How an article builds and sharpens its main idea
Grade 9 Reading Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
What the Sugar Pill Can Do (article)
[1] To most people, a placebo is a trick: a sugar pill handed to a patient who is told that it is medicine. [2] In 1955, the physician Henry Beecher published a paper called "The Powerful Placebo," which reported that about a third of patients in his review improved after taking one. [3] Readers took from it a thrilling lesson, that belief alone could heal almost anything, and the idea passed into popular books about the mind.
[4] Later researchers found the claim hard to sustain. [5] Many of those patients would have improved anyway, since colds fade and sore backs ease, so a plain pill could not be credited with the whole recovery. [6] To separate the pill from the passage of time, scientists needed a third group, one that received no pill at all.
[7] When trials added that group, the picture became more modest. [8] For conditions that can be measured, such as the size of a tumor or the result of a laboratory test, patients given a placebo did no better than patients left alone. [9] For experiences that depend on how a person feels, such as pain or nausea, they often did.
[10] That result is easy to misread as a verdict that the placebo effect is imaginary. [11] A patient whose pain eases after an inactive pill is not pretending; expectation changes how the brain handles a signal. [12] What the evidence does not support is the larger promise, that a hopeful mind can shrink a tumor or lower a fever. [13] Researchers today ask what a pill, a clinic and a doctor's reassurance do to the experience of discomfort, and they ask it with instruments rather than slogans.
Pia tests each rung of the gist ladder. Suppose paragraph 3 were cut. What would the article lose from the development of its central idea?
- The mention of nausea and little else, since paragraph 4 repeats the finding about pain and discomfort.
- Its whole central idea, since paragraph 3 is the one paragraph that mentions the group that received no pill.
- The finding that a placebo matched no treatment for measurable conditions but often helped with pain, narrowing the claim.
- The reason the figure of one third was doubted, since patients who would have improved anyway, and the need for a comparison group, are explained in paragraph 3.
Tala stars the refining rung. Which statement gives the refined central idea and the paragraph where the article first states it?
- A placebo can ease experiences that depend on feeling, such as pain, but it does not change measurable disease; this is first stated in paragraph 4.
- About a third of patients in Beecher's review improved after taking a placebo; this is first stated in paragraph 1.
- A placebo can ease experiences that depend on feeling, such as pain, but it does not change measurable disease; this is first stated in paragraph 3.
- A sugar pill can heal almost anything because belief alone is powerful; this is first stated in paragraph 1.
One Treaty, Two Texts (history)
[1] On February 6, 1840, Māori chiefs and representatives of the British Crown began signing a treaty at Waitangi, in the north of New Zealand. [2] Copies were carried around the country in the following months, and more than five hundred chiefs added their names. [3] To the British officials, the matter looked settled, because the agreement appeared to determine who would govern the islands and who would make their laws.
[4] The difficulty was that there were two texts, written in two languages. [5] The English version said that the chiefs ceded "sovereignty" to the Queen. [6] The Māori version, which most chiefs signed, used a different word for what was given, kāwanatanga, a term built on the English word governor. [7] It also promised the chiefs tino rangatiratanga, the full authority of chiefs over their lands, villages and treasured possessions.
[8] Scholars still argue about what the signers understood. [9] Some believe the chiefs agreed to let the Crown govern settlers while they kept authority over their own people. [10] Others point out that the two words do not translate each other, so no one can say that both sides agreed to the same thing. [11] Both readings rest on the same two documents.
[12] The disagreement did not fade with the passing of the generations who signed. [13] In 1975, New Zealand created the Waitangi Tribunal to hear Māori claims that the Crown had broken the treaty's promises, and it must weigh both texts.
Zee tests each rung of the gist ladder. Suppose paragraph 2 were cut. What would the history lose from the development of its central idea?
- The date of the signing and the number of chiefs, which paragraph 2 supplies to open the history.
- The two texts and their different key words, which are what the later disagreement is about.
- Its whole central idea, since paragraph 2 is the one paragraph that mentions the words of the treaty.
- The Māori word kāwanatanga and little else, since paragraph 3 describes the same disagreement.
Sentence 10 claims that the two words do not translate each other, so no one can say both sides agreed to the same thing. Which judgment of the support is accurate?
- Weak: the history says that the words differ but does not report what either text promised the signers.
- Strong: sentences 5 to 7 set the English word "sovereignty" beside two Māori terms that name different things, a governor's role and chiefs' full authority.
- Strong: sentences 2 and 3 show that more than five hundred chiefs signed and that British officials thought the matter settled.
- Strong: sentence 9 quotes chiefs who explained at the signing which word they understood.
Bo stars the refining rung. Which statement gives the refined central idea and the paragraph where the history first states it?
- The English text said the chiefs ceded sovereignty, while the Māori text used the word kāwanatanga; this is first stated in paragraph 2.
- Because the two texts use different key words, what the signers agreed to cannot be settled by either text alone; this is first stated in paragraph 3.
- The treaty settled who would govern New Zealand by transferring authority to the Crown; this is first stated in paragraph 1.
- Because the two texts use different key words, what the signers agreed to cannot be settled by either text alone; this is first stated in paragraph 4.
One Face, Many Jobs (essay)
[1] Rembrandt van Rijn painted, etched and drew his own face roughly eighty times, an unusually large number for any artist of his century. [2] A museum visitor might take this as vanity, or as a diary: a man recording how he aged, one year at a time. [3] The wall labels in many galleries encourage the second reading.
[4] A few early works resist it. [5] In etchings from around 1630, the young Rembrandt glares at the viewer, frowns, and opens his mouth as if shouting, his hair a wild mass. [6] No one wants to be remembered like this, and a diary has no use for a grimace. [7] These faces were made to be studied, not to flatter.
[8] Artists in the seventeenth century learned to show feeling by copying it, and a mirror was the cheapest model available, since it never charged for a pose or grew tired. [9] Rembrandt seems to have used his own face the way a musician uses scales, as practice that lets him later paint grief, surprise or anger on other people's faces.
[10] The late portraits are different, and the difference matters. [11] By the 1660s the painter had gone bankrupt and lost his house, and the face looking out is heavy, lined and unguarded. [12] This face needed no drill. [13] A single story of vanity, or of a diary, or of practice, is too small for a career that lasted forty years and used the same face for several jobs.
Sentence 9 claims that Rembrandt used his own face as practice for painting feeling on other faces. Which judgment of the support is accurate?
- Strong: sentences 11 and 12 show his face changing late in life, which backs the claim about practice.
- Reasonable but not certain: sentences 5, 7 and 8 give odd early faces and a free, tireless model, but no source reports what Rembrandt intended.
- Strong: sentence 8 quotes Rembrandt's own letters about practicing expressions in the mirror.
- Weak: the essay gives no reason why a painter of that century would study expressions in a mirror.
Kira stars the refining rung. Which statement gives the refined central idea and the paragraph where the essay first states it?
- Rembrandt's late portraits show a heavy, lined and unguarded face after his bankruptcy; this is first stated in paragraph 4.
- Rembrandt's self-portraits record how a vain man aged, year by year; this is first stated in paragraph 1.
- Rembrandt's self-portraits did different jobs at different times, so no single reading, such as a diary, fits them; this is first stated in paragraph 4.
- Rembrandt's self-portraits did different jobs at different times, so no single reading, such as a diary, fits them; this is first stated in paragraph 2.
A Story Too Good (argument)
[1] The story of the wolves of Yellowstone has been told in documentaries, speeches and one very popular online video. [2] When wolves were brought back to the park in 1995 and 1996, after nearly seventy years without them, the elk that had grazed freely along the rivers grew wary and kept moving. [3] Young willows, finally left alone, grew tall; beavers returned to the willows; songbirds nested in the new growth. [4] One animal, the telling goes, had rebuilt a landscape.
[5] The tale satisfies because it is simple, and parts of it are supported. [6] In some places willows have recovered, and wolves did change where elk spend their time. [7] But the elk herd was also shrinking for other reasons: people outside the park took many animals each winter, and bears and cougars fed on the calves. [8] Years of drought lowered the streams, and beavers need water as well as willows.
[9] Researchers who study the park do not agree on how much credit the wolves deserve. [10] Some measure the fear of wolves as a strong force on plant growth; others find its effects patchy, clear along some streams and absent along others. [11] Most would say that wolves mattered, and few would say that the changes can be traced to wolves alone.
[12] This complication does not make the reintroduction a failure. [13] The park has more predators and a fuller food web than it did before 1995. [14] It does suggest that a story with a single hero is easier to film than to defend in front of skeptical scientists.
Luz tests each rung of the gist ladder. Suppose paragraph 2 were cut. What would the article lose from the development of its central idea?
- The other causes of the changes, such as losses outside the park, predators and drought, which complicate the one-hero story.
- Its whole central idea, since paragraph 2 is the one paragraph that criticizes the wolf story.
- The mention of drought and little else, since paragraph 3 already says researchers disagree about how much credit the wolves deserve.
- The popular story of wolves, elk, willows and beavers, which paragraph 2 tells in full for the first time.
Sentence 11 claims that most researchers say wolves mattered, and few say the changes can be traced to wolves alone. Which judgment of the support is accurate?
- Partly supported: sentences 6 and 10 show real but uneven effects, though no count stands behind "most" and "few."
- Unsupported: the article reports no effect of wolves on willows, on beavers or on where elk spend their time along the rivers.
- Strong: sentence 10 gives the results of a poll of researchers who study the park and its rivers, with each answer counted.
- Strong: sentences 12 and 13 show more predators and a fuller food web, which backs the claim about researchers' views.
Noah stars the refining rung. Which statement gives the refined central idea and the paragraph where the article first shows it?
- Wolves were brought back to Yellowstone in 1995 and 1996, after nearly seventy years without them; this is first shown in paragraph 1.
- Wolves rebuilt Yellowstone's landscape by changing how elk behave and letting willows regrow; this is first shown in paragraph 1.
- Wolves mattered in Yellowstone, but the changes had several causes, so the one-hero story overstates; this is first shown in paragraph 4.
- Wolves mattered in Yellowstone, but the changes had several causes, so the one-hero story overstates; this is first shown in paragraph 2.
