WHST.11-12.5Common CoreELAWriting in History, Science and Technical SubjectsGrades 11-12
WHST.11-12.5: Weighing Feedback and Rebuilding History and Technical Drafts
In plain English: WHST.11-12.5 is the Common Core literacy standard that asks students in grades 11 and 12 to strengthen history, science and technical writing by planning, revising, editing, rewriting or trying a new approach, focusing on what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. Students weigh conflicting feedback, keep claims within the evidence and restructure drafts for specialist or decision-making readers.
Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience.
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy · Domain: Writing Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects 6-12 · Cluster: Production and Distribution of Writing · Official standard
Students in grades 11 and 12 revise for readers who disagree with each other and for readers who will act on what they read. In the history context, Farid, an invented senior, submits a section on the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) to his school's history journal. It is accurate but has no argument, and three readers send him comments that pull in different directions. His second draft rebuilds the section around the question the journal's readers will ask: why the REA succeeded where private utilities had moved slowly. In the technical context, Keiko, an invented senior, reports two weeks of carbon dioxide readings from one classroom to the district's facilities director. Her first draft is organized like a science project and ends with a claim her data cannot carry. The director's reply and her teacher's notes push her toward a new approach: a decision memo built around what the director must decide. The REA facts are real; the classroom, the people and the readings are invented and labeled.
WHST.11-12.5 uses the same words as the grade 9-10 standard: planning, revising, editing, rewriting or trying a new approach, as needed, focusing on what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. At this level, the lesson stresses judgment: weighing feedback that conflicts, keeping claims no bigger than the evidence, moving accurate material that a reader does not need, and restructuring a whole piece when its form does not fit what the reader must do.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Identify the purpose of a history or technical piece and the most significant thing its reader needs, including what a decision-maker must decide
Weigh conflicting feedback from several readers and explain what to accept, accept in part, move or decline
Revise claims so that they are no stronger than the evidence, and rebuild a section around its most significant evidence
Try a new approach to structure, such as a case-first opening or a recommendation-first memo, and judge it against the reader's needs
Edit a technical text for conventions a specialist expects, including hyphenated compound modifiers, units and consistent terms
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Revising history and science writing for purpose and audience in grades 9-10 WHST.9-10.5
Writing arguments with claims, counterclaims and evidence in history and science WHST.11-12.1
Reading a line graph with two data series and a reference line
Knowing the broad aims of the New Deal in the 1930s
"Two people you trust read your draft. One says it is too long; the other says it needs more. Both cannot be right about the same sentence. What would you need to know to decide?"
Collect answers and steer toward one: the writer needs to know what the piece is for and who must use it. Advice is weighed against that, not counted.
Introduce the history task. Farid's school publishes a student history journal, which prints argument-driven sections of 450 words or fewer. Its readers are students and teachers who know the New Deal in outline but not the details of every agency. Farid, the journal and its editors are invented; the facts about the REA come from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's Econ Focus article "Electrifying Rural America" (2020). Read Draft 1. Students note, in one sentence, the question they expected the section to answer and whether it answered it.
1In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) by executive order. The next year, Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act, which formally established the agency and authorized loans for wiring homes and buying appliances. The REA was one of the many agencies of the New Deal, along with the Works Progress Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
2Electricity is produced when a generator spins coils of wire inside a magnetic field, and it travels along power lines to homes and businesses. By the 1930s, most American cities already had these lines. By 1930, nearly nine in ten urban and nonfarm rural homes had electricity, but only about one in ten farms did.
3Private utilities estimated that it would cost as much as $2,000 a mile to build lines out to farms. The REA turned to cooperatives, which are owned by their members. Members paid a $5 fee to join. In 1936, farmers in Edgecombe and Martin counties formed North Carolina's first electric cooperative, with 82 members. The REA lent cooperatives money at 2 to 3 percent interest. By the end of the 1930s, lines cost less than $825 a mile.
4By the end of World War II, about half of American farms had electricity, and about a decade later farms had nearly caught up with cities. The REA single-handedly brought electricity to rural America. It was one of the greatest successes of the New Deal, and it changed farm life forever.
SVHS lesson authors, Wiring the Countryside: The Rural Electrification Administration, Draft 1 (Text 1: Farid's section for a student history journal; Farid and the journal are invented, and the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
Direct Instruction20 minutes
Read Text 2. The three readers disagree: June wants cuts and an argument, Ben wants more data and a new paragraph, and Dr. Osei asks what the section is for. Show Diagram 1, a way to weigh any comment with three questions, and run two comments through it aloud. Then read Draft 2 and work through the examples. Students mark each paragraph of Draft 2 with the reader whose comment shaped it.
1June Kim, student editor: The facts are solid, but I kept waiting for your argument, and it never came. The section reads like an encyclopedia entry. Cut paragraph 2: our readers know how electricity works. And "single-handedly" is a claim you cannot support. Your own notes say most cooperatives bought their power wholesale from private utilities.
