Overview

Lesson Procedure

60-75 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure5-10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Project the prompt and give students three minutes to write.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A city council member argues: 'We must close Elm Street to cars. Elm Street is the most dangerous street in town. Last month a cyclist was hit there, and residents tell me they are afraid to cross.' Which part of her argument is well supported, which is only partly supported, and which is simply asserted? What one piece of evidence would you ask her for?"

   Collect three answers. Students usually see that one accident is real evidence but not enough to show that Elm Street is "the most dangerous street," which would need accident counts for other streets, and that residents' fear is relevant but vague. Name the skill: to assess the extent of support, test each claim separately and ask what the evidence actually shows.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Part 1: The support test. Show the table. Students copy it onto a support chart with three columns: claim, support offered, rating.

   Testing the support for one claim

   Part	Question to ask	Signs of weak support
   Claim	What exactly is asserted, and how strongly ("every," "never," "practically certain")?	A sweeping word that the evidence cannot cover
   Evidence	Is it relevant to this claim? Is it specific enough to check (names, dates, numbers, documents)? Is there enough of it?	Categories instead of cases; "it is known"; proof mentioned but not given
   Reasoning	What must be true for the step from evidence to claim to work? Does the text give reason to accept that?	A rule stated about all cases from one case; an unstated assumption the text never defends
   Rating	Well supported, partly supported or asserted?	A rating with no quotation behind it

   Part 2: The war message. Give the background in two sentences: on January 31, 1917, Germany announced that its submarines would sink ships in a zone around Britain, France and Italy without warning; on April 2, Wilson asked Congress to declare that Germany's actions amounted to war. Read T1 aloud, then T2. Students mark each claim with a C, each piece of evidence with an E and each reasoning step with an R. Diagram 1 shows where the texts fall in time.

   1On the 3d of February last I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that on and after the first day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean. That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that passenger-boats should not be sunk, and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats.

   2The precautions taken were meager and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was observed.

   3The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning, and without thought of help or mercy for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. Even hospital-ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the proscribed areas by the German Government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

   4I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would, in fact, be done by any Government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion, and where lay the free highways of the world. By painful stage after stage has that law been built up with meager enough results, indeed, after all was accomplished that could be accomplished, but always with a clear view at least of what the heart and conscience of mankind demanded.

   5This minimum of right the German Government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity, and because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these, which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world.

   6I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of non-combatants, men, women, and children engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be.

   1The present German warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away.

   2Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.

   3When I addressed the Congress on the 26th of February last I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence. But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open sea.

   4It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity, indeed, to endeavor to destroy them before they have shown their own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all.

   5The German Government denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on our merchant-ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be.

   6Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual; it is likely to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents.

   7There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are not common wrongs; they reach out to the very roots of human life.

   • Evidence by category, not by case (T1 paragraph 3)

     Wilson claims that "Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning," and adds that "Even hospital-ships and ships carrying relief" to Belgium "have been sunk."

     Result: The evidence is relevant, and naming hospital ships and relief ships makes the charge sharper, but the paragraph gives kinds of ships, not ships: no name, date or number. A reader of the text alone cannot check it. Rating: partly supported. The claim fits the policy Germany announced (T1 paragraph 1), which helps, but "every kind" is a sweeping word the paragraph does not prove.

   • Reasoning from a principle (T1 paragraph 6)

     Wilson sets property aside: "I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved," and gives his reason: "Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be."

     Result: This is reasoning, not evidence. It works if the reader accepts the assumption that loss of life is a different kind of wrong from loss of goods, one that money cannot settle. Most readers accept it, so the reasoning supports his claim that this is not an ordinary dispute over shipping. It does not, by itself, show how many non-combatants had died; that would still need evidence.

   • A chain of reasoning with one vague link (T2 paragraphs 3-6)

     Armed neutrality "is impracticable" because submarines are "in effect outlaws," so ships must deal with them "upon sight, if dealt with at all," while Germany treats armed guards as pirates: "The intimation is conveyed." Therefore armed neutrality is "practically certain to draw us into the war."

     Result: The chain is clear: a hidden attacker cannot be warned off, so a guard must fire first, and firing first is an act of war. Each step follows from the one before. The weak link is evidence: "The intimation is conveyed" does not say who conveyed it, when or how. Rating: well reasoned, partly supported by evidence (Diagram 2).

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   T3 comes from Wilson's message of February 3, 1917. It quotes the German note of May 4, 1916 (the pledge given after a German submarine torpedoed the channel steamer Sussex in March 1916) and the German memorandum of January 31, 1917. These are the documents behind Wilson's claim that Germany broke its word, so students can test that claim against the evidence Wilson himself supplies. In the part marked [...], the American note of May 8, 1916 said the United States could not "for a moment entertain" any suggestion that German respect for American rights be made contingent on "the conduct of any other Government." Work through the two examples with the class, then have pairs rate paragraph 11 on their support chart.

