A question about two texts tests how one writer would respond to another’s conclusion. Read the question to find who answers whom, then put each text’s claim and reason in a few words. Predict whether the responding writer would reject, qualify, or extend the claim: call it wrong or unsupported, accept it with limits, or take it further. Check the reason too, because choices can take the right view but give reasons that the writer never offers.
Hints
- Hint 1
Find Kenji’s conclusion at the end of Text 1. What does she take the district results to show?
- Hint 2
In Perez’s final sentence, check what follows without. How does that part affect how he would respond to Kenji’s conclusion?
Step-by-step
Compare the claims and reasons
Step 1Find the claim Perez must judge
The question names Perez (Text 2) as the person responding, so we’ll judge Kenji’s conclusion from his point of view. What does Kenji take the district results to show? She uses better attendance and modest test-score gains to argue that matching school schedules to teenagers’ sleep cycles improves academic performance.
- Step 2
Name Perez’s view
Does Perez think changing the morning start time is enough? In his examples, activities and jobs move later, cutting students’ study time and sleep, while long bus routes create family conflicts. He says without changes to transportation and after-school schedules, later starts may have little effect on learning outcomes. He would qualify Kenji’s claim, meaning accept it with limits, because the rest of the day’s schedule matters too.
- Step 3
Match the view and reason
The response Delaying start times can help allows a benefit without promising one. Its phrase without broader schedule adjustments gives Perez’s reason, and may not lead to better academic outcomes matches may have little effect on learning outcomes. Choice B.