2Ben Adeyemi, student editor: I'd go the other way and add more data. Readers love numbers. Put in a full table of farm electrification for every year from 1930 to 1955, and add a paragraph on the TVA, since you mention it. The section is short for our journal anyway.
3Dr. Osei, faculty advisor: Both of you have a point, but ask what the section is for. The journal publishes arguments, and its readers are students and teachers who know the New Deal but not this agency. The most significant thing you have is buried in paragraph 3: the cost of a mile of line fell from an estimated $2,000 to less than $825. That is your answer to the question every reader will ask, which is why the REA succeeded where private companies had not. Build the section around that. You might also try a new approach and open with the Edgecombe-Martin cooperative, so readers see the model working before you explain it. Don't let the example take over, though, and keep the claim no bigger than the evidence. Ben is right that one comparison number helps; a table for every year would bury it.
SVHS lesson authors, Three Readers on Draft 1 (Text 2: written comments; June Kim, Ben Adeyemi and Dr. Osei are invented). Original passage written for this page.
1In 1936, farmers in Edgecombe and Martin counties, North Carolina, formed their state's first electric cooperative, with 82 members, and the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) lent it $32,000 at 2 percent interest to build its lines. Their decision was repeated across rural America in the years that followed. The REA, created by executive order in May 1935, succeeded where private utilities had moved slowly for two reasons: it changed the cost of rural lines, and it gave farmers an organization that could own them.
2Cost had kept farms dark. By 1930, nearly nine in ten urban and nonfarm rural homes had electricity, but only about one in ten farms did, because utilities estimated that a mile of line to scattered farms could cost as much as $2,000. REA engineers attacked that number. They designed lines for the different loads of farms, with single-phase wires and poles set farther apart, bought materials in bulk and standardized construction. By the end of the 1930s, a mile of line cost less than $825.
3The cooperatives solved the second problem, demand. Because the REA also lent money to wire houses and buy appliances, a new cooperative had customers who used power from its first day. Members elected their boards, one member and one vote, under a model state law the REA drafted in 1937.
4The REA did not do this alone. Most cooperatives bought their power wholesale from private utilities, and the war slowed construction; only about half of American farms had electricity by 1945. Still, within about another decade, farms had nearly caught up with cities, and almost all of the REA's loans were repaid. The agency's lasting achievement was less the money it spent than the model it built.
SVHS lesson authors, Wiring the Countryside: The Rural Electrification Administration, Draft 2 (Text 3: Farid's rebuilt section; the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
Planning: naming the question the reader will ask
Draft 1 moves through the REA's history in order and ends with a judgment. It never poses a question, so the journal's readers cannot tell what the facts are evidence for.
Result: Farid rereads the journal's purpose and writes a planning question before drafting again: why did the REA succeed where private utilities had moved slowly? Every paragraph of Draft 2 answers part of that question: cost (paragraph 2), organization and demand (paragraph 3) and limits (paragraph 4).
Weighing conflicting feedback
June: cut paragraph 2 and argue. Ben: add a year-by-year table and a paragraph on the TVA. Both are sincere, and the journal's limit is 450 words.
Result: Farid accepts June's cut, because the journal's readers do not need an explanation of generators. He accepts Ben's advice only in part: one contrast (nine in ten city homes, one in ten farms) instead of a table, and no TVA paragraph, since the TVA does not answer his question. Each decision is justified by the purpose, not by who gave the advice.
Trying a new approach: opening with a case
Dr. Osei suggests opening with the Edgecombe-Martin cooperative, and warns: "Don't let the example take over."
Result: Draft 2 gives the case two sentences, then states the claim in the same paragraph. The case shows the model working before the section explains it; the claim tells the reader why the case matters. A longer story would have delayed the argument the journal publishes.
Revising a claim to fit the evidence
Draft 1: "The REA single-handedly brought electricity to rural America." Farid's own notes show that most cooperatives bought their power wholesale from private utilities.
Result: Draft 2 adds a paragraph of limits that begins "The REA did not do this alone" and ends with a narrower, stronger claim: the agency's lasting achievement was "the model it built." A specialist reader trusts a claim more when the writer has already named its limits.
Editing for a technical reader
Keiko's report (Text 4) writes "CO2" and "reached a mean of 1,720 ppm at 11:30," and uses "ventilation" and "fans" for the same system.
Result: Edited: "CO₂," with the subscript, "11:30 a.m.," "parts per million (ppm)" spelled out at first use, and one term, "ventilation system," throughout. These edits change form, not content, so they come after the memo's structure is settled.
Guided Practice20 minutes
Move to the technical context. Keiko, an invented senior, borrowed a CO₂ meter and logged readings in one classroom, Room 214, for two weeks. In Week 2, the district's facilities staff changed the ventilation schedule and settings. CO₂ indoors comes mostly from people breathing out, so it is a useful sign of how much outdoor air a room receives. Show Table 1 and Diagram 2, then read Keiko's first draft and the three responses to it.
Table 1. Mean CO₂ in Room 214 at each reading, school days of Week 1 and Week 2 (invented data; means of five school days)
Time
Week 1 mean (ppm)
Week 2 mean (ppm)
Room
7:30 a.m.
480
450
before students arrive
8:30 a.m.
1,110
870
class in session
9:30 a.m.
1,560
940
class in session
10:30 a.m.
1,680
970
class in session
11:30 a.m.
1,720
980
class in session
12:30 p.m.
790
520
room empty 11:45-12:30 (lunch)
1:30 p.m.
1,480
950
class in session
2:30 p.m.
1,650
960
class in session
1Introduction Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas. People breathe it out, and plants use it for photosynthesis. For my environmental science project, I wanted to find out how much CO2 builds up in our classrooms.
2Method I borrowed a CO2 meter from the science department and checked that it read about 425 ppm outdoors. I placed it on a shelf in Room 214, away from the door and windows and about 2 meters from the nearest desk. It recorded every minute for two weeks. In Week 1 the ventilation followed the normal schedule, with fans starting at 8:30 a.m. In Week 2, Mr. Delacroix's staff started the fans at 7:00 a.m. and opened the outdoor-air damper further. Room 214 has 31 students in most periods.
3Results In Week 1, CO2 rose every morning and reached a mean of 1,720 ppm at 11:30. In Week 2, it never went above a mean of 980 ppm. The graph shows both weeks.
4Conclusion The CO2 levels in our school are dangerous and toxic, and students are breathing poisoned air every day. The school must replace the ventilation system as soon as possible. This project taught me a lot about air quality, and I hope other students will care about it too.
SVHS lesson authors, Carbon Dioxide in Room 214, Draft 1 (Text 4: Keiko's report to the district facilities director; Keiko, her school, the staff and the data are invented). Original passage written for this page.
1Reply from Mr. Delacroix, district facilities director
2Keiko, thank you for this. I read the first two lines of everything that crosses my desk, so tell me there what you want me to do. Replacing the system in your building is not in this year's budget, and I cannot take a request that size to the board on one room's data. Changing a fan schedule or a damper setting costs us only staff time. What do you recommend, and how sure are you?
3Ms. Abernathy, environmental science teacher
4Your data are careful, but your conclusion goes past them. CO2 at 1,720 ppm is not a poison; it is a sign that the room is not getting enough outdoor air. NIOSH treats levels above 1,000 ppm as a marker of inadequate ventilation, so say that and cite it. You measured one room, so you can recommend a trial, not a new system. Also, the Week 2 schedule change will use more energy, and you have not measured how much. A decision-maker needs to know that.
5Rhys, classmate
6Keep the whole method section. It proves you did real work, and it's the best-written part.
SVHS lesson authors, Responses to the Room 214 Report (Text 5: a reply and two comments; Mr. Delacroix, Ms. Abernathy and Rhys are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Keiko's revision decisions (groups fill in the middle and right-hand columns)
Comment
Accept, accept in part, move or decline
Reason that names the reader or purpose
Mr. Delacroix: say in the first two lines what to do
Mr. Delacroix: how sure are you?
Ms. Abernathy: "toxic" goes past the data
Ms. Abernathy: one room supports a trial only
Ms. Abernathy: energy use not measured
Rhys: keep the whole method section
Groups compare decisions. Push on the hardest one: Rhys is right that the method is careful, and Mr. Delacroix does need to know how sure Keiko is. Where can that evidence go so that it does not block the first two lines? Then begin Activity 3.
Independent Practice15 minutes
Each student brings a draft from a current history, science or technical course and two pieces of feedback on it, from a peer, a teacher or the student's own reverse outline. (1) Write the purpose, the reader and what the reader must do or decide after reading. (2) Run each comment through Diagram 1 and record the decision in a two-column log. (3) Make the most significant revision, and if the form of the piece does not fit the reader, draft the first 50 words of a new approach. (4) Write a three-sentence note to one reviewer explaining a comment you declined or accepted in part.
The quiz uses Texts 1-5, Table 1 and Diagram 2 (Warm-Up through Guided Practice); point students back to those phases when they take it.
Closure5-10 minutes
Exit ticket: (1) Name one comment Farid declined and one Keiko should move rather than follow as written, and give the reason for each. (2) Name the sentence in Draft 2 (Text 3) that you think a skeptical historian would challenge first, and say what evidence would answer the challenge. Then hand out the homework: the first draft of Farid's closing section (Text 6) and two comments on it that disagree (Text 7).
