6th Grade Writing Quiz: Introduce And Organize Claims

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Introduce And Organize Claims, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for 6th Grade Writing.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. Claim; then random facts; then three reasons with no evidence
2. Claim; Reason 1 with evidence; Reason 2 with evidence; Reason 3 with evidence; conclusion (correct answer)
3. Three reasons; then a claim; then a story that does not connect
4. A hook only; no claim; no reasons; no evidence

Explanation: This question tests CCSS.W.6.1.a (introducing claims and organizing reasons and evidence clearly in argumentative writing). Claim introduction and organization means: CLAIM INTRODUCTION should clearly state position with context about issue and why it matters; ORGANIZING REASONS AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY means: (1) DISTINCT REASONS - 2-3 separate points supporting claim (not same idea repeated), (2) EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO REASON - each reason supported by specific facts/statistics/examples/expert opinions, (3) LOGICAL ORDER - reasons arranged by importance, topic, or time (not random), (4) CLEAR TRANSITIONS - words guiding reader ("First," "Additionally," "For example," "Therefore"), (5) FOCUSED SECTIONS - each paragraph develops one reason with its evidence. The outline structures: Option B presents claim first, then Reason 1 with evidence, Reason 2 with evidence, Reason 3 with evidence, and conclusion - this shows clear organization with distinct sections where each reason is supported by its own evidence in logical sequence. Other options lack this clear structure with disconnected or missing elements. The correct answer (B) shows the clearest organization - recognizing that effective outlines present claim, then develop each reason with its supporting evidence in separate sections, then conclude demonstrates understanding of well-organized argument structure. Option A (random facts, reasons without evidence) fails because evidence must support reasons; option C (reasons before claim, unconnected story) fails because claim-first is clearer; option D (hook only) fails because it lacks all essential elements. Teaching strategy: Teach outlining with templates: I. CLAIM (Schools should start recycling program), II. REASON 1 (Environmental benefits) A. Evidence (reduces landfill waste by 30%), B. Evidence (saves 17 trees per ton recycled), III. REASON 2 (Educational value) A. Evidence (teaches responsibility), B. Evidence (science class connections), IV. REASON 3 (Cost savings) A. Evidence (reduces waste disposal fees), B. Evidence (recycling revenue), V. CONCLUSION. Use index cards - write claim on one color, reasons on another, evidence on third, then arrange to show structure. Practice evaluating outlines by checking: Is claim stated clearly? Does each reason have evidence? Is order logical?

Question 2

1. It gives a clear claim and brief context about the problem before listing details. (correct answer)
2. It lists many facts first and saves the claim for the last sentence.
3. It uses only a hook and does not state a claim.
4. It explains evidence but never connects it to a reason.

Explanation: This question tests CCSS.W.6.1.a (introducing claims and organizing reasons and evidence clearly in argumentative writing). Explain claim introduction and organization: CLAIM INTRODUCTION should clearly state position ("Schools should start later") with context about issue and why it matters. ORGANIZING REASONS AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY means: (1) DISTINCT REASONS - 2-3 separate points supporting claim (not same idea repeated), (2) EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO REASON - each reason supported by specific facts/statistics/examples/expert opinions, (3) LOGICAL ORDER - reasons arranged by importance, topic, or time (not random), (4) CLEAR TRANSITIONS - words guiding reader ("First," "Additionally," "For example," "Therefore"), (5) FOCUSED SECTIONS - each paragraph develops one reason with its evidence. Well-organized arguments have claim stated explicitly, distinct reasons with supporting evidence, logical arrangement, transitions connecting ideas, and focused paragraphs. Poorly organized arguments have vague or implied claims, overlapping reasons, irrelevant evidence, random order, missing transitions, or mixed unfocused paragraphs. Identify the argument structure: The claim is clearly introduced because it's explicitly stated ("Our middle school should start 30 minutes later") with context ("Students are tired in first period"). The writer provides brief context about the problem before stating the clear claim. Why correct works: The correct answer (A) recognizes clear claim introduction because it identifies that the writer gives context about the problem (students being tired) before stating the explicit claim (school should start later). This shows understanding that effective claim introduction includes both context and explicit position statement. Why distractor fails: Choice B reflects misunderstanding of effective organization - saving the claim for last creates confusion and makes readers work too hard to understand the writer's position. Choice C incorrectly suggests there's no claim when the claim is explicitly stated. Choice D misidentifies the organizational issue - the evidence (students tired) is connected to the reason (why school should start later). Teaching strategy: Help students introduce claims by: (1) STATE POSITION EXPLICITLY ("Schools should start 30 minutes later" not "Start times are an issue"), (2) Provide CONTEXT (explain what issue is - students being tired), (3) Show SIGNIFICANCE (why it matters). Practice identifying claim introductions that provide context before stating position versus those that bury claims at the end or only imply positions. Watch for: students who think any mention of a topic equals a claim, when claims must be explicit position statements with supporting context.