   1In reply to this declaration the German Government gave this Government the following assurances:

   2The German Government is prepared to do its utmost to confine the operations of war for the rest of its duration to the fighting forces of the belligerents, thereby insuring the freedom of the seas, a principle upon which the German Government believes, now as before, to be in agreement with the Government of the United States.

   3The German Government, guided by this idea, notifies the Government of the United States that the German naval forces have received the following orders:

   4In accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance.

   5But neutrals cannot expect that Germany, forced to fight for her existence, shall, for the sake of neutral interest, restrict the use of an effective weapon if her enemy is permitted to continue to apply at will methods of warfare violating the rules of international law. Such a demand would be incompatible with the character of neutrality, and the German Government is convinced that the Government of the United States does not think of making such a demand, knowing that the Government of the United States has repeatedly declared that it is determined to restore the principle of the freedom of the seas from whatever quarter it has been violated.

   6To this the Government of the United States replied on the 8th of May, accepting, of course, the assurances given, but adding:

   [...]

   7To this note of the 8th of May the Imperial German Government made no reply.

   8On the 31st of January, the Wednesday of the present week, the German Ambassador handed to the Secretary of State, along with a formal note, a memorandum which contains the following statement:

   9The Imperial Government, therefore, does not doubt that the Government of the United States will understand the situation thus forced upon Germany by the Entente Allies' brutal methods of war and by their determination to destroy the Central Powers, and that the Government of the United States will further realize that the now openly disclosed intentions of the Entente Allies give back to Germany the freedom of action which she reserved in her note addressed to the Government of the United States on May 4, 1916.

   10Under these circumstances Germany will meet the illegal measures of her enemies by forcibly preventing, after February 1, 1917, in a zone around Great Britain, France, Italy, and in the eastern Mediterranean all navigation, that of neutrals included, from and to France, etc. All ships met within the zone will be sunk.

   11I think that you will agree with me that, in view of this declaration, which suddenly and without prior intimation of any kind deliberately withdraws the solemn assurance given in the Imperial Government's note of the 4th of May, 1916, this Government has no alternative consistent with the dignity and honor of the United States but to take the course which, in its note of the 18th of April, 1916, it announced that it would take in the event that the German Government did not declare and effect an abandonment of the methods of submarine warfare which it was then employing and to which it now purposes again to resort.

   • A claim the quoted evidence supports in part (T3 paragraphs 5, 9 and 11)

     Wilson says the January 31 memorandum "suddenly and without prior intimation of any kind deliberately withdraws the solemn assurance" of May 4, 1916. The May 4 note itself says that "neutrals cannot expect that Germany" will "restrict the use of an effective weapon if her enemy is permitted to continue" to break the rules of war, and the memorandum says Germany now takes back "the freedom of action which she reserved."

     Result: That Germany withdrew the assurance is well supported: paragraph 10 says "All ships met within the zone will be sunk." "Without prior intimation of any kind" is not supported by Wilson's own evidence: the 1916 note had already reserved a way out, and the memorandum points back to it. Wilson's stronger point is that the United States had rejected that condition in May 1916. Rating: the claim of withdrawal is well supported; "suddenly and without prior intimation" is asserted against the evidence.

   • The same test applied to the other side (T3 paragraphs 9-10)

     The German memorandum justifies the new policy by "the Entente Allies' brutal methods of war" and calls them "the illegal measures of her enemies."

     Result: The memorandum's reasoning is that one side's breaking of the law frees the other side to break it too. In the words quoted here, it names no Allied measure, so its claim about "brutal methods" is asserted in this text. Applying the same test to both governments keeps the assessment fair: the question is always what the text itself shows.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read T4 and T5, the second half of Wilson's argument, and fill in a support chart with at least four claims, one row each, before they take the quiz. Here Wilson moves from what Germany did at sea to why Germany did it and what kind of government Germany had, so remind students to watch for general rules stated about all governments of a kind, and to ask what evidence stands behind each one.

   1We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling toward them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their Government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval.

   2It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow-men as pawns and tools.

   3Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions.

   4Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression, carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs.

   5A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic Government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away, the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.

   6Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia?

   7Russia was known by those who know it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life.

   8Autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, in character or purpose; and now it has been shaken and the great, generous Russian people have been added, in all their native majesty and might, to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a league of honor.

   1One of the things that have served to convince us that the Prussian autocracy was not and could never be our friend is that from the very outset of the present war it has filled our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of Government with spies and set criminal intrigues everywhere afoot against our national unity of council, our peace within and without, our industries and our commerce.

