Analyzing Conflicting Information

Two articles provide different views on the impact of climate change policies. Article X argues they are essential for environmental protection, while Article Y suggests they harm economic growth. What is the main point of disagreement?

• The scientific basis of climate change

• The impact of climate change policies on the environment

• The economic impact of climate change policies

• The role of international cooperation in climate change

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.9

When analyzing conflicting information in two texts, what should you evaluate first?

• The authors' credentials

• The publication dates

• The reliability of evidence

• The text length

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

When comparing two texts about the Civil Rights Movement, what should you primarily focus on?

• The length of each text

• The publication dates

• The authors' perspectives and evidence

• The number of paragraphs

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.9-10.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

What is one way an author might acknowledge conflicting evidence in a text?

• Ignoring it

• Providing counterarguments

• Using only one source

• Changing the subject

Answer explanation

An author acknowledges conflicting evidence by providing counterarguments, which allows them to address opposing views and strengthen their position. Ignoring evidence, using one source, or changing the subject do not effectively acknowledge conflicts.

What is the key disagreement between these two texts on the same topic?

• The authors’ names

• The main idea

• The facts presented

• The authors’ perspectives

Answer explanation

The key disagreement between the two texts lies in the authors' perspectives. While they may discuss the same topic, their viewpoints and interpretations differ, leading to contrasting conclusions.

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RI. 9-10.7

How can you tell if a disagreement in texts is based on interpretation or factual evidence?

• By reading the entire text

• By checking the sources cited

• By comparing word counts

• By looking at the authors’ backgrounds

Answer explanation

Disagreements based on interpretation often stem from subjective views, while those based on factual evidence can be verified through sources. Checking the sources cited helps determine if the disagreement is rooted in facts.

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.9-10.7

Analyzing Conflicting Information

• The main theme of each text

• The length of each text

• The authors' perspectives and evidence

• The number of paragraphs

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.9-10.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

Analyzing Conflicting Information

• The authors' credentials

• The publication dates

• The reliability of evidence

• The text length

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.9-10.7

CCSS.RI. 9-10.7

Analyzing Conflicting Information

• Ignoring it

• Providing counterarguments

• Using only one source

• Changing the subject

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.9-10.7

Analyzing Conflicting Information

• The authors’ names

• The main idea

• The facts presented

• The authors’ perspectives

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RI.7.7