Teacher note on sources: the REA facts in Texts 1, 3 and 6 come from Tim Sablik, "Electrifying Rural America," Econ Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, First Quarter 2020. The NIOSH reference in Text 5 reflects the agency's use of about 1,000 ppm as a marker of inadequate ventilation; it is not a health limit. The Room 214 readings are invented but consistent with 31 people in a classroom of about 200 cubic meters.
1The Rural Electrification Administration's loans were almost all repaid: fewer than 1 percent of them went unpaid. Nearly 900 rural electric cooperatives still operate today, and the agency itself survives as the Rural Utilities Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In the 1930s, electric lights replaced kerosene lamps, and washing machines saved rural families hours of housework. Electricity also made milking parlors and refrigerated tanks possible on dairy farms. Some researchers and officials now argue that the same cooperatives should bring high-speed internet to rural areas, much as they once brought electricity. In conclusion, the REA was a very important agency that helped a lot of people, and we should remember it today.
SVHS lesson authors, Wiring the Countryside, Closing Section, Draft 1 (Text 6: homework draft; the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
1June Kim, student editor: This closing lists four new facts but never returns to your argument about cost and cooperatives. Cut it to about 120 words and end on your claim.
2Dr. Osei, faculty advisor: The broadband point is the most interesting sentence you have written. Develop it: a closing that shows why the question still matters today is exactly what a history journal's readers want. It may need more words, not fewer.
3Farid's note to himself: Journal limit for the whole section is 450 words. Draft 2 of the body is 287 words.
SVHS lesson authors, Comments on the Closing Section (Text 7: homework feedback; the readers are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give each group Diagram 1 as a printed card and a decision log with the first comment already worked through
Provide a memo frame for Activity 3: Recommendation, What we found, How sure we are, What it will cost, Next step
Let students revise one paragraph of Farid's Draft 1 with one reader in mind before handling conflicting comments
For Advanced Students
Write a 150-word version of Keiko's findings for the school newsletter, read by families, and explain which claims and numbers change and which stay the same
Find the sentence in Draft 2 (Text 3) that makes the largest claim, and write a counterclaim a skeptical historian could raise, with the kind of evidence it would need
Write a counter-memo from a facilities engineer who doubts Keiko's findings, then revise Keiko's memo to answer it
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Look for writers who decide before they revise: they can say what the piece is for, who will use it and what that reader must do. Strong decisions about feedback are justified by that purpose, including the decision to decline or move advice from a reader they respect. Revisions should be structural where the structure fails, as when a report becomes a memo with its recommendation first, and precise where a claim outruns the evidence. Watch for students who follow every comment, or none, and for edits made before content is settled. In technical writing, check units, defined terms and hyphenated compound modifiers after the content is final.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Feedback Ledger
15 minGroups of 3
Groups list every specific suggestion in Text 2, run each through Diagram 1 and record a decision in a ledger. The activity practices weighing conflicting feedback against the purpose and audience of the journal.
The Seven Suggestions
1. June: build the section around an argument
2. June: cut paragraph 2 on how electricity works
3. June: drop "single-handedly"
4. Ben: add a table of farm electrification for every year from 1930 to 1955
5. Ben: add a paragraph on the TVA
6. Dr. Osei: build the section around the fall in the cost of a mile of line
7. Dr. Osei: try opening with the Edgecombe-Martin cooperative
Procedure
For each suggestion, the group answers the three questions in Diagram 1 and writes the result: accept, accept in part, move or decline
Each decision gets a reason that names the journal's purpose or its readers, never only the person who made the suggestion
Groups then check their ledger against Draft 2 (Text 3) and mark any decision Farid made differently
Teacher key, one defensible ledger: accept 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7; accept 4 in part (one contrast, not a table); decline 5, because the TVA does not answer the section's question
Discussion Questions
Ben asked for more; June and Dr. Osei asked for focus. Did Farid choose between editors, or between purposes?
Suggestion 4 was accepted only in part. What would the section have lost if Farid had followed it in full?
Is there a suggestion you would decide differently from the key? Defend it with the journal's purpose.
2
Claim Calibration
15 minPairs
Pairs rewrite six overstated claims from both contexts so that each is as strong as its evidence allows and no stronger, and name the evidence that sets the limit. The activity practices revising what is most significant for a specialist or decision-making reader: the claim itself.
Claim Cards
A. "Private utilities refused to serve farmers."
B. "The REA ended rural poverty."
C. "Cooperatives made electricity free for farmers."
D. "Every classroom in the district has unsafe air."
E. "The new fan schedule solved the problem."
F. "CO₂ makes students unable to learn."
Procedure
For each card, pairs find the evidence on the page (Texts 1-5, Table 1) that the claim goes beyond, and quote it
Pairs rewrite the claim so the evidence supports it, keeping it as specific as possible
Teacher key, the evidence that limits each card: A, most cooperatives bought their power from private utilities (Text 3, paragraph 4), so utilities took part; B, nothing on the page measures poverty; C, members paid a $5 fee and borrowed money that had to be repaid; D, Keiko measured one room; E, Table 1 covers one room for one week, and energy use was not measured; F, the page gives no evidence about learning, and 1,000 ppm is a ventilation marker, not a health limit
Pairs trade rewrites with another pair, which checks each against the quoted evidence
Discussion Questions
Which rewrite lost the most force? Is a weaker claim ever a better one for a specialist reader?