Question 3

1. The reasons overlap and repeat the same main idea instead of being distinct. (correct answer)
2. The writer used too many different topics in one reason.
3. The evidence is too specific and should be removed.
4. The claim is hidden because the writer used transitions.

Explanation: This question tests CCSS.W.6.1.a (introducing claims and organizing reasons and evidence clearly in argumentative writing). Explain claim introduction and organization: CLAIM INTRODUCTION should clearly state position ("Schools should start later") with context about issue and why it matters. ORGANIZING REASONS AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY means: (1) DISTINCT REASONS - 2-3 separate points supporting claim (not same idea repeated), (2) EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO REASON - each reason supported by specific facts/statistics/examples/expert opinions, (3) LOGICAL ORDER - reasons arranged by importance, topic, or time (not random), (4) CLEAR TRANSITIONS - words guiding reader ("First," "Additionally," "For example," "Therefore"), (5) FOCUSED SECTIONS - each paragraph develops one reason with its evidence. Well-organized arguments have claim stated explicitly, distinct reasons with supporting evidence, logical arrangement, transitions connecting ideas, and focused paragraphs. Poorly organized arguments have vague or implied claims, overlapping reasons, irrelevant evidence, random order, missing transitions, or mixed unfocused paragraphs. Identify the argument structure: The three reasons all focus on academic performance - "improve focus," "reduce sugar crashes" (which affects learning), and "help students learn better" are essentially the same main idea (academic improvement) stated different ways rather than three distinct supporting points. Why correct works: The correct answer (A) identifies that the reasons overlap because all three essentially argue that healthier lunches improve academic performance, just using slightly different wording. This shows understanding that distinct reasons should be genuinely different points (like academic benefits, health benefits, and cost benefits) not variations of the same idea. Why distractor fails: Choice B suggests too many topics in one reason, but the problem is the opposite - one topic spread across three reasons. Choice C incorrectly criticizes specific evidence when the issue is overlapping reasons. Choice D wrongly connects transitions to claim visibility. Students often think rewording the same point creates different reasons, but effective arguments need genuinely distinct supporting points. Teaching strategy: Help students test for distinct reasons using the "Different Category Test": Can each reason fit under a completely different heading? For healthier lunches, DISTINCT reasons: (1) Academic benefits - better focus/grades, (2) Health benefits - fewer sick days/obesity prevention, (3) Environmental benefits - less packaging waste. If all reasons fit under same category (like "academic improvement"), they overlap. Create exercises where students sort reasons into "distinct" or "overlapping" categories. Practice expanding single ideas into multiple distinct reasons by brainstorming different aspects of the issue. Watch for: students who think using synonyms or slightly different phrasing creates new reasons, when they're actually restating the same point.

