Overview

Lesson Procedure

60-65 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5 minutes
2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure5 minutes

1. Warm-Up5 minutes

   Project this sentence from an invented county report: "After the county built 12 wildlife underpasses beneath Highway 9, collisions with deer on that stretch fell from 31 in 2022 to 14 in 2023."

   Warm-Up Prompt

   The report treats the underpasses as a success. List three questions the sentence leaves unresolved. Then star the one question that most affects whether the county should build underpasses on other highways.

   Take five or six questions and sort them on the board into two groups: questions about whether the underpasses caused the drop (fewer deer, a milder winter, less traffic, a single year), and questions outside the report's claim (cost, other animals). Tell students that this is today's skill. RST.11-12.6 asks them to analyze why a science author explains, describes a procedure or discusses an experiment, and to identify the important issues that remain unresolved. "Important" means the issues on which the author's conclusion depends, whether the author names them or not.

2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes

   Part 1: Where unresolved issues hide. Keep this table up for the whole lesson. Authors flag some open issues on purpose; others show up only when a reader checks the method against the claim.

   Kinds of unresolved issues in science texts, with signals and questions to ask

   Kind of issue	How it shows up	Signal words or a question to ask
   Flagged by the author	The author says a point is not proved or not known	"I cannot positively determine," "not yet," "we do not know," "must determine"
   Supported but not proved	The author states a conclusion but grades its strength	"appears sufficient," "probably," "the probability that"
   Implied by the method	The procedure cannot separate two causes, or measured too little	What else differs between the groups? What was measured only once?
   Raised by the results	A new result conflicts with an accepted idea	"a new difficulty presented itself," questions the author asks aloud
   Outside the scope	A question the text never claims to answer	Useful to note, but not an issue for this text's conclusion

   Part 2: Why authors state what is unresolved. In a report to other scientists, open issues do real work: they grade how strong each claim is, protect the author from overclaiming, explain why some experiment was not done, and point other investigators to what should be tested next. So the two halves of the standard are linked. Asking why the author discusses an experiment often reveals what the experiment could not settle.

   Part 3: Model with Jenner (T1). Edward Jenner was an English country physician. In 1798 he reported that people who had caught cow-pox, a mild disease picked up from milking infected cows, did not catch smallpox, and he proposed deliberate inoculation with cow-pox. Before this excerpt he describes his cases. He believed cow-pox began as a disease of horses' heels ("the grease") carried to cows by farm workers who dressed the horses and then milked. Read the excerpt aloud once, then work the two examples.

   1Although I presume it may be unnecessary to produce further testimony in support of my assertion "that the cow--pox protects the human constitution from the infection of the smallpox," yet it affords me considerable satisfaction to say that Lord Somerville, the President of the Board of Agriculture, to whom this paper was shewn by Sir Joseph Banks, has found upon inquiry that the statements were confirmed by the concurring testimony of Mr. Dolland, a surgeon, who resides in a dairy country remote from this, in which these observations were made. With respect to the opinion adduced "that the source of the infection is a peculiar morbid matter arising in the horse," although I have not been able to prove it from actual experiments conducted immediately under my own eye, yet the evidence I have adduced appears sufficient to establish it.

   2They who are not in the habit of conducting experiments may not be aware of the coincidence of circumstances necessary for their being managed so as to prove perfectly decisive; nor how often men engaged in professional pursuits are liable to interruptions which disappoint them almost at the instant of their being accomplished: however, I feel no room for hesitation respecting the common origin of the disease, being well convinced that it never appears among the cows (except it can be traced to a cow introduced among the general herd which has been previously infected, or to an infected servant) unless they have been milked by some one who, at the same time, has the care of a horse affected with diseased heels.

   3The spring of the year 1797, which I intended particularly to have devoted to the completion of this investigation, proved, from its dryness, remarkably adverse to my wishes;-for it frequently happens, while the farmers' horses are exposed to the cold rains which fall at that season, that their heels become diseased, and no cow-pox then appeared in the neighbourhood.

   [...]