   2Indeed, it is now evident that its spies were here even before the war began, and it is, unhappily, not a matter of conjecture, but a fact proved in our courts of justice, that the intrigues which have more than once come perilously near to disturbing the peace and dislocating the industries of the country have been carried on at the instigation, with the support, and even under the personal direction, of official agents of the Imperial German Government accredited to the Government of the United States.

   3Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who were, no doubt, as ignorant of them as we ourselves were), but only in the selfish designs of a Government that did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that Government entertains no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German Minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.

   4We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic Governments of the world.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: On an index card, finish the sentence twice, once for a claim you rated well supported and once for a claim you rated asserted: "The claim that ___ is ___ because the text ___." Collect the cards and sort them by claim to open the next lesson.

   Teacher note on the texts and their language: The passages are quoted exactly as printed in 1917, including dated phrases such as "unmanly business" (T1 paragraph 2; "unmanly" meant cowardly or dishonorable) and "running amuck" (T7 paragraph 4; today spelled "amok," a word English took from Malay, meaning to rush about attacking wildly, out of control). Tell students that the assessment asks how well the text supports its claims, not whether the United States was right to go to war. Some claims can be checked later against history, and students may raise them: for example, the new Russian government that Wilson praised was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, and Russia made a separate peace with Germany in March 1918. Keep that for discussion; the rating of T4 depends on the support Wilson gave on April 2. T7 contains Wilson's promise about Americans of German birth; during the war many German Americans faced suspicion and harassment, and Congress passed the Espionage Act in June 1917.

   Homework passages. Wilson's message of February 26 (T6) and the part of the war message on aims, motives and German Americans (T7), used for the homework problems.

   1That policy was forthwith put into practice. It has now been in active exhibition for nearly four weeks. Its practical results are not fully disclosed. The commerce of other neutral nations is suffering severely, but not, perhaps, very much more severely than it was already suffering before the 1st of February, when the new policy of the Imperial Government was put into operation.

   2We have asked the co-operation of the other neutral Governments to prevent these depredations, but I fear none of them has thought it wise to join us in any common course of action. Our own commerce has suffered, is suffering, rather in apprehension than in fact, rather because so many of our ships are timidly keeping to their home ports than because American ships have been sunk.

   3Two American vessels have been sunk, the Housatonic and the Lyman M. Law. The case of the Housatonic, which was carrying foodstuffs consigned to a London firm, was essentially like the case of the Frye, in which, it will be recalled, the German Government admitted its liability for damages, and the lives of the crew, as in the case of the Frye, were safeguarded with reasonable care.

   4The case of the Law, which was carrying lemon-box staves to Palermo, disclosed a ruthlessness of method which deserves grave condemnation, but was accompanied by no circumstances which might not have been expected at any time in connection with the use of the submarine against merchantmen as the German Government has used it.

   5In sum, therefore, the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the actual conduct of the German submarine warfare against commerce and its effects upon our own ships and people is substantially the same that it was when I addressed you on the 3d of February, except for the tying up of our shipping in our own ports because of the unwillingness of our ship-owners to risk their vessels at sea without insurance or adequate protection, and the very serious congestion of our commerce which has resulted, a congestion which is growing rapidly more and more serious every day.

   6This in itself might presently accomplish, in effect, what the new German submarine orders were meant to accomplish, so far as we are concerned. We can only say, therefore, that the overt act which I have ventured to hope the German commanders would in fact avoid has not occurred.

   1We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of the nation can make them.

   2Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish objects, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.

   [...]

   3We enter this war only where we are clearly forced into it because there are no other means of defending our rights.

   4It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act without animus, not in enmity toward a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in armed opposition to an irresponsible Government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is running amuck.

   5We are, let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the early re-establishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us--however hard it may be for them, for the time being, to believe that this is spoken from our hearts. We have borne with their present Government through all these bitter months because of that friendship--exercising a patience and forbearance which would otherwise have been impossible.

   6We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that friendship in our daily attitude and actions toward the millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it toward all who are, in fact, loyal to their neighbors and to the Government in the hour of test. They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance. They will be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose. If there should be disloyalty it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T4 paragraph 1, Wilson claims that the German government did not go to war "with their previous knowledge or approval," meaning the German people's. What support does paragraph 1 itself give for this claim?

   AA report of German public opinion taken before the war BNone: the claim is stated as fact, with no evidence given CA quotation from a German official who admits the point DA comparison with how Congress is consulting Americans

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T2 paragraph 7, Wilson presents the nation's choice as war or "the path of submission." How does the rest of T2 bear on this way of framing the choice?

   AIt contradicts the framing, since T2 recommends armed neutrality BIt has no bearing at all, since T2 never mentions any other course CIt supports the framing by arguing that a third course has failed DIt proves the framing with counts of ships lost since February

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   "Russia was known by those who know it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart" (T4 paragraph 7). What kind of support is "those who know it best"?

   AAn appeal to unnamed authorities a reader cannot check BA count of the votes cast in Russian elections before 1917 CAn account of what Wilson himself saw on a visit to Russia DA quotation from a statement of the new Russian government

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Wilson concludes that Russia is "a fit partner for a league of honor" (T4 paragraph 8). This conclusion depends most on which unstated assumption?

   AThat Russia had already defeated Germany on the battlefield BThat the recent change in Russia shows its lasting character CThat Russia's government had asked to join the United States DThat the Russian autocracy was Russian in origin and purpose

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T4 paragraph 5, Wilson claims that "No autocratic Government could be trusted to keep faith." Which statement best assesses the support for this claim within T4?

   AWell supported: the paragraph lists treaties that autocracies broke BProved: Wilson quotes Germany admitting it cannot be trusted CUnsupported: nothing in T4 connects autocracy with broken faith DPartly supported: paragraph 4 offers a reason, secrecy, but no cases

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Compared with T5 paragraph 1, what makes the evidence in T5 paragraph 2 stronger?

   AIt points to a public record, court cases, that readers could check BIt uses stronger and more emotional words to describe the spies CIt names the German agents whom the courts found guilty DIt shows that the German people approved of the spying

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which claim does Wilson offer "the intercepted note to the German Minister at Mexico City" as evidence for (T5 paragraph 3)?

   AThat German spies were in America before the war began BThat the German people knew nothing of their rulers' plans CThat Germany means to stir up enemies at our very doors DThat armed neutrality can no longer protect American ships

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Wilson writes that the German people "were, no doubt, as ignorant of them as we ourselves were" (T5 paragraph 3). What do the words "no doubt" signal about the support for this claim?

   AThat Wilson has checked the German government's own records BThat the point is assumed rather than shown by evidence CThat the German government has publicly admitted the point DThat American courts have ruled on the question

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T5 paragraph 4, Wilson says that "in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend." What does this claim rest on?

   AThe spying and intrigue described in paragraphs 1-3 BA new treaty violation described only in paragraph 4 CThe German memorandum quoted in full in paragraph 4 DA vote Congress had already taken to declare war

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    "The precautions taken were meager and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing instance after instance" (T1 paragraph 2). How well does this sentence support its claim in the text?

    AWell: it lists each instance with its date and place BNot at all: it contradicts what paragraph 1 says CStrongly: it quotes a German report of the failures DWeakly: it says proof exists but names no case

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In T2 paragraph 1, which words give evidence for the claim "It is a war against all nations"?

    A"We must put excited feeling away." B"Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it." C"The challenge is to all mankind." D"other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk"

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In T3 paragraph 11, Wilson reasons that the United States "has no alternative" but to break relations with Germany. What gives this reasoning its force?

    AIt rests on a new law that Congress passed early in 1917 BIt applies a warning the United States gave in April 1916 CIt is based on a request from the German people DIt follows from the sinking of the Housatonic in T6

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In T4 paragraph 2, Wilson says that "It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days." What kind of support is this?

    AA comparison with an old pattern, not evidence about this decision BA detailed account of the German council that chose war in 1914 CTestimony from the "ambitious men" who planned the war DA calculation of what the war had cost the German people

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which statement best assesses how well T5 supports Wilson's claim that the German government "means to act against our peace and security" (paragraph 3)?

    AUnsupported: T5 offers only its feelings of friendship toward Germans BProved beyond question: T5 prints the intercepted note in full CLargely: court cases and an intercepted note, neither described DUndercut: T5 says the spies were working for Mexico instead

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Wilson separates the German people from their government (T4 paragraph 1) and claims that only democratic nations can keep faith in a partnership for peace (T4 paragraph 5). Explain the reasoning that connects these two claims, and assess one weakness in it.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Choose one claim in T5 that is backed by evidence a reader could check and one claim that is backed only by assertion. Quote each and explain your choice.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Rate the support for Wilson's claim about Russia in T4 paragraphs 6-8 as well supported, partly supported or asserted. Explain your rating and name the evidence that would have been needed.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    "Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right" (T2 paragraph 2). Can a speech supply evidence for a claim about a nation's future motives? Explain what kind of support Wilson gives here and how a reader should weigh it.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    T4 paragraph 4 says that plans of deception are "happily impossible where public opinion commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs." State the assumption this reasoning depends on, and explain whether T4 or T5 gives evidence for it.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a paragraph assessing the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in T4 and T5 support Wilson's claim that the United States is fighting the German government, not the German people. Cite at least two paragraphs.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to RH.9-10.8: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy. © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.