Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing

Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing
Jean Wolph Revised April 2015 What you’ll need: Students should be working on a short argument. You can (1) give students a text set to simulate research and have students identify possible evidence from the articles before teaching this lesson (one is included on the next slide) OR (2) use these lessons (without this text set) as an addendum to another mini-unit in a longer unit on argument. A key skill in this set of lessons is to help students do what Joseph Harris calls “forwarding.” “In forwarding a text, you begin to shift the focus of your readers away from what its author has to say and toward your own project. Writers often describe themselves as drawing on or mining other texts for ideas and examples, but extracting such materials is only part of the job. You then need to shape them to your own purposes in writing.” (2006, p. 38). The thinking move in this mini-unit is to EXTEND the work of others (in this case, facts and statistics about an issue) to “put your own spin” on the information, connecting it to a local context such as our own school. Countering is also introduced in this mini-unit as a possible “digging deeper” extension of the unit. Harris describes countering as a way of drawing attention to “ideas and phrasings that strike you as somehow mistaken, troubling, or incomplete….[A]n effective counterstatement must attend closely to the strengths of the position it is responding to, and thus in many ways depends on representing that position clearly and fairly in order to make full sense. The characteristic stance of the counterstatement is ‘Yes, but…’. This sort of rewriting—in which a writer aims less to refute or negate than to rethink or qualify—seems to me one of the key moves in intellectual discourse.” (2006, p. 6) Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Assessing credibility of sources
Argument MINI-UNIT Emphasis # of Lessons TOPICS TEXT SET RESPONSE TO READINGS ARGUMENTATIVE ELEMENTS AND SKILLS WRITING AN ARGUMENT Texts: Genre Close reading strategies Writing & talking to develop knowledge on topic or issue Argumentative Elements Argumentative Skills Product Draft, Feedback, and Revise Reflect Assessing credibility of sources 7 Lessons Recycling 5 readings (print ) Marking text Reading for new evidence Charting evidence Analyzing evidence Drafting a claim 3-column Argument Planner PQP feedback Use of sources: Illustrating Authorizing Countering Entering Skills: Scanning texts for main ideas Product: Multi-paragraph revised draft Prewriting/ Planning Flashdraft using argument planner and kernel essay framework Feedback Revising to authorize and counter Reflections

Overview of the Mini-Unit
Days 1-3 Days 4-5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Guided Research: Students preview, read, annotate, and discuss articles Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Forming a Working Claim Evaluating evidence Connecting evidence to the claim Flashdrafting (using kernel essay framework) Study of ways to use source credibility: Authorizing Revising Reflecting Study of ways to use source credibility: Countering PQP

Writing Standards Emphasized in the Mini-Unit
Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence. Support claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text. Conduct short research projects to answer a question, drawing on several sources. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources; assess the credibility of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and providing basic bibliographic information for sources. Draw evidence from …informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.

A Note to the Teacher The texts in this mini-unit have been selected especially to help students easily discover issues that might allow them to counter evidence. Some are very dated. Others are biased. While these texts can still be used to draft a short argument, you may prefer to have students use the sources in another mini-unit, Connecting Evidence to the Claim, which has a text set on recycling.

In this mini-unit, we’ll practice ways that writers use sources to develop their arguments:
Illustrating | Use specific examples from the text to support the claim Authorizing | Refer to an “expert” to support the claim Countering | “Push back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagree with it, challenge something it says, or interpret it differently) Selected slides in this mini-unit can be revisited as students work on daily argument writing and/or on other mini-units, to remind students what these moves look like in the context of developing an argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

We’ll also look at the credibility of our sources.
We’ll try to highlight what is credible about sources that support our claims. We’ll try to “throw some shade”—to show why readers should not see the information as reliable—on sources that do not support our claims. Selected slides in this mini-unit can be revisited as students work on daily argument writing and/or on other mini-units, to remind students what these moves look like in the context of developing an argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

First, we’ll read articles (and excerpts) to help us understand the issues about RECYCLING. Why do some people support it? Why do others oppose it? Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Which of these seem credible? Less credible? Why?
Seems credible because it’s balanced, but who or what is BUZZLE? Seems less credible because it’s by the company and about the company; does agree with some other sources Might seem credible because it’s by a college professor, but it’s quite out of date Seems credible because it’s a governmental agency; it is charged with protecting our environment May seem less credible because of its reputation, but science topics on Wikipedia are well vetted; does agree with some other sources Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Which are informational? Which are opinion?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Which are informational? Which are opinion?
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company (press releases tend to give one side—the side of the organization that sends out the release) Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational) These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Read the informational articles first.
Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational) These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Don’t highlight whole sentences!
As you read, highlight the key words for reasons that are given to support recycling (+) and reasons that are used to oppose it (-). Or use a 2-column chart to capture reasons to support recycling or oppose it. Don’t highlight whole sentences! Reasons to Support Recyling Reasons to Oppose Recyling This mini-unit provides support for students who are just learning to research. If your students do not need this much support, the time allotted for reading can be reduced. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

What key words would you highlight?
Positive and Negative Effects of Recycling Adapted from (8.2) Recycling involves remanufacturing used material into useful products. Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass, and newspapers can be recycled to make useful items. Here are some pros and cons of recycling. What key words would you highlight? This article uses subheadings that identify the main reasons for or against recycling, making this task easier for students new to reading and researching an issue.