Card C is false, not only overstated. How should a writer handle a claim that the evidence contradicts?
Which cards would a decision-maker like Mr. Delacroix be most likely to act on wrongly if they stayed as written?
3
From Report to Decision Memo
20 minPairs
Pairs rebuild Keiko's report (Text 4) as a memo to Mr. Delacroix, 150-220 words, in the form his reply calls for. The activity practices trying a new approach when the form of a draft does not fit what its reader must do.
Memo Checklist
A subject line and an opening that answers the first question in Mr. Delacroix's reply, within his budget
The key numbers from Table 1, with units, compared with the NIOSH marker
A statement of how sure Keiko is and why: one room, two weeks, means of five school days
The cost that is known (staff time) and the one that is not (energy)
A next step that would make the evidence stronger
No "toxic," "poisoned" or "dangerous"; a decision, with a reason, about where the method goes
Procedure
Write the subject line and the first two lines before anything else, then read them aloud as if you were Mr. Delacroix: could he act on them?
Draft the rest in the order of his three questions: what to do, how sure, what it costs
Decide where Rhys's method section belongs, using Diagram 1, and write down the reason
Edit last: units, times, CO₂ with its subscript, and hyphenated modifiers
Teacher key, what a strong memo contains: a trial of the Week 2 settings in more rooms before any larger change; the late-morning Week 1 and Week 2 means; the NIOSH marker named as a ventilation marker; one room and two weeks stated as the limit; staff time and unmeasured energy use; a plan to measure energy use during the trial
Family Newsletter Variation
Pairs write a second version, 120 words, for the school's family newsletter. They list every change in development, order and wording from the memo, and explain which claims had to stay exactly as cautious for families as for the director.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
2 diagrams
Diagram 1: Three Questions for Weighing Any Comment
A comment is weighed against the piece, not against the person who gave it. A comment that does not serve the purpose is declined with a reason; one that serves the purpose but not this reader is moved, for example to an appendix; one that the reader needs is revised first if it changes content and edited last if it changes only form.
Diagram 2: Mean CO₂ in Room 214, Week 1 and Week 2 (invented data)
Each point is the mean of five school days from Table 1. The dashed red line marks the 1,000 ppm level that NIOSH treats as a marker of inadequate ventilation, not a health limit, and the dotted line shows outdoor air. The fall at 12:30 p.m. comes after the room has been empty for lunch.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
WHST.11-12.5 Homework: Resolving Conflicting Advice on a Closing Section
Directions: Use the first draft of Farid's closing section (Text 6) and the comments on it (Text 7) in Closure, and Draft 2 of his section (Text 3) in Direct Instruction. Cite sentences of Text 6 by number, counting from the first sentence (sentence 1 to sentence 6).
Part 1: Plan and Weigh (Problems 1-2)
Using the journal's limit and Farid's note in Text 7, calculate the most words his closing section can have. Then state in two sentences what the closing must do for the journal's readers that Text 6 does not do yet.
June and Dr. Osei disagree about the length and focus of the closing (Text 7). Write a decision of 80-120 words that explains what you accept from each reader, what you decline, and why, naming the purpose of the section.
Part 2: Revise and Rewrite (Problems 3-4)
Sort the six sentences of Text 6 into keep, cut, move or rewrite, with a one-line reason for each that refers to the argument of Draft 2 (Text 3).
Write the closing section, within the limit you calculated in Problem 1. Return to the claim of Draft 2, use no more than two of the new facts in Text 6, and develop the broadband point without claiming more than Text 6 reports.
Part 3: Edit and Reflect (Problems 5-6)
Edit your closing for the journal's formal style: replace every vague phrase from Text 6 that you kept ("very important," "a lot of people," "In conclusion"), check that every fact matches Text 6 or Text 3 exactly, and list your edits with a reason for each.
Write a note of 60-100 words to the reader whose advice you followed least, explaining your decision in terms of the section's purpose and audience.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Planning and Weighing Feedback
Correct word limit; decisions on both readers' advice justified by the section's purpose
Limit or decisions given without clear reasons, or one reader ignored
No plan, or advice followed or rejected without reasons
Revision for the Argument
Closing returns to the claim of Draft 2 and uses new facts only where they advance it
Closing partly returns to the claim, or lists facts without linking them
Closing does not connect to the argument
Claims and Accuracy
Every fact matches the texts; the broadband point is stated as a proposal, not a result
One fact altered or one claim stronger than the source
Several facts wrong or claims unsupported
Editing and Note to the Reader
Formal style throughout; edits listed with reasons; note is respectful and specific
Some vague phrases remain, or the note is general
No edits and no note
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
The questions use Farid's Draft 1 (Text 1) in Warm-Up, the comments and Draft 2 (Texts 2 and 3) and Diagram 1 in Direct Instruction, and Table 1, Diagram 2, Keiko's report (Text 4) and the responses to it (Text 5) in Guided Practice. Your score updates as you answer, and Reset quiz clears everything so you or your students can try again.
