D3.3.9-12: Using Inconsistent Evidence to Revise Claims
In plain English: D3.3.9-12 is the C3 Framework inquiry indicator for grades 9-12 that asks students to identify evidence that draws information directly and substantively from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies in evidence in order to revise or strengthen claims. Students compare what sources actually say, explain why they disagree, and rewrite a claim to fit the evidence.
Identify evidence that draws information directly and substantively from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies in evidence in order to revise or strengthen claims.
C3 Framework for Social Studies (NCSS) · Dimension 3: Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence · Developing Claims and Using Evidence · Official standard
D3.3.9-12 asks students to identify evidence that draws information directly and substantively from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies in evidence in order to revise or strengthen claims. The skill has three linked parts: pull specific evidence from several sources, notice where that evidence does not fit together, and use the mismatch to improve a claim rather than to give up on it.
The topic is a vehicle for the skill. On October 8, 1871, a firestorm destroyed Peshtigo, Wisconsin, on the same night that fire swept Chicago. The sources on this page give death tolls from 500 to 2,400: the local newspaper six days after, the village priest's 1874 account as reprinted in 1918-1919, a historical magazine's 1918 summary, and a National Weather Service history. Students explain why the numbers differ and write claims that fit them. The quiz and homework apply the same moves to an invented school bond vote (civics) and an invented cannery closing (economics).
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Draw specific evidence directly from several primary and secondary sources, quoting and citing each
Detect inconsistencies in evidence and explain them by checking scope, timing, method and whether the sources are independent
Revise a claim so that it fits all the evidence, including its uncertainty
Strengthen a claim by showing that inconsistent evidence still points the same way
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Identifying evidence from multiple sources and noting its limitations D3.3.6-8
Evaluating the credibility of a source by examining how experts value it D3.2.9-12
Integrating information from diverse sources and noting discrepancies among them RH.11-12.9
"Three friends report the crowd at last night's game: 'about 300,' 'at least 500,' and 'the stands were packed, over a thousand.' What questions would you ask before deciding who is right? Could more than one of them be right?"
Collect the questions: Did they count or guess? When did they look? Did they count the same area (the student section or the whole stadium)? Did one hear the number from another? Name these four checks method, timing, scope and independence. They are the tools historians use when sources disagree.
Direct Instruction25 minutes
Part 1: Key terms. An inconsistency is a place where sources, or parts of one source, cannot all be right as stated. Evidence drawn directly is quoted or closely paraphrased from the source itself; evidence drawn substantively is specific and central to the source, not a passing phrase taken out of context. The scope of a figure is what it covers: which place, which people, which dates. An estimate is a reasoned guess where a full count is impossible. Sources are independent when neither relies on the other. To revise a claim is to change it to fit the evidence; to strengthen it is to add evidence or reasoning that makes it harder to doubt.
Part 2: The compelling question.How deadly was the Peshtigo fire of 1871, and why do the sources disagree? Students read Sources 1, 4 and 5 and fill an Inconsistency Log with four columns: the figure, the exact words, what it covers (scope), and when and how it was produced. Words to know: Menekaune was a settlement at the mouth of the Peshtigo River; holocaust in 1871 meant a destruction by fire; to succor is to help; environs are the surrounding area; a league was about three miles.
1Holocaust of Flame. PESHTIGO ANNIHILATED! 500 LIVES LOST!!! THE FARMING COUNTRY RUINED! WHOLE FAMILIES BURNED TO DEATH!! $2,000,000 worth of Property Destroyed!!
2Terrible Destruction of Life and Property!--Menekaune Destroyed and Marinette in Great Danger--Buildings in Suburbs Burn--McCartney's Mill Gone--Pioneer Manufacturing Co.'s Works Destroyed--Catholic Church & New York Mill destroyed--Hundreds Starving and Dying--1500 people Homeless--Peshtigo Harbor, Marinette and Menominee Crowded with Fugitives!--We Must have Help--Heart-Rending Details--Noble efforts of the People to Succor the Distressed--Incidents, &c.
[...]
3The streets were lined with men, women and children fleeing for their lives. Many of the families were engaged in making excavations in the sand and burying their household goods. Any quantity of goods was hauled over on to the Island. The sick were being removed to places of safety, and thus, with alternate hope and despair, the long, weary hours of the night wore away.
