Argumentative Research Writing — Practice · Grade 11 English

Chapter: Research & Source-Based Writing

What this practice covers

By the end of Argumentative Research Writing you should be able to:

11 questions, multiple choice and written answer, each with a worked explanation.

Vocabulary used: thesis, counterargument, concession, rebuttal, warrant.

Problem 1

Which statement is the strongest argumentative THESIS?
  1. States should require new homes to include solar-ready wiring, because the small upfront cost prevents far larger retrofit expenses later.
  2. Is renewable energy worth it?
  3. This essay will discuss renewable energy.
  4. Solar power exists and is used in many countries.
Answer and explanation

States should require new homes to include solar-ready wiring, because the small upfront cost prevents far larger retrofit expenses later.

Only this option is a specific, arguable claim that previews a reason; the others are a topic announcement, an undebatable fact, and a question.

Problem 2

Explain why addressing a counterargument tends to make an argument STRONGER rather than weaker.
Answer and explanation

Addressing a counterargument shows the writer has considered the other side fairly and can answer it, which builds the reader's trust; ignoring an obvious objection makes it look like the writer either missed it or cannot respond, which leaves the argument easy to knock down.

Problem 3

What is the BEST way to handle a strong opposing view in an argumentative paper?
  1. Ignore it, so readers do not think about it.
  2. State it fairly, concede any part that has genuine merit, then rebut it with evidence and reasoning.
  3. Mock the people who hold it.
  4. Restate your own thesis more forcefully without responding to the objection.
Answer and explanation

State it fairly, concede any part that has genuine merit, then rebut it with evidence and reasoning.

State-concede-rebut treats the opposition honestly and then answers it, which is more persuasive than ignoring, mocking, or simply repeating your own claim.

Problem 4

A student writes a paragraph that drops in a statistic — '43% of teens report trying the product' — and immediately moves on to the next point. What is missing, and how would you fix it?
Answer and explanation

The statistic is dropped in without a warrant — the reasoning that connects it to the claim. The fix is to add a sentence, in the writer's own voice, explaining why that number supports the thesis (for example, what a 43% rate implies about how widely the product has reached teenagers), so the evidence actually argues for the point instead of just sitting there.

Problem 5

A research paper draws roughly 80% of its evidence from one source. Even if that source is cited correctly, why is this a weakness?
  1. The only problem is that the Works Cited page will look too short.
  2. It is not a weakness; one strong source is enough.
  3. The argument rests on a single perspective, so it is only as reliable and unbiased as that one source, and it needs corroboration from independent sources.
  4. The paper simply needs more direct quotations from that source.
Answer and explanation

The argument rests on a single perspective, so it is only as reliable and unbiased as that one source, and it needs corroboration from independent sources.

Overreliance on one source makes an argument fragile — a reader who distrusts that source can topple the whole thing; independent corroboration is what makes a claim hard to knock down.

Problem 6

Construct an argument that addresses the concern. Give a detail and explain its relevance.
Answer and explanation

Add a labeled memory layer while preserving the original map. Contributor dates, permissions, and visible conflicts would make memories useful without silently turning them into the original record.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 7

A learner writes: “Anyone opposing our plan does not care about students.” Explain the problem and produce a better response.
Answer and explanation

Represent the staffing objection accurately. Respond with a feasible condition or evidence, not an attack on motives.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 8

Compare what you must inspect in these two cases. What can transfer, and what must be checked again?
Answer and explanation

An argumentative thesis answers a debatable question with a reasoned position. Qualify its scope so the evidence can support it. The method transfers, but the particular detail, scope, and context must be read again. Add a labeled memory layer while preserving the original map. Contributor dates, permissions, and visible conflicts would make memories useful without silently turning them into the original record.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 9

Using an assigned reading or one exercise source, write a developed response applying argumentative research writing. Aim for 260–380 words; name the reading or reproduce the sentence you revise.
Answer and explanation

A six-week, twice-weekly trial is worth testing if staffing is funded and attendance is recorded. The survey suggests interest but does not establish schoolwide demand; a trial can answer that limited question. A complete response supplies context, a focused claim, a brief supporting detail, explanation, and a relevant qualification. Do not simply repeat this model.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 10

Write two specific feedback comments on a response to this unit: one on accuracy or meaning and one on evidence or language. Then state a revision priority.
Answer and explanation

Check whether the response explains an argumentative thesis answers a debatable question with a reasoned position. qualify its scope so the evidence can support it. Ask for a relevant detail and the reason it supports the conclusion. Prioritize the mistaken assumption shown here: “Anyone opposing our plan does not care about students.”

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 11

Choose a fresh sentence or detail from the assigned selection. Explain how this unit’s method applies, and identify one uncertainty or limitation.
Answer and explanation

The museum memo values welcome, the historian demands agency, and the donor asks for precise attribution. An evidence panel can answer part of each concern, but favorable appearance ratings do not establish historical accuracy. The response must supply its own precise detail and explain it; copying the model without fresh evidence is insufficient.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Browse all courses