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
June Kim and Dr. Osei disagree about some things in Text 2. On which problem with Draft 1 (Text 1) do they agree?
Answer: B
B: June says "I kept waiting for your argument, and it never came," and Dr. Osei says the journal "publishes arguments" and tells Farid to build the section around its most significant evidence (Text 2). A is Ben's view, which the others reject in part. C is wrong: June calls the facts "solid." D is not anyone's advice; Ben wants a TVA paragraph added, not an opening.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Run Dr. Osei's suggestion to "open with the Edgecombe-Martin cooperative" (Text 2) through the three questions in Diagram 1. Where does it end?
Answer: C
C: the case shows the model working, which serves the argument; the journal's readers, who do not know the agency, benefit from seeing it first; and it changes what the opening says, so it is a revision, not an edit. A and B answer "no" to questions the suggestion passes. D mistakes a change of content and structure for a change of form such as spelling or punctuation.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which sentence in Draft 2 (Text 3) states the answer to the question the journal's readers will ask?
Answer: B
B is the thesis: it answers why the REA succeeded and previews the two reasons developed in paragraphs 2 and 3. A is the case that opens the section; it shows the model but gives no reason. C is a supporting detail about the cooperatives. D reports results, which show that the REA succeeded but not why.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Dr. Osei warns Farid, "Don't let the example take over" (Text 2). Which revision of Draft 2 (Text 3) would go against that warning?
Answer: D
D lets the case push the claim out of the opening, so readers meet a story before they learn what it is evidence for, which is the risk Dr. Osei names. A adds one detail and leaves the claim where it is. C strengthens the link between the case and the argument. B is a questionable choice, since the cost figures are the evidence for the first reason, but it does not enlarge the example.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which fact in Farid's evidence most directly contradicts the Draft 1 claim that "The REA single-handedly brought electricity to rural America"?
Answer: A
A shows that private utilities supplied the power the cooperatives distributed, so the REA did not act alone; June cites it (Text 2) and Draft 2 uses it (Text 3, paragraph 4). B and D are true but say nothing about who else took part. C shows that farmers contributed, but a small fee alone does not answer the claim as directly as A.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Draft 1 (Text 1) ends, "It was one of the greatest successes of the New Deal, and it changed farm life forever." Which revision best fits a history journal?
Answer: C
C replaces a vague judgment with a dated, checkable result and a cautious claim about the REA's role ("helped by REA cooperatives"), consistent with Text 1, paragraph 4. A and B keep unsupported superlatives. D claims agreement ("Everyone agrees") that the page gives no evidence for.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Draft 2 (Text 3) adds: "Because the REA also lent money to wire houses and buy appliances, a new cooperative had customers who used power from its first day." What does this sentence contribute to the argument?
Answer: A
A: paragraph 3 opens, "The cooperatives solved the second problem, demand," and this sentence is the evidence for it: loans for wiring and appliances meant a cooperative had paying users at once. B compares spending, which the section never does. C mistakes evidence for a new topic, and D contradicts Draft 2, which says only about half of farms had electricity by 1945.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Mr. Delacroix writes that he reads "the first two lines of everything" (Text 5). Which change to Keiko's report does this call for first?
Answer: D
D answers his stated reading habit and his two questions, "What do you recommend, and how sure are you?" Draft 1 puts its recommendation in the last paragraph, where he may never reach it. A adds background he does not need. C is an edit, which can wait. B lengthens the part of the report least useful to a decision-maker.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Ms. Abernathy objects to "dangerous and toxic" (Text 5). Which sentence best replaces Keiko's first conclusion sentence?
Answer: B
B states the measured value with its unit and time, and compares it with the marker Ms. Abernathy names, as a sign of ventilation, not poisoning. A keeps the claim she rejects. C swings to vague reassurance the data do not support either. D generalizes from one room, the overreach she warns about: "You measured one room."
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Using Table 1, which claim does Keiko's evidence support?
Answer: A
A: the highest Week 2 mean is 980 ppm (11:30 a.m.). B is false: every Week 1 reading taken with class in session is above 1,000 ppm, from 1,110 to 1,720. C generalizes from one room. D contradicts Ms. Abernathy's note that the Week 2 schedule "will use more energy," which Keiko has not measured.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Rhys calls the method section "the best-written part" of Keiko's report (Text 5). Why is that, by itself, not a reason to keep it where it is?