Question 4

1. For example,
2. Additionally, (correct answer)
3. In conclusion,
4. As a result,

Explanation: The paragraph gives one reason (longer recess improves focus) and then adds a second, separate reason (students build friendships). You need a transition that signals adding another distinct point. "Additionally" does exactly that—it tells the reader a new reason is coming, which keeps the argument organized. "For example" is wrong because it signals that what follows is evidence supporting the first reason, but building friendships is a new reason, not an example of improved focus. "In conclusion" is wrong because it tells the reader the argument is ending, when really another reason is just beginning. "As a result" is wrong because it signals cause and effect—that friendships happen because of better focus—but the two ideas are separate reasons, not a cause leading to a result. When you add a new reason, reach for addition transitions like "Additionally," "Also," or "Furthermore."

Question 5

1. This topic is interesting, and I will talk about many things
2. Peer mentoring matters because it can reduce bullying, help new students, and improve grades (correct answer)
3. Some people disagree, and that is fine
4. Mentors are older, and school is a building with classrooms

Explanation: This question tests CCSS.W.6.1.a (introducing claims and organizing reasons and evidence clearly in argumentative writing). Claim introduction and organization means: CLAIM INTRODUCTION should clearly state position ("Our school should add a peer mentoring program") with context about issue and why it matters; ORGANIZING REASONS AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY means: (1) DISTINCT REASONS - 2-3 separate points supporting claim (not same idea repeated), (2) EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO REASON - each reason supported by specific facts/statistics/examples/expert opinions, (3) LOGICAL ORDER - reasons arranged by importance, topic, or time (not random), (4) CLEAR TRANSITIONS - words guiding reader ("First," "Additionally," "For example," "Therefore"), (5) FOCUSED SECTIONS - each paragraph develops one reason with its evidence. The preview sentences: Option B clearly previews three distinct, organized reasons (reduce bullying, help new students, improve grades) that will support the claim about peer mentoring. These are specific, different benefits that can each be developed with evidence. Other options are vague, off-topic, or don't preview organized reasons. The correct answer (B) best previews organized reasons - stating "it can reduce bullying, help new students, and improve grades" gives readers a clear roadmap of three distinct reasons that will be developed, showing understanding of how to preview argument organization in the introduction. Option A ("many things") fails because it's too vague; option C ("some disagree") fails because it doesn't preview reasons; option D (random facts) fails because it provides irrelevant information instead of reason preview. Teaching strategy: Teach reason previews with the formula: "[Claim] because [reason 1], [reason 2], and [reason 3]." Practice transforming vague previews into specific ones - change "for many reasons" to "because it reduces bullying incidents, helps new students adjust faster, and improves academic performance." Create preview checklists: Are reasons DISTINCT (not overlapping)? Are they SPECIFIC (not vague)? Do they SUPPORT the claim? Can each be developed with evidence? Show how effective previews work like a table of contents, telling readers exactly what arguments to expect in what order.

Question 6

1. Reasons as a framework with clearly separated reasons and evidence (correct answer)
2. A story told in time order from morning to night
3. A list of unrelated facts with no claim
4. Only counterarguments with no reasons