Both pieces of evidence “+” means pro or for recycling.
Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass, and newspapers can be recycled to make useful items. Here are some pros and cons of recycling. Both pieces of evidence are PRO recycling. “+” means pro or for recycling. +

What key words would you highlight?
Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. [Note: All of these facts are used to support the reason.] By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. What key words would you highlight? +

Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons
Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons. Mark reasons for with “+” and reasons against with “-” Saves Energy Recycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes. Reduces Pollution Plastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused. Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Lowers Carbon Footprint Processing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment. +

Conserves Natural Resources Recycling saves our natural resources
Conserves Natural Resources Recycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of fossil fuel are saved. Reduces Landfill Use The need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased. Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many countries. People living near landfills can have health problems because of the pollution. Adds Jobs About 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.

Negative Effects of Recycling Are there harmful effects of recycling?
Water and Soil Pollution If recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed. Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies. Cost Paper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic. Health In bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health problems to workers.

Where do you stand on recycling?
Decide on a claim: Where do you stand on recycling? [Who] should [do what] because [why]. Examples: Families should recycle their trash because it will improve the environment. Our town should not recycle because of the cost and the dangers involved. These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Read the next two articles to look for NEW reasons, pro or con.
Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Hint: Where will you find REASONS in this article?
BENEFITS OF RECYCLING Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from 7.9 "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we separate, collect, process, market, and use a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products. Why Should We Recycle? Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. What Can We Recycle? Commonly recycled materials include: Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers). Hint: Where will you find REASONS in this article?

Mark only NEW REASONS you find, + or -
Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs. . The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. Mark only NEW REASONS you find, + or - Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in 2005. Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

New reasons BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from 7.9 "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we separate, collect, process, market, and use a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products. Why Should We Recycle? Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. What Can We Recycle? Commonly recycled materials include: Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers). New reasons

Mark only NEW REASONS you find, + or -
Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs. . The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. Mark only NEW REASONS you find, + or - Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in 2005. Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

NEW reasons Recycling: Cost–benefit analysis
Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs. . The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. NEW reasons Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in 2005. Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

Now read the opinion pieces.
What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Underline key words and phrases that show their points of view. These articles were selected to give students an opportunity to consider the credibility of the sources. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space?
Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8) James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs. In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash. The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion, there was never a shortage. In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18 years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs. According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.

The Mises Institute monthly
December 1995 Volume 13, Number 12 Retrieved at (6.2) Don't Recycle: Throw It Away! adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle. Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or science.

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth. In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just .01% of the U.S. landspace. How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down? Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall. The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50 years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.

Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad
Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“ Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from just throwing the papers away. Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash trucks. The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced." Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living. Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments. Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

What reasons did we find that support recycling?
EVIDENCE CHART Reasons to Recycle Reasons NOT to Recycle Saves Energy Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Saves Natural Resources (forests) Chemicals Cause Health Problems Creates Less Waste Can be Expensive Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Reduces Carbon Footprint Reduces Landfill Use Creates Jobs

Use the chart to find the best evidence for your claim.

Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling
Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment. EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling Reasons to Recycle Is this reason relevant to families? Saves Energy Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life. Saves Natural Resources (forests) Yes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren. Creates Less Waste Maybe not directly. Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Reduces Carbon Footprint Reduces Landfill Use Creates Jobs Maybe not, as most families probably won’t become part of the recycling industry.

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling
Claim: ____________________ EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons to Support Recycling Reasons to Recycle Is this reason relevant to your claim? Saves Energy Saves Natural Resources (forests) Creates Less Waste Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Reduces Carbon Footprint Reduces Landfill Use Creates Jobs

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons NOT to Support Recycling
Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim? EVIDENCE ANALYSIS CHART: Reasons NOT to Support Recycling Reasons NOT to Recycle Is this reason relevant to families? Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Yes, because pollution affects our quality of life Chemicals Cause Health Problems Not directly unless parents work in recycling. Can be Expensive Yes, because costs may affect taxes

Use the Planner to Select and Explain the Evidence that Best Supports Your Claim
Source: Evidence Connection Outcome

Hint: There will usually be MORE evidence than you can use
Hint: There will usually be MORE evidence than you can use. Pick the strongest reasons. Claim: Families should recycle because it improves our environment. Source: Evidence Connection Outcome

What important facts would you quote?
Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. What important facts would you quote?