Answer: D
D applies the standard: placement follows what is most significant for this reader, and Mr. Delacroix reads the first two lines for a recommendation. The method may still matter, since he asks "how sure are you?" A invents a rule about quality and accuracy. C overstates his reply, which asks how sure Keiko is. B ranks readers by status instead of weighing the comment.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why must Keiko's memo mention that the Week 2 settings will use more energy, even though she did not measure how much?
Answer: D
D: Mr. Delacroix must decide, and a recommendation that hides a known cost claims more than the evidence allows; Ms. Abernathy says "A decision-maker needs to know that" (Text 5). A misstates the rule: a writer reports known limits, not every possible measurement. C invents a preference; the director's reply is about budget and certainty. B confuses length with strength.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Using Table 1, by about what percent did the 11:30 a.m. mean CO₂ fall from Week 1 to Week 2?
Answer: B
B: 1,720 - 980 = 740 ppm, and 740 / 1,720 ≈ 0.43, a fall of about 43 percent. A gives the Week 2 value as a share of Week 1 (980 / 1,720 ≈ 0.57) instead of the fall. C divides the fall by the Week 2 value (740 / 980 ≈ 0.76) instead of the starting value. D treats the difference in ppm as a percent.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which version of this sentence from a draft appendix follows standard conventions for compound modifiers? The trial gave the fans a 90 minute head start in one high traffic classroom.
Answer: C
C hyphenates each compound modifier that comes before a noun: "90-minute" modifies "head start" and "high-traffic" modifies "classroom." A leaves both unhyphenated, so "high traffic classroom" can be misread. B hyphenates the nouns too, which is wrong. D fixes only one of the two modifiers.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Ben writes, "Readers love numbers" (Text 2). Choose one number that appears in both Draft 1 (Text 1) and Draft 2 (Text 3), quote it in both places, and explain how its job in the section changes.
Model answer: The cost of a mile of line. In Draft 1, "By the end of the 1930s, lines cost less than $825 a mile" ends paragraph 3 as one more fact in a list, after the interest rate. In Draft 2, the same figure closes the paragraph that begins "Cost had kept farms dark," right after the engineering changes that produced it: "By the end of the 1930s, a mile of line cost less than $825." It now works as the result that proves the first reason in the thesis, that the REA "changed the cost of rural lines." The number did not change; its place in the argument did. Rubric line: 2 points for an accurate number quoted from both drafts and an explanation of how it moves from listed fact to evidence for a claim; 1 point for accurate quotations with a general explanation.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Dr. Osei tells Farid to "keep the claim no bigger than the evidence" (Text 2). Other than the sentence "The REA did not do this alone," identify two places in Draft 2 (Text 3) where Farid limits a claim, quote them, and explain why the limits make the section more convincing to the journal's readers.
Model answer: First, the thesis says the REA "succeeded where private utilities had moved slowly" (paragraph 1), not that utilities refused to serve farms, which the evidence would not support. Second, "only about half of American farms had electricity by 1945" (paragraph 4) admits that progress was slow during the war instead of implying instant success. Readers who know the New Deal can check both statements, and seeing the writer set these limits makes them more willing to accept the section's final claim, that the REA's lasting achievement was "the model it built." Rubric line: 2 points for two accurate quotations that limit claims and an explanation tied to the specialist reader's trust; 1 point for one accurate quotation or a general explanation.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Write the subject line and the first two sentences of Keiko's memo to Mr. Delacroix. Then explain in one sentence how they answer what he asked in Text 5.
Model answer: Subject: Recommendation for a low-cost ventilation trial. "I recommend running the Week 2 fan schedule and outdoor-air setting in Room 214 and four other classrooms for one month. In Room 214, those settings kept the mean CO₂ at or below 980 ppm at every reading, compared with means as high as 1,720 ppm on the normal schedule; this is one room over two weeks, so a wider trial is the right next step before any larger change." These sentences give him what to do, within staff time, and how sure Keiko is, which are the two questions in his reply. Rubric line: 2 points for a recommendation he can act on within his budget, supporting numbers with units, and a clear statement of certainty in the first two sentences; 1 point if one of the three is missing.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Decide what Keiko should do with her Introduction paragraph (Text 4, paragraph 1) in the memo to Mr. Delacroix, and justify the decision with Diagram 1.
Model answer: Cut it. Using Diagram 1, the paragraph fails the second question: Mr. Delacroix manages building systems and does not need to be told what CO₂ is or that plants use it for photosynthesis, and the sentence about Keiko's project is about her, not his decision. The one idea he might need, that CO₂ indoors comes from people breathing out and shows how much outdoor air a room gets, can be one clause in the findings. Rubric line: 2 points for a decision (cut, move or shrink) justified by the reader's knowledge and task, with a reference to the diagram's questions; 1 point for a decision without a reader-based reason.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
Using Table 1 and Diagram 2, describe the change in CO₂ between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. in both weeks, and explain whether that pattern belongs in the memo.