4The wind had at last settled to blowing steadily from the south west, but still it blew with tremendous fury, and the flames in the swamp immediately in the rear of the town, raged with corresponding fearfulness.
5MENEKAUNE DESTROYED.
6At daylight we got more definite information from the scene of devastation at the mouth of the river. Everything of any particular value was destroyed. Spalding, Houghteling & Johnson's mill, valued at $80.000 (known as the New York mill,) the Exchange House, Mill Co.'s store and Boarding House, Dr Sherman's Drug Store, John Lindquist's Store, Doyle's Shoe Shop and many other places of business we are not now able to call to memory, together with all the dwellings of any note, were in ashes. The luckless inhabitants houseless and homeless.
The Marinette and Peshtigo Eagle (L. B. Noyes, publisher), The Marinette and Peshtigo Eagle, October 14, 1871 (Source 1: the local newspaper six days after the fire) (1871). Public domain (published 1871). Source text.
1It is somewhat difficult to calculate the extent of territory overrun by the fiery scourge, on account of the irregularity of the course followed by the latter. Still, without exaggeration, the surface thus ravaged, extending from the southwest to the northeast of Peshtigo, may be set down as not far from fifteen to twenty leagues in length by five or six in width. The number of deaths in Peshtigo, including the farmers dwelling in the environs, was not less than one thousand—that is to say, about half of the population. More than eight hundred known individuals had disappeared; but there were crowds of strangers, many of whom had arrived that very morning, whose names had not been registered, and whose number will ever remain unknown.
2Among those who escaped from the awful scourge, many have since died, owing to the hardships then endured, whilst others are dropping off day by day. A physician belonging to Green Bay has predicted that before ten years all the unfortunate survivors of that terrible catastrophe will have paid the debt of nature, victims of the irreparable injury inflcted on their constitutions by smoke, air, water, and fire. If the prediction continues to be as faithfully realized in the future as it has been in the past, my turn will also come.
Rev. Peter Pernin, The Finger of God Is There, last section (Source 4: the village priest on the number of dead, 1874) (1874; this edition 1919). Public domain (published 1919). Source text.
1From Sunday, October 8 through Tuesday, October 10, 1871 wildfires claimed thousands of lives and destroyed millions of acres across the Upper Midwest. The most famous fire struck Chicago, and claimed about 300 lives while destroying over three square miles of the city, including more than 17,000 buildings. For many years, the cause of the fire was attributed to a cow housed in a barn on 137 DeKoven Street. The cow, owned by Mrs. O’Leary, purportedly knocked over a lantern that set off the blaze. A reporter later admitted to fabricating the story, but it continues to endure in popular culture. The actual cause of the fire was never determined, but weather conditions across the entire region during the summer and fall of 1871 produced conditions conducive to large, rapidly-spreading fires should one ignite.
2Large wildfires also struck several areas in Michigan, with Holland, Port Huron, and Manistee seeing the most significant damage and loss of life. Although the exact death toll from the Michigan fires is unknown, it likely claimed in excess of 500 lives. However, the most costly fire in terms of loss of life occurred in and around Peshtigo, Wisconsin, and remains to this day as the deadliest fire in American History.
3Fire reached Peshtigo during the evening of Sunday, October 8, 1871. By the time the fire ended, it had consumed ~1.5 million acres, and an estimated 1,200-2,400 lives (exact number unknown), including approximately 800 in Peshtigo. Only one building in the town survived the fire (Figure 1). What we know of the fire is primarily taken from the first-hand account of Reverend Peter Pernin. His account details a number of personal stories from those who were present in Peshtigo during the fire, and many of those personal stories are displayed alongside graves in the cemetery adjacent to the Peshtigo Fire Museum. [...]
Tom Hultquist, Science and Operations Officer, National Weather Service, The Great Midwest Wildfires of 1871 (Source 5: a National Weather Service history) (2015). US government work (17 U.S.C. 105). Source text.
Part 3: Four checks for an inconsistency. (1) Scope: do the figures cover the same place and people? (2) Timing: when was each produced, and what could its maker have known then? (3) Method: is it a count, a list, an estimate or a guess? (4) Independence: did one source rely on another? An inconsistency that survives all four checks is real, and the claim must be revised to admit it.
History: two numbers, two scopes (Sources 1 and 4)
The local newspaper and the village priest give very different death tolls. Is this a contradiction?