Explanation: This question tests CCSS.W.6.1.a (introducing claims and organizing reasons and evidence clearly in argumentative writing). Explain claim introduction and organization: CLAIM INTRODUCTION should clearly state position ("Schools should start later") with context about issue and why it matters. ORGANIZING REASONS AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY means: (1) DISTINCT REASONS - 2-3 separate points supporting claim (not same idea repeated), (2) EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO REASON - each reason supported by specific facts/statistics/examples/expert opinions, (3) LOGICAL ORDER - reasons arranged by importance, topic, or time (not random), (4) CLEAR TRANSITIONS - words guiding reader ("First," "Additionally," "For example," "Therefore"), (5) FOCUSED SECTIONS - each paragraph develops one reason with its evidence. Well-organized arguments have claim stated explicitly, distinct reasons with supporting evidence, logical arrangement, transitions connecting ideas, and focused paragraphs. Poorly organized arguments have vague or implied claims, overlapping reasons, irrelevant evidence, random order, missing transitions, or mixed unfocused paragraphs. Identify the argument structure: The argument states a claim, then uses clear transitions ("First... Second... Finally...") to present three distinct reasons, with each reason followed by supporting evidence. This creates a reasons framework with clearly separated sections for each reason and its evidence. Why correct works: The correct answer (A) recognizes the reasons framework pattern because the argument uses ordinal transitions to separate distinct reasons, with evidence clearly connected to each reason. This shows understanding that effective organization includes both structural markers (transitions) and logical grouping (reasons with their evidence). Why distractor fails: Choice B (story in time order) misunderstands the function of "First, Second, Finally" - these mark reasons, not chronological events. Choice C (unrelated facts with no claim) contradicts the stated presence of a claim. Choice D (only counterarguments) misidentifies the content as opposing views rather than supporting reasons. Students need to recognize that "First, Second, Finally" can organize reasons logically, not just time sequences. Teaching strategy: Help students use reasons framework by: (1) STATE CLAIM clearly, (2) Use ORDINAL TRANSITIONS ("First," "Second," "Third" or "To begin with," "Additionally," "Finally"), (3) Present ONE REASON per section, (4) Follow each reason with SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. Create templates showing this structure visually. Practice identifying transition words that signal reasons organization versus time order - "First" in arguments usually introduces first reason, not first event. Teach students to outline before writing: Claim at top, then Reason 1 (Evidence A, B), Reason 2 (Evidence C, D), Reason 3 (Evidence E, F). Watch for: students who think any use of "First, Second, Third" means chronological order, when in arguments these often organize reasons by logic or importance.

Question 7

1. The evidence supports the money-saving reason because colorful posters encourage more students to recycle.
2. The evidence is unclear and does not directly support the money-saving reason about the recycling program. (correct answer)
3. The evidence proves the reason too strongly and should be balanced with a fact about helping the environment.
4. The evidence belongs with a different reason about responsibility rather than the reason about saving money.

Explanation: The reason says recycling “saves money,” so the evidence must show a financial benefit—like lower trash costs or income from selling recyclables. “Students like green posters” says nothing about money, so it fails the “because” test: “Recycling saves money because students like green posters” does not make sense. That is why the best answer says the evidence is unclear and does not directly support the money-saving reason. The choice claiming colorful posters help by encouraging recycling still never connects posters to money—liking a poster is not a financial fact. The choice saying the evidence proves the reason too strongly is wrong because the evidence does not support the reason at all, so there is nothing to balance. The choice suggesting the evidence fits a “responsibility” reason is also wrong: liking posters does not clearly prove students are learning responsibility either, and the real problem is that the evidence matches no reason. Remember, evidence must specifically prove the exact reason it is placed under, not just relate to recycling in general.

Question 8

1. They tell readers which reason is the most important so the rest can be skipped
2. They help organize reasons in a clear logical order (correct answer)
3. They signal that each reason includes its own supporting facts and examples
4. They mark the spot where the writer restates the claim in different words

Explanation: The words “First,” “Additionally,” and “Finally” act like signposts. They guide readers from one reason to the next, showing how the reasons line up to support the claim. That is why the best answer is that they help organize reasons in a clear logical order. The choice saying they mark the most important reason so the rest can be skipped is wrong: these transitions show sequence, not ranking, and no reason should be skipped. The choice saying they signal that each reason has its own facts and examples confuses two different jobs—transitions connect ideas, but evidence is what actually backs up a reason. The choice saying they mark where the writer restates the claim is wrong because these words introduce new reasons, not a repeat of the claim. Only one option describes the real job of ordering and connecting reasons for the reader.

Question 9

1. No, because the second reason is really the same point as the first, so the reasons are not distinct.
2. Yes, because each reason is distinct and each has evidence that connects directly to it. (correct answer)
3. No, because the reasons are placed in a random order instead of being arranged from most to least important.
4. Yes, because the outline packs every reason into one section rather than giving each its own focus.

Explanation: The correct answer recognizes strong organization: the outline states a clear claim, then lists three genuinely different reasons—homework help, safety, and reading time—and pairs each reason with evidence that supports that exact reason. Quiet space backs homework help, police data backs safety, and checkout numbers back reading time, so the structure is well-organized. The choice saying the second reason repeats the first is wrong because 'safe place after school' is a completely different benefit from 'homework help'—these are distinct points, not the same idea. The choice claiming the reasons are in random order is wrong because outlines are still organized when each reason is separate and evidence-backed; you cannot call an order 'random' just because it isn't ranked, and the reasons here are clearly grouped. The choice saying every reason is packed into one section misreads the outline: each reason has its own line with its own evidence, so the sections are actually focused, not crowded together. Remember: a well-organized argument states its claim, gives distinct reasons, and connects specific evidence to each reason.

Question 10

1. A survey shows that 62% of students would recycle more plastic if bins were placed in every classroom
2. The town's recycling center now processes plastic waste from three neighboring schools each week
3. Custodians report filling two fewer trash bags daily after switching to reusable trays (correct answer)
4. A study found that plastic bottles can take up to 450 years to fully break down in landfills

Explanation: The reason you need to support is that reducing plastic means less trash at school. The best evidence must show trash actually going down at the school. The custodians filling two fewer trash bags daily after switching to reusable trays does exactly that—it directly measures less school trash. The survey about students recycling more if bins were added tells you what students might do, not that trash was actually reduced, so it doesn't prove the reason. The recycling center processing waste from neighboring schools is about other schools and about recycling, not about less trash at your school. The study about plastic taking 450 years to break down is a general environmental fact about landfills; it may support reducing plastic overall, but it doesn't show less trash at school. Match evidence to the exact reason: for 'less trash at school,' pick the fact that measures trash dropping right where the reason is about.

Question 11

1. A clear position statement, such as “Our school should provide more mental health support.” (correct answer)
2. A surprising statistic about how many students join school sports teams each year.
3. A repeated version of the opening sentences to make the introduction feel longer.
4. A funny personal story that entertains readers instead of stating what should happen.

Explanation: The introduction names a problem—students feel stressed and need help—but never says what the writer thinks should be done. Adding a clear position statement like “Our school should provide more mental health support” fixes this, because a claim tells readers exactly what action the writer is arguing for. A surprising statistic about students joining sports teams adds a fact, but it has nothing to do with mental health, so it does not make the writer's position clear. Repeating the opening sentences just makes the paragraph longer without ever stating a position, so the claim is still missing. A funny personal story entertains readers but replaces the claim instead of adding one, which leaves the argument even less clear. Remember: mentioning a problem is not the same as making a claim. A strong introduction states what specific group should do what specific thing, so readers know your argument from the start.

Question 12

1. State the writer's position directly, such as "Schools should offer healthier lunches" (correct answer)
2. Delete the background details so the introduction jumps straight into listing supporting facts
3. Add several more personal opinions about food while leaving the main point unstated
4. Present all the reasons and evidence first and hold the writer's position until the very end

Explanation: An introduction to an argument needs to tell readers exactly what the writer believes should happen. Stating the position directly, such as "Schools should offer healthier lunches," fixes the problem because it turns background information into a real argument with a clear claim. Deleting the background details is wrong because that context helps readers understand the issue; the missing piece is a position, not the setup. Adding more personal opinions without a main point is wrong because piling on opinions still leaves readers guessing what the writer actually wants; it makes the introduction more confusing, not clearer. Presenting all the reasons and evidence first and saving the position for the very end is wrong because an introduction should announce the claim early so readers know what every reason is supporting; burying it until the end leaves the opening unfocused. Only stating the position clearly gives the introduction the claim it is missing.

Question 13

1. The reasons follow a logical order and each topic stays neatly grouped in its own section
2. The claim is stated so specifically that its reasons cannot be arranged in any clear order
3. The writer repeats the same topic without clear sections or transitions (correct answer)
4. The evidence is presented before the claim, so readers cannot follow the reasons

Explanation: The correct answer is that the writer repeats the same topic without clear sections or transitions. The argument brings up mental health, switches to uniforms, then circles back to mental health. When ideas about one topic are scattered instead of grouped, readers get confused. Good organization keeps all the mental-health reasons together in one section, with transition words guiding the reader from one point to the next. The choice saying the reasons follow a logical order with each topic neatly grouped is wrong because the topics are actually scattered, not grouped—mental health appears in two separate spots. The choice saying the claim is too specific to arrange in any order is wrong because a specific claim is easy to organize; specificity has nothing to do with the jumping between topics. The choice saying the evidence comes before the claim is wrong because the real problem is not the order of claim and evidence—it is that the same topic keeps returning instead of staying in one place.

Question 14

1. Problem-solution structure that names an issue and then proposes a fix for it (correct answer)
2. Order-of-importance structure that ranks several reasons from strongest to weakest
3. Chronological structure that walks through events in the time order they happened
4. Compare-contrast structure that weighs two options against each other by their traits

Explanation: The argument first names something that is wrong—students being tired and unfocused in first period—and then offers a fix, later start times. Stating a problem and then proposing a solution is exactly what problem-solution structure does, so that pattern is the best answer. Order-of-importance structure ranks a set of reasons from strongest to weakest, but this argument gives one issue and one fix, not a ranked list of reasons. Chronological structure organizes ideas by the time order that events happen, and here nothing is arranged as a sequence of events over time. Compare-contrast structure weighs two choices against each other by their traits, but the argument does not set up two options to compare; it presents a problem and a single recommended solution. Because only one choice matches how a problem is stated and then answered with a fix, problem-solution is the pattern this argument follows.

Question 15

1. Version 2, because listing ideas in any order lets readers form their own opinions more freely.
2. Version 1, because it has a clear claim and logical order with reasons and evidence. (correct answer)
3. Version 2, because skipping transitions keeps the writing shorter and sounds more natural to readers.
4. Version 1, because it uses more facts, though transitions and order matter less than the amount of evidence.

Explanation: The best answer is the one praising Version 1 for a clear claim followed by reasons and evidence in a logical order. That is exactly what good argument organization means: the reader knows the position up front, then follows safety, cost, and health points connected by transitions. The choice saying any order lets readers form opinions freely is wrong because random order actually hides the argument's logic and confuses readers rather than freeing them. The choice claiming that skipping transitions sounds more natural is wrong because transitions act like road signs; leaving them out makes Version 2 harder to follow, not better. The last choice praises Version 1 but for the wrong reason. The question asks about organization, not how many facts appear. Order and transitions are what make writing organized, so judging by 'amount of evidence' misses the actual skill being tested. When you compare two arguments, look for a stated claim, distinct reasons, evidence tied to each reason, a sensible order, and transitions guiding the reader through it.

Question 16

1. The evidence is unrelated to the reason and does not support the claim (correct answer)
2. The evidence appears before the claim is clearly stated to the reader
3. The claim is stated once but never restated anywhere in the conclusion
4. The reasons jump between topics instead of building in logical order

Explanation: The right answer is that the evidence is unrelated to the reason and does not support the claim. To argue that schools should extend recess, you need evidence about recess itself—like studies on activity, attention after breaks, or crowded playground time. A cafeteria remodel from 2019 has nothing to do with how long recess lasts, so it cannot back up the claim, no matter where you place it. The choice about evidence appearing before the claim is wrong because the claim is actually stated clearly first; placement is not the problem here. The choice about the claim never being restated in the conclusion is wrong because the scenario never mentions a conclusion at all—the real issue is the mismatched fact. The choice about reasons jumping between topics is wrong because there is only one piece of evidence, not several reasons out of order. The one true flaw is that the evidence simply does not connect to the claim about recess.

