Author's Purpose

The national Parks System costs $1.2 billion annually to operate. Of that amount, $900,000 is spent on costs associated with visitors. The system has 368 locations, including major parks, such as the Grand Canyon, and small, specialized parks that feature one thing. We need to reexamine the type and quality of parks paid for by federal dollars. An independent commission could review the parks and determine whether or not they all should be kept open and what level of fees should be charged to park users. Currently, the people who use parks pay less than ten percent of the costs of operating them.
1.  What is the author suggesting?

• A commission should start closing the smaller parks. 
• The government should pay a larger portion of the costs of running the national parks. 
• There is a need to reexamine the current parks to be sure we want to keep them and see if we need them all. 
• The National Park System will be fine if we just eliminate some of the smaller specialized parks. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.8

CCSS.RI.7.8

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RI.5.8

CCSS.RI. 9-10.8

The national Parks System costs $1.2 billion annually to operate. Of that amount, $900,000 is spent on costs associated with visitors. The system has 368 locations, including major parks, such as the Grand Canyon, and small, specialized parks that feature one thing. We need to reexamine the type and quality of parks paid for by federal dollars. An independent commission could review the parks and determine whether or not they all should be kept open and what level of fees should be charged to park users. Currently, the people who use parks pay less than ten percent of the costs of operating them.
2.  The author would agree with which of the following?

• The National Park System should continue as it is. 
• Government systems waste time and money
• It is good to reevaluate things as time goes on. 
• The park system should be shut down. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.2

CCSS.RI.6.6

People are concerned that irradiated food will lead to an increase in cancer. But what about the benefits of reduced toxins, food decontamination, and a longer shelf life? Have x-rays cause people to become radioactive? Irradiation eliminates poisonous toxins and microorganisms. Scientists have found more of a chemical reaction in frozen and canned food than in food that has been irradiated. Sixty-seven percent of consumers would be willing to pay more for chicken that has significantly fewer toxins, according to a recent survey. 

3.  With which statement would this author most likely agree.

• Frozen foods are safer than irradiated foods. 
• X-rays cause people to become radioactive. 
• People are foolish to worry about cancer. 
• Irradiation reduces the risks of contamination.

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.6

CCSS.RI.7.6

CCSS.RI.8.6

CCSS.RL.8.6

CCSS.RL.7.6

People are concerned that irradiated food will lead to an increase in cancer. But what about the benefits of reduced toxins, food decontamination, and a longer shelf life? Have x-rays cause people to become radioactive? Irradiation eliminates poisonous toxins and microorganisms. Scientists have found more of a chemical reaction in frozen and canned food than in food that has been irradiated. Sixty-seven percent of consumers would be willing to pay more for chicken that has significantly fewer toxins, according to a recent survey.

4. What is the author’s purpose in writing this selection?

• To convince people that x-rays are unsafe. 
• To convince people that x-rays are safe. 
• To convince people supermarkets raise their prices.
• To convince people that irradiated food is safe.

Tags

CCSS.RI.11-12.6

The money spent on political campaign is paltry when compared to expenditures for commercial advertising. If we limited campaign spending, the incumbents would have an unfair advantage. Limiting campaign spending is like limiting free speech, which is embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Maybe we should reform political campaigns, but not limit spending on them. What we really need to ensure is that all candidates who wish to can afford to campaign effectively. 
5. The author is saying that-

• Campaigns cost too much. 
• Campaign spending should not be limited. 
• There should be an amendment to the Constitution. 
• We should limit campaign spending. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.2

CCSS.RI.6.6

CCSS.RI.6.8

The money spent on political campaign is paltry when compared to expenditures for commercial advertising. If we limited campaign spending, the incumbents would have an unfair advantage. Limiting campaign spending is like limiting free speech, which is embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Maybe we should reform political campaigns, but not limit spending on them. What we really need to ensure is that all candidates who wish to can afford to campaign effectively. 
6. When the author writes “Limiting campaign spending is like limiting free speech,” he is saying

• We should limit free speech. 
• Political campaigns should be free. 
• Since free speech is limited, we should limit campaign spending. 
• Limiting campaign spending is unconstitutional. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.2

CCSS.RI.6.4

CCSS.RI.6.6

CCSS.RI.6.8

Would you like to come home after a long day and walk into an elephant? You would if you lived in The Elephant House in Margate, New Jersey, which was built in 1881 by James Lafferty. Herbert Green built a chicken-shaped house in 1962. Sarah Winchester spent 38 years building a ghost proof house with fake chimneys, doors that opened into walls, and stairs that led nowhere. And a man named Baldasera spent forty years building an underground house with ninety rooms for about $300. If you think your plans for your house are too unusual, think again!
7. This author believes that- 

• No house plans are too unusual.
• People should stick with traditional designs. 
• Underground homes are impractical. 
• Homes should be built quickly. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.6

National service can teach the values of hard work, self-sacrifice, and learning to live with different people. It can put youth back to work. It can teach them job skills and instill the values of discipline, responsibility, and civic obligation. It can also provide long-term investment in the education and skills of our citizens. National service can also bring us together as a nation. WE need to move back to a central core of beliefs. 

8. When the author writes, “it can also provide long-term investment in the education and life skills of our citizens,” she is trying to convince the reader that-

• The benefits of national service can last a lifetime. 
• Education is important to the citizens of this country. 
• National service is a long-term program. 
• Education is more important than national service. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.2

CCSS.RI.6.6

The island of Surtsey, off the coast of Iceland, was the first new island to appear in the North Atlantic in two hundred years. Scientist studied how plant life began on the island and how long the island may last. They determine whether the island would be destroyed by the same volcano that created it. Their research gave the public a wealth of information about this unusual island.
9. The author feels that the scientists’ study of Surtsey- 

• Made it famous. 
• Made them wealthy. 
• Was unnatural. 
• Was a waste of their time. 

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.9

CCSS.RI.8.6

CCSS.RI.7.6

CCSS.RI.6.6

CCSS.RL.8.6

National service can teach the values of hard work, self-sacrifice, and learning to live with different people. It can put youth back to work. It can teach them job skills and instill the values of discipline, responsibility, and civic obligation. It can also provide long-term investment in the education and skills of our citizens. National service can also bring us together as a nation. WE need to move back to a central core of beliefs. 

10. What is the author promoting? 

• Making long-term investments. 
• Writing a central core of beliefs.
• Living with different people. 
• Starting a national service program.

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.2

CCSS.RI.6.6