   4Whether the matter, either from the cow or the horse, will affect the sound skin of the human body, I cannot positively determine; probably it will not, unless on those parts where the cuticle is extremely thin, as on the lips, for example. I have known an instance of a poor girl who produced an ulceration on her lip by frequently holding her finger to her mouth to cool the raging of a cow-pox sore by blowing upon it. The hands of the farmers' servants here, from the nature of their employments, are constantly exposed to those injuries which occasion abrasions of the cuticle, to punctures from thorns, and such like accidents; so that they are always in a state to feel the consequence of exposure to infectious matter.

   [...]

   5Thus far have I proceeded in an inquiry founded, as it must appear, on the basis of experiment; in which, however, conjecture has been occasionally admitted in order to present to persons well situated for such discussions objects for a more minute investigation. In the mean time I shall myself continue to prosecute this inquiry, encouraged by the hope of its becoming essentially beneficial to mankind.

   • An issue the author flags and explains (T1, paragraphs 1-3)

     Jenner says the horse origin "appears sufficient to establish" though he could not prove it "from actual experiments." What exactly is unresolved, and why does he spend paragraphs 2-3 on why the experiments did not happen?

     Result: Unresolved: whether cow-pox really starts in horses. His evidence is an observed pattern, that the disease "never appears among the cows" unless their milker "has the care of a horse affected with diseased heels." He has not taken matter from a horse's heels, put it on a healthy cow and produced cow-pox. Paragraphs 2-3 explain the gap as bad luck rather than contrary evidence: experiments need a "coincidence of circumstances," doctors are "liable to interruptions," and the dry spring of 1797 brought no diseased heels and so no cow-pox. The purpose is to keep the claim alive while grading it honestly, and to tell other investigators what test is still missing.

   • A best guess, a conjecture and an issue Jenner does not flag (T1, paragraphs 4-5)

     Paragraph 4 says "I cannot positively determine" whether the matter infects sound skin. How does Jenner handle this issue, what does paragraph 5 say about the purpose of such conjectures, and what important issue does he not mark as open at all?

     Result: Jenner gives a best guess ("probably it will not, unless on those parts where the cuticle is extremely thin"), one supporting case (the girl's lip) and a reason it rarely matters on farms (servants' hands are always scratched). Paragraph 5 names the purpose: "conjecture has been occasionally admitted in order to present to persons well situated for such discussions objects for a more minute investigation." The open points are deliberately handed to other investigators. An unflagged issue is how long protection lasts. Paragraph 1 treats protection as settled ("unnecessary to produce further testimony"), but no case shows how many years it holds. The later history of vaccination made this one of the most important questions of all.

   Close the model with Diagram 1. Point out that Jenner grades almost every claim with a signal phrase, and that the most consequential open issue in the excerpt, the duration of protection, is the one without a signal. Unresolved issues the author does not flag are often the most important ones.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read the field report (T2), a modern text written for this page, and mark every issue the authors flag as unsettled with F. Then they reread the Method paragraph and mark with U anything in the procedure that could affect the conclusion but is never discussed. Work the two examples as a class, with Diagram 2.

   1Purpose. Salt spread on roads in winter washes into nearby ponds with the spring melt, just as wood frogs lay their eggs. This report describes a field survey that asked whether wood frog tadpoles survive less well in ponds near salted roads, and it sets out what the survey could not settle. The ponds and all data are invented for teaching.

   2Method. In April we chose six ponds in the same county: three within 50 m of a salted highway and three more than 500 m from any salted road. We measured chloride in each pond once, on the day we began, with a chloride meter. In each pond we set two mesh enclosures in shallow water and placed 40 newly hatched wood frog tadpoles, collected from that same pond, in each enclosure. After 30 days we counted the tadpoles still alive.

   3Results. Chloride in the roadside ponds was 310, 460 and 780 mg/L; in the distant ponds it was 12, 20 and 35 mg/L. Of the 80 tadpoles in each pond, 55, 50 and 41 survived in the roadside ponds (in the same order) and 66, 70 and 63 in the distant ponds.

   4Discussion. Survival was lower in every roadside pond than in every distant pond, and among the roadside ponds it fell as chloride rose. These results fit the idea that road salt harms wood frog tadpoles. However, ponds beside a highway receive more than salt: rain also washes oil, tire particles and metals off the pavement, and our survey did not measure them.

