through a yearly application, have paid much of the cost of similar projects nearby. [10] Keeping a paved trail in shape usually costs several thousand dollars per mile each year. [11] The public works department says its crews could handle mowing and trash pickup within their usual schedules. [12] Several landowners along the corridor have asked the town to put up fences, which would add to the cost.
[13] Together, the trail's customers, grants and low upkeep would make the corridor a steady source of town income. [14] Residents who walk their dogs along the corridor already report seeing deer and wild turkeys at dusk.
Noah thinks two sentences in paragraph 2 do not support the point that a trail would bring customers to Main Street. Which pair should be cut?
- Cut [5] and [7], the sentences about paving and about the footrace.
- Cut [5] and [4], the sentences about paving and about trail users' spending.
- Cut [7] and [6], the sentences about the footrace and about weak Saturday sales.
- Cut [4] and [6], the sentences about trail users' spending and about weak Saturday sales.
Pia wonders whether [6] belongs in paragraph 2. Should it stay or go?
- Keep it: it shows a slow stretch of the week that trail users could fill, which supports the point about new customers.
- Cut it: it describes weak sales, which suggests Main Street shops are failing and works against the claim.
- Cut it: it is about bakeries, and the paragraph is about the trail, so the sentence is off topic.
- Keep it: it names real local businesses, and local names make an essay more convincing to readers.
Ren cuts [5] from paragraph 2. Which statement best explains what the cut does for the paragraph?
- It makes the paragraph shorter, which is the main reason to cut any sentence from a draft.
- It removes a claim that the roadbed is too rough to pave, which the town cannot show with any evidence.
- It keeps the paragraph on how the trail would bring customers by removing a point about paving that belongs with the cost argument.
- It makes the paragraph sound smoother and more professional to a reader who is new to the topic and to the kinds of words that writers use.
Ari cuts [12] from paragraph 3. Which statement best explains what the cut does for the paragraph?
- It makes the paragraph shorter, which is the main reason to cut any sentence from a draft.
- It makes the paragraph sound smoother and more professional to a reader who is new to the topic and to the kinds of words that writers use.
- It keeps the paragraph on how the project is paid for by removing a cost that nothing in the paragraph answers.
- It removes a claim that landowners want the state to pay for fences, which the draft does not support.
Why Coastal Towns Should Restore Wetlands (student draft: opinion essay)
[1] Coastal wetlands, the marshy borderlands where land gives way to sea, once covered far more of the shoreline than they do today. [2] Restoring them is a cost-effective way for low-lying coastal towns to protect themselves from storms.
[3] A healthy marsh reduces the force of storm surge before it reaches the first row of houses. [4] Dense marsh grasses slow incoming water and force waves to lose energy as they push through the stems. [5] The tangled roots of marsh plants shelter crabs, snails and other small animals. [6] Oyster farmers along the Gulf Coast say that their lease areas behind restored marshes lose fewer floating docks in storms. [7] Wetlands also store carbon in their waterlogged soils, which keeps the gas out of the atmosphere for centuries.
[8] Restoration can cost less than building hard defenses. [9] A concrete seawall must be built at great expense and repaired after storms, while a restored marsh can build itself up as sediment collects. [10] Restored marshes need several years before the plants are dense enough to slow waves effectively. [11] Some economic studies have estimated that restoring marshes can prevent more in storm damage than it costs, although results vary from site to site. [12] Land suitable for restoration is often expensive, because coastal property is highly sought after.
[13] Taken together, this evidence suggests that towns on low coasts should treat wetland restoration as a core part of their storm planning. [14] Wetlands also attract birdwatchers, whose visits bring small amounts of tourism money to nearby towns.
Bo thinks two sentences in paragraph 2 do not support the point that wetlands reduce the force of storm surge. Which pair should be cut?
- Cut [5] and [7], the sentences about shelter for animals and about stored carbon.
- Cut [5] and [4], the sentences about shelter for animals and about slowing waves.
- Cut [7] and [6], the sentences about stored carbon and about fewer storm losses.
- Cut [4] and [6], the sentences about slowing waves and about fewer storm losses.
Esme wonders whether [6] belongs in paragraph 2. Should it stay or go?
- Cut it: it is a report by farmers rather than scientists, so an essay cannot use it as evidence.
- Keep it: it names a region, and a named region makes an essay more convincing to readers.
- Keep it: it gives a real case of smaller storm losses behind restored marshes, which supports the point about surge.
- Cut it: it is about oyster farming, so it belongs in a paragraph about food from the sea.
Jun cuts [5] from paragraph 2. Which statement best explains what the cut does for the paragraph?
- It makes the paragraph sound smoother and more professional to a reader who is new to the topic and its words.
- It keeps the paragraph on how marshes reduce storm surge by removing a point about shelter for small animals.
- It removes a claim that marsh plants harm small animals, which scientists have found to be false.
- It makes the paragraph shorter, which is the main reason to cut any sentence from a draft.
Kira thinks two sentences in paragraph 3 do not support the point that restoration can cost less than hard defenses. Which pair should be cut?
- Cut [10] and [12], the sentences about delay and about land prices.
- Cut [12] and [11], the sentences about land prices and about the studies of savings.
- Cut [9] and [11], the sentences about the seawall comparison and about the studies of savings.
- Cut [10] and [9], the sentences about delay and about the seawall comparison.
Luz wonders whether [14] belongs in paragraph 4, which concludes about storm planning. Should it stay or go?
- Keep it: it names another benefit of wetlands, which strengthens the case for restoring them.
- Keep it: it ends the essay on an interesting fact about birds that readers will enjoy.
- Cut it: it is about birds, and the essay is about storms, so the sentence is off topic.
- Cut it: it describes a small tourism benefit, but the conclusion is about storm planning, not extra income.
Milo cuts [10] from paragraph 3. Which statement best explains what the cut does for the paragraph?
- It makes the paragraph sound smoother and more professional to a reader who is new to the topic and to the kinds of words that writers use.
- It removes a claim that restored marshes do not become dense enough to work, which scientists dispute.
- It keeps the paragraph on the cost comparison by removing a point about delay that nothing in the paragraph answers.
- It makes the paragraph shorter, which is the main reason to cut any sentence from a draft.