Result: Draw the evidence directly: the Eagle's headline says "500 LIVES LOST!!!" (Source 1, paragraph 1), six days after the fire. Pernin writes that the deaths "in Peshtigo, including the farmers dwelling in the environs," were "not less than one thousand" (Source 4, paragraph 1). Before calling this a contradiction, check scope and timing: the headline names no area, and the paper was printed so soon that it admits there were places "we are not now able to call to memory" (Source 1, paragraph 6), while Pernin counts the village and the farms around it years later. Part of the gap is real disagreement; part comes from counting different things at different times.
History: agreement that is not independent (Sources 4 and 5)
Pernin and the National Weather Service history agree that roughly 800 or more died in or near Peshtigo. Does their agreement double the support?
Result: No. The Weather Service history says, "What we know of the fire is primarily taken from the first-hand account of Reverend Peter Pernin" (Source 5, paragraph 3). A later source that relies on an earlier one adds an expert summary but not an independent check. Substantive use of multiple sources means tracing where each source got its information.
History: revising a claim (Sources 1, 4 and 5)
Start with the claim "The Peshtigo fire killed 500 people." Revise it to fit all the evidence.
Result: The Weather Service history gives "an estimated 1,200-2,400 lives (exact number unknown), including approximately 800 in Peshtigo" (Source 5, paragraph 3). Revised claim: "The Peshtigo fire killed far more than the 500 first reported: at least about 800 in the town and, by later estimates, 1,200 to 2,400 across the burned region, a number that can never be exact." The revision keeps the early report as evidence of what was known at first, and says why the total is uncertain.
History: strengthening a claim (Sources 1 and 5)
Claim: "The Peshtigo fire was deadlier than the Chicago fire of the same week." Can inconsistent counts still strengthen it?
Result: Yes. The Weather Service history says the Chicago fire "claimed about 300 lives" (Source 5, paragraph 1). Even the lowest Peshtigo figure on this page, the Eagle's 500, is higher, and so is every later estimate. When all the inconsistent numbers fall on the same side of a comparison, the comparison is strengthened.
Guided Practice15 minutes
Pairs read Sources 2 and 3, then Source 6, three sample claims. For each sample they decide: Does it use evidence directly and substantively?Does it notice the inconsistencies?Revise, strengthen, or keep?
1The terrible forest fire which has recently devastated northeastern Minnesota lends peculiar timeliness to this thrilling account of the fiery hurricane which swept over the counties of northeastern Wisconsin in October, 1871. Coming so close to the Chicago fire of October 9, 1871, the Wisconsin fire failed to attract the degree of attention of the outside world which the magnitude of the disaster merited. Over a thousand persons were burned to death, almost as many more were painfully wounded, and three thousand were rendered destitute. But the mere statement of these figures conveys little or no impression of the real character of the fiery ordeal to which the people of northeastern Wisconsin were subjected. For this we can only look to the narratives of those who went through it. Too often such witnesses lack the inclination or the ability to record their story in enduring form. Fortunately for us the Peshtigo fire produced a capable historian in the person of Father Pernin, the village priest, the first half of whose narrative is presented in this issue of the Magazine. The little book from which it is taken was published at Montreal in 1874, with the approbation of the Bishop of Montreal, and sold for the benefit of "the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, in Marinette, State of Wisconsin," which Father Pernin was then building. [...]
The editor, The Wisconsin Magazine of History, Editor's note to "The Finger of God Is There" (Source 2: a historical magazine, December 1918) (1918). Public domain (published 1918). Source text.
1Peshtigo is situated on a river of that name, about six miles from Green Bay with which it communicates by means of a small railroad. The Company established at Peshtigo is a source of prosperity to the whole country, not only from its spirit of enterprise and large pecuniary resources but also from its numerous establishments, the most important of which, a factory of tubs and buckets, affords alone steady employment to more than three hundred workmen. The population of Peshtigo, including the farmers settled in the neighborhood, numbered then about two thousand souls. We were just finishing the construction of a church looked on as a great embellishment to the parish.
[...]
2At a short distance from home, on the other side of the street, was a tavern. This place had been crowded all day with revellers, about two hundred young men having arrived that Sunday morning at Peshtigo by the boat to work on the railroad. Many were scattered throughout the town, where they had met acquaintances, while a large number were lodging at the tavern just mentioned. [...]
Rev. Peter Pernin, The Finger of God Is There, chapter I (Source 3: the village priest on Peshtigo before the fire, 1874) (1874; this edition 1918). Public domain (published 1918). Source text.
1These three claims were written for this page as samples. Each one uses Sources 1-5.
2Sample A: "The Peshtigo fire killed 500 people. The Marinette and Peshtigo Eagle reported '500 LIVES LOST' six days after the fire."
3Sample B: "The sources disagree about the death toll, so nothing can be known about how many people died."
4Sample C: "The Peshtigo fire killed at least several hundred people in and around Peshtigo. A local newspaper reported 500 deaths six days after the fire, the village priest later put the toll at no fewer than one thousand, and a National Weather Service history gives about 800 for the town itself."
SVHS (sample claims written for this page), Three Sample Claims (Source 6: SVHS-written samples for the guided practice). Original passage written for this page.
Answer key.Sample A (paragraph 2) quotes directly but uses only one source and ignores the later, higher figures; it must be revised. Sample B (paragraph 3) is the weak sample on purpose: it treats disagreement as a reason to stop. Every source on the page agrees that hundreds died, and the disagreement itself can be explained. Sample C (paragraph 4) is the strongest: it draws on three sources, gives the range, and keeps its claim ("at least several hundred") within what all of them support. It could be strengthened by explaining why the figures differ, for example with Pernin's note that the town had "about two thousand souls" counting nearby farmers (Source 3, paragraph 1).
Independent Practice15-20 minutes
Each student writes a claim of one or two sentences answering the compelling question, then a paragraph of 150-200 words that (1) quotes at least three sources, (2) names one inconsistency and explains it with one of the four checks, and (3) says whether the evidence led them to revise or strengthen their first claim. They may not reuse a revised claim from the worked examples word for word. Partners check: does each piece of evidence come directly from the source, and is it central to that source, not a phrase taken out of context?
Closure10 minutes
Exit ticket:"When two sources disagree, my first question should be ___, because ___."
Teacher note on the sources: Source 1 is typed from the archive.org scan of the newspaper's front page, which shows only the top of the page. Sources 2-4 are typed from the JSTOR scans of the 1918-1919 reprint and checked against the OCR text; Source 5 is quoted from the National Weather Service page. The Eagle's headline uses "Holocaust" in its 1871 sense of a destruction by fire. Pernin was a Catholic priest; the lesson uses his account as historical evidence without judging his faith, and the excerpts leave out his religious reflections, as the 1918-1919 reprint also did. The fire killed many people; keep the discussion on the evidence, and allow students to step back if the subject is hard for them. Score claims on fit to the evidence, not on the size of the number a student chooses.
Quiz passage. Questions 11-16 of the quiz use Source 7, an invented school bond vote. Homework passage. The homework uses Source 8, an invented cannery closing.
1This scenario is invented for this page. The town, the vote and the sources are invented.
2In the invented town of Riverside, voters decided in November 1952 whether to borrow money to build a new high school. A student wants to claim: "Riverside voters approved the new high school by a wide margin." She finds three sources.
3Source 7A, the Riverside Courier, the morning after the vote: "School Bond Passes! With all but one precinct counted, the vote stands at 1,204 for and 1,150 against."
4Source 7B, the county clerk's official canvass (the certified count), two weeks later: "For the bond: 1,198. Against the bond: 1,163. Ballots rejected as spoiled: 17."
5Source 7C, a memoir published in 1983 by a former school board member: "I will never forget that night. The bond passed by just six votes, and we celebrated until dawn."
SVHS (invented scenario written for this page), The Riverside School Bond Vote (Source 7: an invented scenario for the quiz). Original passage written for this page.
1This scenario is invented for this page. The town, the company and the sources are invented.
2The Lakeview Cannery, the largest employer in an invented lakeside town, closed in the 1920s. A student wants to claim: "The new highway caused the Lakeview Cannery to close in 1925." She finds three sources.
3Source 8A, a letter from the cannery's owner to its workers, dated March 2, 1924: "Prices for canned peas have fallen for three years in a row. With regret, the cannery will close its doors on April 30 of this year."
4Source 8B, a story in the Lakeview Times, May 1, 1924: "The cannery whistle blew for the last time yesterday. Some workers blame the fire that damaged the warehouse last winter."
5Source 8C, the town council minutes of June 9, 1925: "Council member Hale said that since the new state highway opened in 1923, the trucks no longer pass through town, and that is why we lost the cannery."