   5Limits and next steps. With six ponds and one season, we cannot rule out that the roadside ponds differ in some other way, such as water temperature or the number of predators. We also stopped counting after 30 days, before the tadpoles turned into frogs, so we do not know how many would have survived to leave the pond. A tank experiment in which tadpoles from one source are raised at several chloride levels, with everything else the same, would test the effect of salt alone.

   • The issues a report flags, and why it flags them (T2, paragraphs 4-5)

     List the unresolved issues the report names, and explain the authors' purpose in ending with a proposed tank experiment.

     Result: The report flags four issues. Other road pollutants ("oil, tire particles and metals ... our survey did not measure them"); other differences between ponds ("water temperature or the number of predators"); a small sample ("six ponds and one season"); and the time limit ("we do not know how many would have survived to leave the pond"). The first three are all the same problem, that the survey compares ponds without controlling what else differs, so salt cannot be separated from the road. That is why the report ends with an experiment that holds "everything else the same": it shows the authors know which issue matters most for their conclusion, and it tells the reader what evidence would resolve it.

   • Checking the numbers, and finding an issue the report does not flag (T2, paragraphs 2-3)

     Convert each pond's survival to a percentage and find the mean for each group. Then find one feature of the method that could affect the result but is never mentioned as a limit.

     Result: Roadside: 55/80 = 68.75%, 50/80 = 62.5%, 41/80 = 51.25%, mean 146/240 ≈ 60.8%. Distant: 66/80 = 82.5%, 70/80 = 87.5%, 63/80 = 78.75%, mean 199/240 ≈ 82.9%. The claim that every roadside pond is lower than every distant pond holds (55 < 63). An unflagged issue: the tadpoles were "collected from that same pond." Populations living beside salted roads for many generations may differ from others, for example in how well they tolerate salt, so the comparison mixes the effect of the pond with the effect of the animals' origin. The proposed tank experiment, with "tadpoles from one source," would remove this issue, but the report never says so. A second unflagged issue is that chloride was measured "once," in April, although salt levels change as melt water arrives and as rain dilutes it.

   Debrief: Of all the issues on the board, which one would most change the report's conclusion if it turned out badly, and which could be ignored? Push students to rank, not list. The flagged confound of other pollutants and the unflagged issue of tadpole origin both threaten the claim about salt; the 30-day limit affects how large the harm is, not whether it exists.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students read the two Pasteur excerpts below on their own and answer quiz questions 1-20 with the texts open; question 19 also uses Jenner (T1). Louis Pasteur read this address to the French Academy of Sciences in 1878, when many physicians still doubted that microscopic organisms cause disease. Tell students before they read: "etiology" means the cause of a disease; "septicemia" is a fatal infection of the blood, and the "septic vibrio" is the rod-shaped organism Pasteur suspected of causing it; "virulence" is the power to cause disease; "cultivation" means growing the organism in a flask of nutrient fluid; and "carbonic acid" is carbon dioxide. T4 continues directly after T3. For every question, decide whether the issue is settled, supported or still open, and cite the words that show it.

   1Our researches of last year, left the etiology of the putrid disease, or septicemia, in a much less advanced condition than that of anthrax. We had demonstrated the probability that septicemia depends upon the presence and growth of a microscopic body, but the absolute proof of this important conclusion was not reached. To demonstrate experimentally that a microscopic organism actually is the cause of a disease and the agent of contagion, I know no other way, in the present state of Science, than to subject the microbe (the new and happy term introduced by M. Sedillot) to the method of cultivation out of the body. It may be noted that in twelve successive cultures, each one of only ten cubic centimeters volume, the original drop will be diluted as if placed in a volume of fluid equal to the total volume of the earth. It is just this form of test to which M. Joubert and I subjected the anthrax bacteridium. [...] Having cultivated it a great number of times in a sterile fluid, each culture being started with a minute drop from the preceding, we then demonstrated that the product of the last culture was capable of further development and of acting in the animal tissues by producing anthrax with all its symptoms. Such is--as we believe--the indisputable proof that ANTHRAX IS A BACTERIAL DISEASE.

   1Our researches concerning the septic vibrio had not so far been convincing, and it was to fill up this gap that we resumed our experiments. To this end, we attempted the cultivation of the septic vibrio from an animal dead of septicemia. It is worth noting that all of our first experiments failed, despite the variety of culture media we employed--urine, beer yeast water, meat water, etc. Our culture media were not sterile, but we found--most commonly--a microscopic organism showing no relationship to the septic vibrio, and presenting the form, common enough elsewhere, of chains of extremely minute spherical granules possessed of no virulence whatever. [...] This was an impurity, introduced, unknown to us, at the same time as the septic vibrio; and the germ undoubtedly passed from the intestines--always inflamed and distended in septicemic animals--into the abdominal fluids from which we took our original cultures of the septic vibrio. If this explanation of the contamination of our cultures was correct, we ought to find a pure culture of the septic vibrio in the heart's blood of an animal recently dead of septicemia. This was what happened, but a new difficulty presented itself; all our cultures remained sterile. Furthermore this sterility was accompanied by loss in the culture media of (the original) virulence.

   2It occurred to us that the septic vibrio might be an obligatory anaerobe and that the sterility of our inoculated culture fluids might be due to the destruction of the septic vibrio by the atmospheric oxygen dissolved in the fluids. The Academy may remember that I have previously demonstrated facts of this nature in regard to the vibrio of butyric fermentation, which not only lives without air but is killed by the air.

   3It was necessary therefore to attempt to cultivate the septic vibrio either in a vacuum or in the presence of inert gases--such as carbonic acid.

   4Results justified our attempt; the septic vibrio grew easily in a complete vacuum, and no less easily in the presence of pure carbonic acid.

   5These results have a necessary corollary. If a fluid containing septic vibrios be exposed to pure air, the vibrios should be killed and all virulence should disappear. This is actually the case. If some drops of septic serum be spread horizontally in a tube and in a very thin layer, the fluid will become absolutely harmless in less than half a day, even if at first it was so virulent as to produce death upon the inoculation of the smallest portion of a drop.

   [...]

   6If it is a terrifying thought that life is at the mercy of the multiplication of these minute bodies, it is a consoling hope that Science will not always remain powerless before such enemies, since for example at the very beginning of the study we find that simple exposure to air is sufficient at times to destroy them.

   7But, if oxygen destroys the vibrios, how can septicemia exist, since atmospheric air is present everywhere? How can such facts be brought in accord with the germ theory? How can blood, exposed to air, become septic through the dust the air contains?

5. Closure5 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name the one unresolved issue from today's texts that matters most for its author's conclusion. Say whether the author flags it, quote the words that show its status (or the words of the method that reveal it), and name the evidence that would resolve it." Sort the tickets into "issue, status and evidence," "issue only" and "a question outside the text" to plan the next lesson.

   Teacher note on the historical texts. Pasteur's excerpt describes deliberately infecting animals, and Jenner's full Inquiry (not the excerpt) reports inoculating an eight-year-old boy, James Phipps, with cow-pox in 1796 and then with smallpox matter to test his protection. Inoculation with smallpox matter was an accepted medical practice at the time, but experiments like these would not meet today's ethical standards for research with people or animals. Say this plainly and keep the focus on how the authors report their reasoning. Jenner's "the grease" was a disease of horses' heels; his spelling "shewn" is an old form of "shown," and "cuticle" means the outer skin. Pasteur's "septic vibrio" is the bacterium now called Clostridium septicum, and his anthrax "bacteridium" is Bacillus anthracis. Robert Koch had described the anthrax organism's life cycle in 1876, and Koch and Pasteur are both credited with founding the germ theory of disease.

   Homework passage. The homework uses the technical memo below, written for this page. It combines an explanation, a sampling procedure and a discussion of a result that does not settle the question.

   1Purpose. This memo explains why nitrate in Well 3 has risen, describes the sampling we did to find its source, and sets out what is still unknown before the board decides whether to treat the water, blend it with water from the other wells or drill a replacement well. The utility, its wells and all data are invented for teaching.

   2How nitrate reaches a well. Nitrate forms in soil when bacteria convert nitrogen from fertilizer, manure or septic-system wastewater. It dissolves easily and is not held by soil, so rain and irrigation carry it down to the water table, and groundwater then carries it slowly toward wells. Depending on the depth and the soil, water may take anywhere from a few years to several decades to travel from the surface to a well's intake, so the nitrate pumped today reflects how the land was used in the past.

   3The trend. Annual average nitrate in Well 3, measured as nitrogen, was 4.1 mg/L in 2019, 4.8 mg/L in 2020, 5.6 mg/L in 2021, 6.9 mg/L in 2022 and 7.4 mg/L in 2023. The federal drinking-water limit is 10 mg/L as nitrogen. Wells 1 and 2, which draw from deeper in the aquifer, stayed below 2 mg/L in all five years.

   4Sampling procedure. In March 2024 we collected water from Well 3 after pumping it for 20 minutes, so that the sample came from the aquifer rather than from water standing in the pipe. A laboratory measured the ratio of two forms of nitrogen in the nitrate, nitrogen-15 and nitrogen-14, reported as δ¹⁵N in parts per thousand (‰). Nitrate made from synthetic fertilizer usually has a δ¹⁵N between about -4 and +4‰; nitrate from manure or septic wastewater usually falls between about +10 and +20‰.

   5Result. The sample measured +6.5‰, between the two ranges.

   6What remains unknown. A value between the ranges could mean a mixture of fertilizer and septic nitrate, nitrate from soil organic matter, or fertilizer nitrate whose δ¹⁵N rose as bacteria underground broke part of it down. One sample cannot tell these apart. We also do not know how old the water reaching Well 3 is, so we cannot yet say whether the rise reflects farming in the 2000s or the septic systems of the newer housing to the north. We recommend testing for tracers found only in wastewater, such as artificial sweeteners, and dating the water with tritium before the board chooses a remedy.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   At the start of T3, Pasteur writes that "the absolute proof of this important conclusion was not reached." Which issue does he identify as unresolved?

   AWhether anthrax is caused by a microscopic organism BWhether microscopic organisms can be grown outside the body at all CWhether septicemia is caused by the growth of a microscopic body DWhether the Academy should adopt the new word "microbe"

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does Pasteur describe "the method of cultivation out of the body" in T3 before he reports any new results?

   AIt sets the standard of proof, so readers can judge which claims meet it BIt tells the Academy how to prepare the sterile fluids used in the cultures CIt shows that cultivation had already failed for both septicemia and anthrax DIt credits M. Joubert with inventing the method of successive cultures

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Suppose each of Pasteur's cultures is started with a drop of 0.05 cm³ placed in 10 cm³ of sterile fluid, so that each transfer dilutes the fluid about 200 times. By about what factor is the original drop diluted after twelve successive cultures?

   A2,400 B4.1 × 10²⁷ C1.0 × 10¹² D2.0 × 10²⁵

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What is the purpose of the long chain of successive cultures, in which the drop is diluted "as if placed in a volume of fluid equal to the total volume of the earth"?

   ATo show that the organism grows faster in a large volume of fluid BTo weaken the organism step by step until it causes no disease CTo make enough fluid to inoculate a large number of animals DTo rule out any lifeless poison carried over in the first drop

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Pasteur calls the anthrax result "as we believe--the indisputable proof." What does "as we believe" show about how he presents the issue?

   AHe doubts the anthrax result and expects the Academy to reject it BHe offers the proof as his judgment, for the Academy to review CHe means that the proof rests on faith rather than on experiment DHe admits that the anthrax experiments were never carried out

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T4, paragraph 1, why does Pasteur report that "all of our first experiments failed"?

   AThe failures pointed to contamination, which shaped the next step BHe wants to show that the septic vibrio cannot be grown in any fluid CThe failures prove that septicemia is not caused by a microscopic organism DHe is explaining why he gave up septicemia and turned back to anthrax

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What job does the sentence "If this explanation of the contamination of our cultures was correct, we ought to find a pure culture of the septic vibrio in the heart's blood" do in T4, paragraph 1?

   AIt reports the final proof that the vibrio causes septicemia BIt admits that the explanation of the impurity cannot be tested CIt describes how the culture fluids were made sterile DIt turns an explanation into a prediction that can be checked

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The heart's-blood cultures "remained sterile." Which hypothesis does T4, paragraph 2 offer to resolve this new difficulty?

   AThe heart's blood contains a poison that kills every microscopic organism BThe septic vibrio is only an impurity that plays no part in the disease COxygen dissolved in the fluids kills the vibrio, which lives without air DThe cultures were too dilute for the vibrio to be seen under a microscope

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does Pasteur remind the Academy of "the vibrio of butyric fermentation" in T4, paragraph 2?

   AHis earlier finding makes the new hypothesis plausible before he tests it BThe butyric vibrio and the septic vibrio are the same organism under two names CHe wants to move the discussion from disease back to his work on fermentation DThe butyric vibrio was the impurity that contaminated the first septic cultures

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Paragraphs 3-4 of T4 report growth in a vacuum and in carbonic acid, and paragraph 5 draws "a necessary corollary." What is the purpose of the thin-layer test in paragraph 5?

    ATo find out how much septic serum it takes to kill an animal BTo show that carbonic acid is itself poisonous to the vibrio CTo check a prediction of the hypothesis: air should destroy virulence DTo prove that septic serum loses all of its virulence in a vacuum

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    T4 ends with three questions, beginning "But, if oxygen destroys the vibrios, how can septicemia exist." What unresolved issue do they raise?

    AWhether the septic vibrio can grow in a vacuum or in carbonic acid BHow the disease can spread by air and dust if air kills the organism CWhether anthrax and septicemia are caused by one and the same organism DHow thin a layer of septic serum must be before it becomes harmless

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What is the purpose of T4, paragraph 6, which begins "If it is a terrifying thought that life is at the mercy of the multiplication of these minute bodies"?

    ATo prove that exposure to air always cures septicemia in animals BTo admit that the results of paragraph 5 could not be repeated CTo argue that Science will never be able to control such diseases DTo draw a hedged but hopeful practical meaning from the result

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Judged by T3 and T4 alone, which of these does the excerpt present as resolved?

    AThat septicemia is a disease caused by the septic vibrio BHow septic dust forms and survives in the open air CThat the septic vibrio grows when air is kept away from it DThat the septic vibrio causes septicemia in people as well as animals

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    By the standard of proof Pasteur sets in T3, what would still be needed to show that the septic vibrio causes septicemia?

    AMany successive pure cultures whose last one still causes the disease BOne microscope sighting of the vibrio in the blood of a dead animal CA demonstration that the vibrio dies when septic fluid is exposed to air DAn agreement among members of the Academy that the vibrio is the cause

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pasteur flags several open issues himself. Identify one important issue in T4 that he does not flag, and explain why his conclusion depends on it.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pasteur says twelve cultures dilute the drop "as if placed in a volume of fluid equal to the total volume of the earth." The earth's volume is about 1.08 × 10²⁷ cm³. Using the 0.05 cm³ drop and 200-fold dilution of question 3, find the volume the drop is effectively spread through (drop volume × dilution factor), and judge whether Pasteur's comparison is fair.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Modern microbiology shows that Pasteur's septic vibrio (Clostridium septicum) can form spores: resting forms with tough coats that survive oxygen, drying and heat, and grow again when conditions allow. Which of the questions at the end of T4 does this fact bear on, and does it resolve the issue? Explain.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pasteur's thin-layer test (T4, paragraph 5) shows that septic fluid spread "in a very thin layer" in a tube becomes harmless within half a day. Design a control that would show that oxygen, and not something else about a thin layer, destroys the virulence. State what you would compare and what result would support Pasteur.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare how Jenner (T1) and Pasteur (T3 and T4) each present issues they cannot yet resolve. Cite one passage from each, and explain why a scientist reporting to other scientists would include unresolved issues at all.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Of all the unresolved issues in T3 and T4, which one matters most for Pasteur's larger claim that septicemia is caused by a microscopic organism? Defend your choice against one other issue.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to RST.11-12.6: 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.