Model answer: In Week 1, the mean fell from 1,720 ppm to 790 ppm, and in Week 2 from 980 ppm to 520 ppm, while the room was empty for lunch. The pattern belongs in the memo in one sentence, because it supports the explanation that the CO₂ comes from the people in the room and that the ventilation can clear it, which makes the recommendation more convincing. It should not get a paragraph of its own, since Mr. Delacroix needs the conclusion, not every feature of the data. Rubric line: 2 points for accurate values from both weeks and a justified decision about whether and how briefly to include the pattern; 1 point for accurate values without a decision, or a decision without values.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Farid's first revision was to build an argument; Keiko's was to put a recommendation first. Explain how the same standard, WHST.11-12.5, led the two writers to different first changes.
Model answer: The standard asks each writer to address what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. The journal's readers want to understand why something happened, so the most significant gap in Farid's Draft 1 was a missing thesis, and his first change was to plan the section around a question and a claim (Text 3, paragraph 1). Mr. Delacroix has to decide something within a budget, so the most significant gap in Keiko's report was that the decision came last and overstated the evidence (Text 4, paragraph 4). Her first change is to the form of the whole document. Rubric line: 2 points for naming each reader's purpose, the most significant gap in each draft and the resulting first change, with citations; 1 point if one writer's reasoning is missing.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does WHST.11-12.5 mean?
WHST.11-12.5 means that students in grades 11 and 12 develop and strengthen their writing in history, science and technical subjects by planning, revising, editing, rewriting or trying a new approach, always deciding what to change by what matters most to a specific reader and purpose.
At this level, the readers are often specialists or decision-makers, and the writer has to weigh advice from several of them.
How is WHST.11-12.5 different from WHST.9-10.5?
The official wording is identical; the difference is in the writing and readers students handle in grades 11 and 12.
Seniors write longer and more specialized pieces, such as research sections and technical memos, for readers who disagree or who must act on the writing. This page stresses weighing conflicting feedback, calibrating claims to evidence and restructuring a whole document, while the grade 9-10 lesson focuses on putting the claim and evidence first and editing last.
Is WHST.11-12.5 the same as W.11-12.5?
The main sentence is the same, but W.11-12.5 is taught in English class and WHST.11-12.5 applies to history, science and technical writing.
W.11-12.5 also notes that editing should show command of the grade 11-12 Language standards. WHST.11-12.5 carries no such note, though editing remains one of the moves it names, and specialist readers expect correct units, terms and modifiers.
What should students do when two reviewers give opposite advice?
They should weigh each comment against the purpose and the reader, not choose the reviewer they like better.
A useful test is to ask whether the comment serves the purpose, whether this reader needs it here, and whether it changes content or only form. Advice can be accepted in part: in the lesson, Farid keeps one number from an editor who wanted a whole table.
What does "trying a new approach" look like in technical writing?
It usually means changing the form of a document so that it fits what the reader must do.
A procedure written as a paragraph might become numbered steps for a technician who follows it at a machine, and a research section might become an annotated timeline for museum visitors. Each change affects the whole document, not a single sentence.
Why does this lesson spend so much time on claims?
Because an overstated claim is often the most significant problem in an advanced draft.
A history journal's readers stop trusting a section that says "single-handedly," and a decision-maker can act wrongly on "toxic." Revising a claim to fit the evidence is part of addressing what is most significant for the purpose and audience, not only a matter of tone.
How is WHST.11-12.5 assessed?
It is usually assessed through a sequence of drafts with a short explanation of the changes.
Teachers look for decisions that follow from the purpose and reader, including declined advice with reasons, for structural revision where the form does not fit, and for claims that match the evidence. Revision logs, reflective notes to reviewers and items like the quiz on this page can check whether students recognize strong revision choices.
Can a student decline a teacher's or editor's feedback?
Yes, if the student can explain why the change would not serve the piece's purpose or reader.
Professional writers do this with editors all the time. The explanation matters: a short, respectful note that names the purpose is part of the skill, and it often leads to a better solution than either the draft or the comment.
Are the facts about the Rural Electrification Administration real?
Yes: the dates, costs per mile, interest rates and electrification figures come from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's history of rural electrification.
Farid, his school journal and his editors are invented, and so are Keiko, Room 214, the district staff and every CO₂ reading. The 1,000 ppm marker is NIOSH's, used as a sign of inadequate ventilation.
How can parents support revision at this level?
Ask your student who will use the piece and what that person must decide or understand after reading it.
Then ask which comment on the draft they chose not to follow, and why. A student who can answer both questions clearly is doing the thinking this standard asks for.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to WHST.11-12.5: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
WHST.9-10.5Prerequisite
Plan, revise, edit, rewrite or try a new approach in grades 9-10 subject writing