SVHS (invented scenario written for this page), The Lakeview Cannery (Source 8: an invented scenario for the homework). Original passage written for this page.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Pre-fill the Inconsistency Log with the figures and have students add only scope and timing
Provide the frame: "Source ___ says ___, but Source ___ says ___. The difference is probably because ___. So my claim should say ___."
Work the four checks on one pair of sources together before pairs do the rest
For Advanced Students
Use Diagram 1 to explain which inconsistencies come from scope and which remain after scope is accounted for
Explain how the editor in Source 2 could know a figure that Pernin's 1874 account does not give, and what source the editor would need
Plan a search for one new kind of evidence, such as burial records or relief committee lists, and predict how it would change the claim
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Strong work quotes specific, central evidence from at least three sources, names an inconsistency precisely, explains it with scope, timing, method or independence, and ends with a claim that fits all the evidence, uncertainty included. Watch for four errors: picking one number and ignoring the rest; treating any disagreement as proof that nothing can be known; counting a source that relies on another as independent support; and quoting a phrase that is not central to what the source says.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Revise, Strengthen or Keep
15-20 minPairs
Each pair gets five claim strips. For each one, they find evidence in at least two of Sources 1-5, decide whether to revise, strengthen or keep the claim, and write the improved claim with citations.
The Five Claim Strips
Only Peshtigo was harmed by the fires of October 1871.
The fire destroyed the town of Peshtigo.
The Peshtigo fire burned about 1.5 million acres.
The Eagle took its facts from Pernin's account.
Pernin is our only witness to the fire.
Answer Key for the Teacher
Strip 1: revise. The Eagle reports "MENEKAUNE DESTROYED." (Source 1, paragraph 5), and the Weather Service history describes fires in Chicago and Michigan the same week.
Strip 2: strengthen. "Only one building in the town survived the fire" (Source 5, paragraph 3) agrees with the Eagle's "PESHTIGO ANNIHILATED!"
Strip 3: revise. The Weather Service gives "~1.5 million acres" for the whole fire, while Pernin's rough size, "fifteen to twenty leagues in length by five or six in width" (Source 4, paragraph 1), works out to about 675-1,080 square miles, or roughly 430,000-690,000 acres, at three miles to a league. The figures may cover different areas, so the claim should name its source and scope.
Strip 4: revise. The Eagle was printed on October 14, 1871, and Pernin's book in 1874 (Source 2), so the newspaper cannot have used the book. (Pernin, writing later, could have read the newspaper, so agreement between them is not automatically independent.)
Strip 5: revise. The Eagle printed reports within six days, and the Weather Service history mentions many "personal stories from those who were present."
2
Source Map: Who Relied on Whom?
15 minGroups of 3-4
Groups write Sources 1-5 on sticky notes, place them on a timeline from 1871 to today, and draw an arrow from any source to the source it relies on, using only what the sources themselves say. Then they mark each figure for the death toll on its note and circle any pair of figures that agree only because one source relied on the other.
Answer Key for the Teacher
Source 5 draws an arrow to Source 4: the Weather Service history says its knowledge is "primarily taken from" Pernin.
Source 2 introduces Pernin's narrative (Sources 3 and 4), so those notes connect; the editor printed the 1874 account in 1918-1919.
Source 1 is the earliest and stands on its own on this page.
Circle Sources 4 and 5: their closeness on the Peshtigo figure is partly one source repeated.
Discussion
Ask: which agreement on the map is the most convincing, and why? Students should prefer agreement between sources that did not rely on each other.
3
Revision Gallery
10-15 minGroups of 4, then gallery walk
Each group posts its best claim from the Independent Practice on chart paper. During a gallery walk, other groups add sticky notes of two kinds: Inconsistency (a source the claim does not fit, with a citation) and Support (a source that strengthens it). Groups then revise their claims once.
What to Listen For
Notes that cite exact words rather than general impressions, and revisions that add scope ("in and around the village") or uncertainty ("by later estimates") instead of simply choosing a bigger number. Several different final claims can be correct.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
1 diagrams
Diagram 1: One Fire, Many Numbers
Each bar is a figure as one source states it, with what the source says it covers. "Not less than" and "over" mark lower limits, so those bars show the smallest value the source allows. Bars that cover different areas are not direct contradictions; comparing them is where the four checks begin.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
D3.3.9-12 Homework: Why Did the Lakeview Cannery Close?