What important facts would you quote?
Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. What important facts would you quote? +

and the most compelling evidence that supports it
Flashdraft! With your articles and 3-column chart in hand, use this framework to quickly write a draft of your argument. Overview of the Issue Some people say… Other people say… My claim and the most compelling evidence that supports it In the end, I say… Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How can we explain the process we just used?
How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Microsoft Engineering Excellence
Get Ready to Revise! How could we use AUTHORIZING to enhance our argument? Authorizing: Referring to an “expert” to support the claim Another opportunity to introduce a Harris move! Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Microsoft Confidential

Authorizing is a move in argument writing.
First, we select a compelling piece of evidence. Then we identify the source of the evidence. Finally, we show the importance of that source, if it is not obvious. For more information about landfill space, see and Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How is this writer using AUTHORIZING?
We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment. Using the framework provided on Slide 50, discuss the following: First, we select a compelling piece of evidence. What is compelling about the information provided here? Then we identify the source of the evidence. How are the sources identified? Finally, we show the importance of that source, if it is not obvious. What do the writers do to show the importance of the source, if anything? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How is this writer using AUTHORIZING?
We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How are these writers using AUTHORIZING?
“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved from According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste. It will be helpful to provide students with copies of the quotes on slide 53. Using the framework provided on Slide 50, discuss the following: First, we select a compelling piece of evidence. What is compelling about the information provided in each? Then we identify the source of the evidence. How are the sources identified? Finally, we show the importance of that source, if it is not obvious. What do the writers do to show the importance of the source, if anything? We’ll return to these quotes later when we investigate countering. Some students may notice now, however, that it would be more convincing if an outside agency were pointing to the Chartwell work, rather than a publicist from Chartwell. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How are these writers using AUTHORIZING?
“James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved from According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How might we change this passage to use AUTHORIZING?
“Never dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.” —United States Environmental Protection Agency, Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

AUTHORIZING The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns to “[n]ever dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.” Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Try it: Review your articles. Select 2-3 pieces of compelling evidence in which the source is clearly identified. Think: Is the source reputable? In what ways is this person or agency an “expert”? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Next Steps: Authorize! Step Step After practicing the move of authorizing, it’s time for students to try it in their own drafts. Step Then revise your draft to include this new text in which you use authorizing to enhance your argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing in order to make a stronger connection between our evidence and our claim? Capture students’ thinking on a chart that will remain on the wall for use in future argument work. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

More Revision! Could we COUNTER some of the evidence that Opponents of recycling might offer? Countering: “Pushing back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagreeing with it, challenging something it says, or interpreting it differently) Optional opportunity to introduce or practice a Harris move. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Microsoft Confidential

Countering is another move in argument writing.
First, we acknowledge a claim that is in opposition to ours. Example: Others will argue that our school should NOT increase its recycling efforts. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Countering Then, we identify evidence that our opponents might use to support their claim. Example: Those who are against more recycling quote statistics that indicate there is no landfill shortage. They claim that “[i]f all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 miles of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S. landspace.”—Cordato (1998) For more information about landfill space, see and Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Countering Finally, we suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence: Example: This statistic is extremely outdated, however. A quarter of a century ago, it was the best prediction of future landfill needs. More recent analyses, however, note the problem of increased regulation. These regulations have eliminated many potential sites for landfills, according to the Manhattan Institute , Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008). We’re also AUTHORIZING here, as we draw on information from a recognized authority, The Manhattan Institute. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Choose a piece of evidence that you highlighted or put on your 2-column chart which does NOT support your claim. Acknowledge the other side’s claim: Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute: Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence: PQP time Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Next Steps: Return your draft
After practicing the move of countering, it’s time for students to try it in their own drafts. They will need to re-scan the articles in order to find evidence that someone with an opposing claim might use, then help us think differently about that evidence so that it loses its power to sway our opinion. Step Then revise your original flashdraft to include this new text in which you counter their argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How will we apply it to our own research in order to make a stronger connection between our evidence and our claim? Capture students’ thinking on a chart that will remain on the wall for use in future argument work. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Students should save this revised draft in their working folders. Ideally, after writing several different drafts, students will select one piece from this folder to develop further, engaging in further research, writing, and revision. This selected draft will be edited and published. PQP Praise, question, Polish In pairs, review one another’s drafts, focusing on the use of credible sources to illustrate, authorize, and counter. How well has the writer used an understanding of source credibility to support his/her claim? Revise after feedback to improve your use of sources to support your claim. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Microsoft Confidential

Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Connecting Evidence to a Claim: Strategies for Argument Writing"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback