Answer Key: Synthesizing Across Sources

Text A ("Let the Grass Go") likely favors replacing lawns with native landscaping; Text B ("Not So Fast") likely raises doubts / cautions about doing it too quickly. Full credit for any prediction that assigns the pro-change angle to A and the cautionary angle to B. Accept close wording ("A is for it, B is worried about the costs").

"Text A cites a city water utility's data, while Text B cites an unnamed blog…" → C (evaluate credibility) — judging trustworthiness of sources.
"Both texts agree water use matters, but they disagree about cost, so… a phased approach makes sense." → B (synthesize) — combining both into a new position.
"Text B says removal is expensive up front." → A (summarize) — restating one source.
All three correct = full credit; grade for reasonable effort on this warm-up.

Both texts accept that the Southwest is short on water and that native plants use less of it. Text A [1] frames native landscaping as a way to "save scarce water"; Text B [1] states plainly that "no one disputes that the Southwest is running short on water, and native plants clearly use less of it." Accept any answer naming the shared water-scarcity / native-plants-use-less-water point.

Text A ([1], also [4]): cities should replace public turf with native, water-wise plants now because the long-run water, cost, and ecological benefits outweigh the up-front cost.
Text B ([1], also [4]): cities should not rush a one-size-fits-all removal mandate; they should convert gradually, budgeting for maintenance and letting neighborhoods weigh in, because a hurried change carries hidden costs.
Accept accurate restatements. Note: Text B's claim is not "keep every lawn" — it explicitly says it does not call for that ([4]); reject that misreading.

Text A ([2]): the Riverbend Municipal Water District's 2023 report — turf used ~40% of landscaping water on under a fifth of the green space, and native pilots cut outdoor water use ~half within two years. (Dr. Ortiz's 5–8-year payback in [3] is also acceptable as "strongest.")
Text B ([2]): the Regional Parks Coalition's 2023 review — full removal/replanting costs $4–$8 per square foot, running a mid-sized park into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Delgado's maintenance/equity point in [3] is also acceptable.)
Full credit for any sourced fact/figure correctly paired with its paragraph. Accept the expert-quote evidence as an alternative to the data figure in each text.

Agree: both accept that water is scarce and native plants use less (Text A [1] / Text B [1]); both also accept that native conversion can work and is not inherently bad (Text A [4] / Text B [4]). Either shared point earns credit.
Disagree: chiefly on pace and cost emphasis — Text A ([3]–[4]) argues the savings justify converting now; Text B ([2]–[4]) stresses the high up-front cost and uneven burden and argues for converting gradually with budgeting and community input.
Full credit for one valid agreement and one valid disagreement, each citing a paragraph from both texts.

A defensible case exists for either. Dr. Ortiz (Text A [3]) is a landscape ecologist with 10+ years studying municipal conversions, and her 5–8-year payback claim is "based on tracked spending across multiple real conversions" — expertise plus data make her credible. Maria Delgado (Text B [3]) is a parks director speaking from direct operational experience about crew training and equity; her testimony is credible on implementation but is more experiential/anecdotal than quantified.
Full credit for a judgment that weighs expertise, sourcing (tracked data vs. impression), and relevance — e.g., "Ortiz is more credible because her estimate rests on tracked data across many cities," OR "Delgado is credible because she has firsthand operational knowledge the data can't capture." Reject answers that pick a source only because they agree with its conclusion.

8a — B. Text A [2]: the water district's 2023 report (turf ≈ 40% of landscaping water on under a fifth of the space; native pilots cut use ~half). It is specific, quantified, sourced to a body that measures its own pipes, and directly supports A's claim.
Why the others are weaker: A (native plants feed pollinators) is a real benefit but general and unquantified; C ("wastes money and public trust") is a conclusion/opinion, not evidence; D ("native plants clearly use less water") is a shared premise both texts grant, not distinctive support.
8b: Accept any sentence explaining that B is strongest because it is concrete, sourced, quantified data tied directly to its text's claim, while the others are general, opinion, or an agreed premise.

This is synthesis, not summary. A strong response states a position on the question and defends it using evidence from both Text A and Text B, woven together — not retold one text at a time. Any defensible position (convert, convert gradually, or do not convert) earns full credit if it is supported from both sources. Model response:
"Cities should replace public lawns with native plants, but gradually. Text A shows the payoff is real: the water district found turf used about 40% of landscaping water on under a fifth of the space, and native pilots cut that use in half (Text A, [2]). That savings is too large to ignore. But Text B is right that the up-front cost is steep — $4 to $8 per square foot, and hundreds of thousands for one park (Text B, [2]) — and that rushed jobs land unevenly on neighborhoods without follow-up care (Text B, [3]). Putting both together, the best answer is to convert, but on a funded, phased schedule: the water and cost savings A documents justify acting, while B's evidence shows how to act so the benefit is real instead of a half-dead lawn."
Full credit for: (a) a clear position (the Claim), (b) at least one piece of evidence from Text A AND one from Text B, each cited by text and paragraph, and (c) reasoning that combines them to support the position. A response that summarizes each text in turn, or that uses only one text, has not synthesized; score it low on evidence/reasoning.

The response should (a) name a counterpoint from whichever text argues against the student's position, stated fairly and cited by text/paragraph, and (b) respond without dismissing it. Model (for a "convert gradually" position):
"A counterpoint from Text A [3]–[4] is that waiting costs money — Ortiz's data shows cities recover conversion costs in five to eight years, so delay just postpones the savings. That is fair. But my phased plan does not mean never; it means budgeting for the maintenance and training Text B [3] shows are missing, so conversions actually succeed instead of stalling into brown, half-finished parks. A slower start that finishes beats a fast start that fails."
Full credit for a fairly stated, correctly cited counterpoint and a reasoned response that either defends or adjusts the position. Reject responses that only restate the student's own side or that caricature the objection.

Articulate: accept any clear one-sentence statement of the student's own position (convert, convert gradually, or do not convert), consistent with their Q9.
Connect: credit requires one piece of evidence from EACH text (A and B) with paragraphs — e.g., the water-savings data (Text A [2]) and the cost figure (Text B [2]). A response naming evidence from only one text is incomplete here.
Extend: accept any reasonable open question neither text settles — e.g., "How much does upkeep actually cost after year two?", "Do residents in surveyed neighborhoods support it?", or "What happens to water bills long term?" More than one answer is defensible.