Directions: Use Source 8, the invented Lakeview Cannery scenario (printed in the Closure section). The student's first claim is: "The new highway caused the Lakeview Cannery to close in 1925." Quote the sources directly and cite each paragraph.
Part 1: Detecting Inconsistencies (Problems 1-3)
What closing date does each source give or imply? Identify the inconsistency between the sources and the student's claim about the date, and explain which source is best placed to know the date.
The three sources name three different causes. List them, and label each as direct evidence from someone involved in the decision or as a later or second-hand opinion.
Is Source 8C independent evidence about why the cannery closed? Explain, using what the source says about who is speaking and when.
Part 2: Revising the Claim (Problems 4-6)
The owner's letter (Source 8A) is the closest source to the decision. Explain one reason to trust it on the cause and one reason to question it.
Rewrite the student's claim so that it fits all three sources, including what remains uncertain.
In 150-200 words, explain how the inconsistencies changed the claim. Name one new source that could strengthen your revised claim and say what it would show.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Direct evidence
Quotes each source accurately and uses central details
Paraphrases loosely or quotes minor details
No evidence from the sources
Inconsistencies
Identifies the date and cause conflicts and explains them
Identifies a conflict without explaining it
Misses the conflicts
Revised claim
Fits all three sources and states the uncertainty
Fits some sources
Unchanged or unsupported
Next evidence
Names a specific new source and what it would test
Names a vague source
Missing
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
Questions 1-10 use Sources 1-5 (Sources 1, 4 and 5 are in the Direct Instruction section; Sources 2 and 3 are in the Guided Practice section). Questions 11-16 use Source 7, the invented Riverside school bond vote (in the Closure section). Questions 17-20 use Sources 1-5. For each multiple-choice question, choose the best answer. For short-answer questions, write four to six sentences.
Multiple choice: pick an option to check it. Short answer: write your answer, then reveal the model answer.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Pernin writes that "More than eight hundred known individuals had disappeared." Why does the word "disappeared" matter when you use this figure?
Answer: B
"Disappeared" describes known people who could not be found (Source 4, paragraph 1), which is close to, but not the same as, a count of identified dead. A and D contradict the passage. C is wrong: Pernin says the strangers were a separate, uncounted group.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Pernin says the deaths were "about half of the population" (Source 4). Which statement in Source 3 lets you check that claim against his own numbers?
Answer: D
If the population "numbered then about two thousand souls" (Source 3, paragraph 1), half is about 1,000, which matches his "not less than one thousand." The two passages are internally consistent. A and B describe parts of the population, not its total. C is not a number.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
How does Pernin's note about "about two hundred young men having arrived that Sunday morning" help explain why the death toll could never be exact?
Answer: A
Men who had just "arrived that Sunday morning at Peshtigo by the boat" (Source 3, paragraph 2) were strangers, and in Source 4 Pernin says such strangers' names "had not been registered." B, C and D have no support in the sources.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The Eagle reports "1500 people Homeless," and the 1918 editor says "three thousand were rendered destitute." What is the best explanation for the difference?
Answer: C
The Eagle's headline, six days after the fire, counts the "Homeless" without saying for what area (Source 1, paragraph 2); the editor counts the "destitute," people left without means, across northeastern Wisconsin, looking back from 1918 (Source 2, paragraph 1). Before calling it a contradiction, check scope and timing. A assumes bad faith without evidence. B is impossible arithmetic. D confuses later recovery with the 1871 count.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The 1918 editor writes, "Over a thousand persons were burned to death." What is the main limit of this figure as evidence?
Answer: C
The note states the figure but cites no count, list or report behind it (Source 2, paragraph 1). It may be sound, but a reader cannot check it. A is wrong: it is close to Pernin's figure. B is not in the note. D misreads the note, which mentions the Minnesota fire only to explain the timing of the reprint.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The 1918 editor dates the Chicago fire October 9, 1871, while the Weather Service history says the 1871 fires burned "From Sunday, October 8 through Tuesday, October 10." How should you treat this difference?
Answer: D
The Weather Service gives a span of days (Source 5, paragraph 1), and the editor's date (Source 2, paragraph 1) falls inside it. A fire that burned overnight can be dated either day, so this inconsistency does not change any claim. A, B and C overreact to a small, explainable difference.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which phrase from the Weather Service history shows that it treats the Michigan death toll as an estimate?