Question 17

1. Blend the three topics into one long paragraph so the section feels detailed and complete
2. Keep the topics together but add transition words between the different sentences
3. Separate ideas into distinct reasons, each with matching evidence (correct answer)
4. Move the mixed paragraph to the end so readers reach the argument last

Explanation: A body paragraph should focus on one reason and support it with evidence that fits. When homework, lunch, and bullying are jammed together, readers cannot follow the argument. The best fix is to separate the ideas into distinct reasons and give each its own matching evidence, so every paragraph develops a single point clearly. Blending all three topics into one longer paragraph only keeps the confusion—length is not the same as clear organization, and readers still cannot tell the reasons apart. Adding transition words between the sentences sounds helpful, but transitions cannot connect ideas that do not belong together; the topics still need to be split before transitions can guide the reader. Moving the mixed paragraph to a different spot in the essay does not solve anything either—the paragraph is still jumbled no matter where it sits. Only separating the topics into focused reasons with connected evidence actually organizes the writing.

Question 18

1. Chronological order, arranging the ideas by the time each event happened from beginning to end
2. Problem‑solution, naming an issue and then proposing a fix along with reasons the fix would help (correct answer)
3. Compare‑and‑contrast, showing how two different lunch plans are alike and how they are different
4. Order of importance, ranking the reasons from most convincing down to the least convincing point

Explanation: The best answer is problem‑solution. The argument first names a problem—students rush through lunch—then proposes a fix—add 10 minutes—and then gives reasons that fix would help. That is exactly how a problem‑solution structure works: identify an issue, offer a solution, and support the solution. Chronological order arranges ideas by time, telling what happened first, next, and last. This argument does not follow a timeline; it moves from a problem to a fix, so this choice misreads the structure. Compare‑and‑contrast lines up two things to show how they are alike and different. The writer only discusses one plan (adding time), never weighing two options side by side, so nothing is being compared. Order of importance ranks reasons from most to least convincing. Here the three reasons all support the same solution equally and are not placed in a clear ranked order, so this label does not fit either.

Question 19

1. The opening claim is too wordy and should be split into two shorter sentences.
2. The fact about the school’s age is irrelevant and breaks the logical order. (correct answer)
3. The reasons jump between ideas without any transition words to guide the reader.
4. The reasons are already arranged in a clear order from most to least important.

Explanation: The claim here is clearly stated: schools should extend recess. The problem is that the sentence about the school being built in 1985 doesn't support that claim at all. It sits right between “Recess is fun” and “Kids need exercise,” interrupting the flow of reasons. Because this fact is irrelevant and disrupts the logical order, it is the main organizational problem. Saying the opening claim is too wordy is wrong—“Schools should extend recess” is already short and clear, so splitting it wouldn't help. Saying the reasons lack transition words points to a real weakness, but missing transitions is a smaller issue than including a fact that has nothing to do with the argument. Saying the reasons are arranged from most to least important is false, because the random fact about the building shows the ideas aren't in a clear order at all. When you check your own writing, ask “How does this fact support my point?” If you can't answer, the detail probably doesn't belong.

Question 20

1. The three reasons overlap and repeat one idea instead of being distinct points (correct answer)
2. The evidence is too closely tied to each reason instead of standing on its own
3. The reasons are arranged by importance instead of following a time order
4. The claim states a position that is too narrow to support with three reasons

Explanation: The main problem is that all three reasons say the same thing—“Screens distract students”—just with different evidence attached. A strong argument needs distinct reasons, like screens distract from lessons, screens cause eye strain, and screens hurt handwriting practice. Having three examples for one idea is fine, but this outline pretends one reason is three separate reasons, so the reasons overlap and repeat one idea. The choice saying the evidence is too closely tied to the reasons is wrong because evidence is supposed to be connected to the reason it supports—that is good organization, not a weakness. The choice about arranging reasons by importance is wrong because ordering by importance is a smart, allowed strategy; time order is not required here. The choice claiming the position is too narrow is wrong because “limit screen time during class” is easily debatable and could support several different reasons—the real flaw is that the writer only found one and repeated it.