Answer Key: Analyzing an Argument, Evidence, and Revision

The author is in favor of a later start — they want the school day to begin at 9:00 instead of early in the morning. Full credit for any prediction that correctly names the pro-later-start position. Accept close wording ("wants school to start later," "thinks 7:45 is too early").

7:45 in the morning. This is stated directly in paragraph [1]. A single-fact retrieval item; either they found it or they did not.

From paragraph [2]: teenagers' natural sleep rhythms shift later during adolescence, so most teens cannot fall asleep before about 11:00 p.m. Accept any answer stating that teens' bodies shift to a later sleep schedule / cannot fall asleep early.

The school day should start at 9:00 (Franklin Middle School should move its start time to 9:00 a.m.). Accept any accurate restatement of that position. Reject supporting reasons offered as the claim (e.g., "teens need sleep" is a reason, not the claim itself).

Paragraph [2] = STRONG. It cites a named, credible source (the 2014 American Academy of Pediatrics report), gives specific facts (teens can't sleep before ~11 p.m.; need 8–10 hours; recommended start no earlier than 8:30), and those facts are directly relevant to the claim about start time.
Paragraph [5] = WEAK. It relies on personal opinion and anecdote ("mornings are just unpleasant," "nobody I know enjoys waking up early," one cousin's college schedule) and an off-topic point about pancakes. It is not factual, not from a reliable source, and not clearly relevant to whether an 8th-grade school day should start at 9:00.
Full credit if the student labels [2] strong and [5] weak and gives a valid reason for each (factual/expert/relevant vs. opinion/anecdote/irrelevant).

The clearest irrelevant sentence is: "The cafeteria also serves a better breakfast on the days it offers pancakes, which proves mornings could be improved in many ways." It is about cafeteria food, not about start times, so it does nothing to prove the 9:00 claim (and "proves" is an overreach). Also acceptable: the cousin's college-schedule sentence, since a college student's hours don't establish what a middle school should do. Accept either, with an explanation that it does not connect to the claim about start time.

Students should replace a weak reason in [5] with genuine evidence from [2] or [3]. Model revision: "The school day should start later because the American Academy of Pediatrics found that teens can't fall asleep before about 11 p.m. and recommends a start no earlier than 8:30 (paragraph [2])."
Another acceptable revision draws on [3]: "Later start times are worth it because districts that started later saw better attendance and fewer students late to first period (paragraph [3])."
Full credit for any rewritten sentence that (a) removes a weak/opinion/anecdotal reason and (b) substitutes accurate, relevant evidence actually found in the passage.

8a — C. "The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30 a.m." This is expert, factual, and directly relevant to a school start-time claim.
Why the others are weaker: A (pancakes) is off-topic; B (a cousin's college schedule) is an anecdote about a different level of school; D ("nobody I know enjoys waking up early") is personal opinion.
8b: Accept any sentence explaining that C is stronger because it comes from a credible expert source and is directly relevant, while the others are opinion, anecdote, or off-topic.

Acceptable revised claims (any focused, defensible position, e.g.):

• "Franklin Middle School should start at 9:00 because it fits teen sleep science."
• "The school should start at 8:30, matching the pediatricians' recommendation." (a narrowed claim)
• "The school should keep an early start" (disagreeing) — acceptable if supported with passage evidence used fairly.

Strong evidence students should choose (accept any two that fit the claim):

• Paragraph [2] — AAP report: teens can't sleep before ~11 p.m.; need 8–10 hours; recommended start no earlier than 8:30.
• Paragraph [3] — districts with later starts saw better attendance and fewer students late to first period.

Judging quality: the response should explain why each piece is strong — factual, from a named/credible source, and directly relevant — rather than opinion or anecdote. If a student uses paragraph [5] material, they should note that it is weak. Full credit for a focused revised claim + two relevant pieces of evidence with paragraph numbers + reasoning that evaluates their quality.

Articulate: accept any accurate one-sentence restatement of the claim ("the school day should start at 9:00 / later").
Connect: the cited strong evidence should be the AAP report (paragraph [2]) or the attendance study (paragraph [3]); both are legitimate strong support.
Extend: accept any reasonable weak spot + fix — e.g., "paragraph [5] uses opinion; the author could add data instead," or "paragraph [4] only asserts buses are solvable without proof; add an example of a district that rerouted successfully." More than one answer is defensible.