Answer: C
"Likely" and "in excess of" mark an estimate with a lower limit (Source 5, paragraph 2), and the same sentence says "the exact death toll from the Michigan fires is unknown." A and B describe where fires struck. D refers to the Peshtigo fire, not Michigan.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
A student writes, "A cow started the Chicago fire." Based on Source 5, how should the claim be revised?
Answer: B
Source 5 says a reporter "later admitted to fabricating the story" and that "The actual cause of the fire was never determined" (Source 5, paragraph 1). A confuses how long a story has lasted with evidence. C misreads the passage. D has no support.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The Eagle's headlines include "We Must have Help." What does this suggest about how to read the paper's figures?
Answer: A
A paper calling for help six days after the fire (Source 1, paragraph 2) was reporting fast, in the middle of a crisis, so its figures are early and rough. B and C have no support in the source. D is unlikely for a paper appealing for aid, and its own headline is "WHOLE FAMILIES BURNED TO DEATH!!"
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why might Pernin's 1874 figure be higher than the Eagle's figure of October 14, 1871?
Answer: B
Pernin wrote in 1874, years after the fire, with time to learn who was missing; his account even follows survivors who "have since died," something no early report could know (Source 4, paragraph 2). C has no support: the Eagle cites no records. A has no support. D is wrong: the Eagle was printed in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which inconsistency appears in Source 7?
Answer: A
The Courier's figures give 1,204 - 1,150 = 54 (Source 7, paragraph 3), the canvass gives 1,198 - 1,163 = 35, and the memoir says "just six votes." B, C and D are not inconsistencies in the sources: all three agree it passed in 1952 for the school.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which source is best placed to give the final vote count?
Answer: D
The county clerk's canvass is "the certified count" made after all ballots were checked (Source 7, paragraph 4). A was printed before counting finished. B was written 31 years later from memory. C treats a provisional count and a memory as equal to the official result.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
What best explains why the Courier's numbers differ from the canvass?
Answer: D
The Courier reported "With all but one precinct counted" (Source 7, paragraph 3), so its totals were provisional. A, B and C have no support; the canvass also explains that 17 ballots were rejected as spoiled.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Using the official canvass, what share of the valid votes was for the bond?
Answer: B
1,198 ÷ (1,198 + 1,163) = 1,198 ÷ 2,361 ≈ 0.507, or about 50.7 percent (Source 7, paragraph 4). A is the share against. C uses the Courier's provisional figures (1,204 ÷ 2,354). D treats a 35-vote margin as an exact tie.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Revise the student's claim that "Riverside voters approved the new high school by a wide margin" so that it fits all three sources. Explain what you changed and why.
Model answer: "Riverside voters narrowly approved the new high school in November 1952: the certified count was 1,198 to 1,163, a margin of 35 votes, or about 50.7 percent." I removed "wide," because every source shows a close vote, and I used the canvass because it is the certified count. I noted that the morning paper's 54-vote margin was provisional, with one precinct still out. Rubric: full credit for a revised claim built on the canvass, with the reason for each change; partial credit for a revised claim without reasons.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
The memoir in Source 7 says the bond "passed by just six votes." Explain how you would use this source, given the inconsistency.
Model answer: The memoir is wrong about the margin: the certified count shows 35. It was written in 1983, 31 years later, from memory. It is still useful evidence of how a board member remembered the night, as a close and exciting win, and it agrees with the other sources that the bond passed. I would not use it for the numbers. Rubric: full credit for rejecting the memoir's figure with a reason and naming what it is still good evidence of; partial credit for one of these.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Pernin counts "not less than one thousand" deaths in Peshtigo and its environs, while the Weather Service history gives "approximately 800 in Peshtigo." Are these figures inconsistent? Explain.
Model answer: Not necessarily. Pernin's figure covers the village "including the farmers dwelling in the environs" (Source 4, paragraph 1), while the Weather Service figure is for "Peshtigo," the town (Source 5, paragraph 3). If roughly 800 died in the town and a few hundred more on the surrounding farms, both can be right. The apparent inconsistency comes mostly from scope, so a claim should name the area it covers. Rubric: full credit for identifying the scope difference with direct evidence from both sources; partial credit for noticing a difference without explaining it.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
The Eagle's "500 LIVES LOST" is lower than every later figure. What is the Eagle still good evidence of? Use at least two details from Source 1.
Model answer: It is good evidence of what people near Peshtigo knew and feared within a week: that the town was destroyed ("PESHTIGO ANNIHILATED!"), that the farm country was "RUINED," and that "1500 people" were homeless and needed help. It also shows the scale of property loss as it was first understood, "$2,000,000 worth of Property Destroyed." Its low death figure shows how much was still unknown in the first days. Rubric: full credit for two accurate details and a clear statement of what the source is good evidence of; partial credit for one detail.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
Strengthen or revise the claim "The Peshtigo fire is less remembered than the Chicago fire, even though it was deadlier." Draw evidence directly from Sources 2 and 5.
Model answer: Strengthen it. The 1918 editor writes that the Wisconsin fire "failed to attract the degree of attention of the outside world which the magnitude of the disaster merited" (Source 2, paragraph 1), and the Weather Service history, a century later, still calls Chicago's "The most famous fire" while naming Peshtigo "the deadliest fire in American History" (Source 5, paragraphs 1-2). Two sources from 1918 and the 2010s, written for different purposes, agree on both halves of the claim. One limit: neither measures how well each fire is remembered; a survey or a count of books and memorials would. Rubric: full credit for direct evidence from both sources tied to both halves of the claim and one limit; partial credit for one source.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Name one new kind of source that could narrow the range of the Peshtigo death toll, and explain which inconsistency on this page it would help resolve.
Model answer: Burial or cemetery records for Peshtigo and nearby towns, or relief committee lists of the dead, would give names rather than estimates. They would help settle the difference between the early 500 and the later figures of about 800 to 1,000 for the village and farms, though they could never include strangers who were never identified, a group Pernin says "will ever remain unknown." Rubric: full credit for a specific source, the inconsistency it addresses, and one limit it would still have; partial credit for a source without the inconsistency.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does D3.3.9-12 mean?
D3.3.9-12 asks high school students to identify evidence that draws information directly and substantively from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies in evidence in order to revise or strengthen claims. Students compare what sources actually say, explain where they disagree, and improve their claims as a result.
What does "directly and substantively" mean in D3.3.9-12?
Directly means quoting or closely paraphrasing the source itself, not a summary of it. Substantively means using specific evidence that is central to the source, not a passing phrase pulled out of context.
What counts as an inconsistency in evidence?
Any place where sources, or parts of one source, cannot all be right as stated: different numbers, dates, causes or sequences. Many apparent inconsistencies shrink once students check scope, timing, method and whether one source relied on another.
What is the difference between revising and strengthening a claim?
Revising changes the claim to fit the evidence, for example by narrowing it or adding uncertainty. Strengthening keeps the claim and adds evidence or reasoning that makes it harder to doubt, such as showing that every source points the same way.
Why does this D3.3.9-12 lesson use the Peshtigo fire?
The topic is a vehicle for the skill. The sources on the 1871 Peshtigo fire give death tolls from 500 to 2,400 for clear reasons of scope, timing and method, so students can practice explaining inconsistencies rather than simply picking a number.
Is the death toll topic too grim for high school?
The lesson keeps the focus on how the numbers were produced, not on graphic detail, and the excerpts were chosen with that in mind. Let students step back if a family experience makes the subject hard.
Should students average conflicting numbers?
Usually not. Averaging treats a rough early report, a later estimate and a certified count as equally good. Students should explain why the figures differ and build the claim on the best evidence, reporting a range where the evidence is uncertain.
How should I grade revised claims?
Score whether the claim fits all the cited evidence, whether each inconsistency is named and explained, and whether the evidence is quoted directly from central parts of the sources. A modest claim that fits the evidence should outscore a bold one that does not.
What mistakes do students make with this standard?
Common mistakes include choosing one source and ignoring the rest, treating any disagreement as proof that nothing can be known, counting dependent sources as independent, and quoting a minor detail as if it were the source's main point.
How does D3.3.9-12 connect to argument writing?
It prepares students for D3.4.9-12, which asks them to refine claims and counterclaims, and for D4.1.9-12, which asks for arguments that acknowledge counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses. RH.11-12.9 asks for the same attention to discrepancies among sources.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to D3.3.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
D3.3.6-8Prerequisite
Identify evidence from multiple sources to support claims, noting limitations
Refine claims and counterclaims, pointing out strengths and limitations of both
Lesson coming soon
D4.1.9-12Next step
Construct arguments with evidence from multiple sources, acknowledging counterclaims
Lesson coming soon
Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.
