Write an argumentative piece and an informative/explanatory piece with clear theses, accurate credible sources, precise language and language fitted to audience and purpose

Learning goal: This lesson teaches Ohio's 2026 standards W.7.1 and W.7.2, first implemented in 2027-28. You will write argumentative pieces that include a clear thesis statement within the introduction; an introduction of claims with clearly organized reasons and an acknowledgement of alternate or opposing claims; clear reasons and relevant evidence that are well organized, include logical reasoning and demonstrate an understanding of the topic; words, phrases and clauses that create cohesion; precise language and domain-specific vocabulary; language appropriate to the audience and purpose; use of accurate, credible sources; and a concluding section that supports the argument. You will also write informative/explanatory pieces that include a clear thesis previewing what is to follow; relevant facts, definitions, concrete details and quotations; an organized text structure; transitions that create cohesion; precise, domain-specific language fitted to audience and purpose; formatting, graphics and multimedia when they clarify information; accurate, credible sources; and a conclusion that supports the explanation.

Two kinds of writing, one topic. An argumentative piece tries to convince a reader that a debatable position is right. An informative/explanatory piece helps a reader understand something without taking a side. This lesson uses one invented topic for both: whether the invented Ridgeview Middle School should replace two old drinking fountains with bottle-refill stations, and how a refill station works. The first question is argument; the second is explanation.

The sources (all invented for teaching). Source 1: a facilities report from the district's facilities manager, dated this school year, listing 14 fountains in the building, noting that 4 of them, including the two most-used, have low water pressure and need repair at an estimated $900 each, and giving an installation estimate of $1,400 per refill station for the model it proposes, a filtered, sensor-operated station. Source 2: a refill-station manufacturer's web advertisement claiming its product "saves thousands of bottles every month." Source 3: a student council survey: 400 of 600 students responded, and 300 of the 400 (75%) said they would use a refill station at least once a day. Source 4: a county health department page explaining that students should have access to drinking water throughout the school day.

Accurate, credible sources. A source is credible when its author and publisher can be identified, have knowledge of the subject, and have no strong reason to mislead. A piece of information is accurate when it is correct and checkable: the number matches the original, is current and is reported with its limits. The two ideas are different. The manufacturer (Source 2) is identifiable but has a commercial motive, and "thousands of bottles" is vague and not about this school, so it is unsupported and cannot be checked for this school; it should not be used as evidence in this argument. The facilities report (Source 1) is credible for costs. The survey (Source 3) is useful, but accuracy requires reporting it exactly: 75% of the 400 who responded, not "75% of students."

The argumentative piece, part by part. A clear thesis statement within the introduction states the position precisely: "Ridgeview should replace its two most-used fountains with bottle-refill stations this year." An introduction of claims with clearly organized reasons previews the reasons in order: the stations meet a demand students have reported, and replacing the two fountains costs only $1,000 more than repairing them ($2,800 versus $1,800, from the facilities report). An acknowledgement of alternate or opposing claims states the other side fairly and answers it: some families argue the money should repair the fountains that already work poorly; this is a real concern, but the two fountains chosen are among the ones that work poorly, so replacing them with refill stations repairs them and adds bottle filling in the same project. Clear reasons and relevant evidence follow, each reason in its own paragraph, each supported by evidence that bears on it, with logical reasoning explaining why the evidence proves the reason. That shows you understand the topic: you know what the numbers measure and what they do not. Words, phrases and clauses that create cohesion connect claims, reasons and evidence: "The first reason is," "according to the facilities report," "this shows that," "even though," "as a result." Precise language and domain-specific vocabulary replace vague words: "fixture," "filtered," "installation estimate," "plumbing line" instead of "thing," "stuff" or "a lot of money." Language appropriate to the audience and purpose depends on who reads it: a letter to the principal and parent council is formal, respectful and specific; the same argument in a student newspaper can be livelier but still accurate. A concluding statement or section that supports the argument restates the thesis in light of the reasons and says what should happen next; it does not add a new, unsupported claim.

The informative/explanatory piece, part by part. A clear thesis statement within the introduction, previewing what is to follow: "The filtered, sensor-operated bottle-refill station proposed for Ridgeview takes water from the building's supply, filters and often chills it, and dispenses it when a sensor detects a bottle (other models have no filter or use a push button); this explanation follows the water through those three stages." Relevant facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations or other information develop the topic: define "filtration," describe the sensor, quote the health department's statement. An organized text structure fits the purpose. The five common structures are description (features of one thing), chronology or sequence (steps in order), problem/solution, compare/contrast, and cause/effect. How a station works is best explained in sequence; why schools install them could use problem/solution. Appropriate transitions to create cohesion signal the relationship: "first," "next," "once the water is filtered," "because," "in contrast." Precise language and domain-specific vocabulary again: "sensor," "filter cartridge," "chiller." Language appropriate to the audience and purpose: explaining to fifth graders, define every technical term in plain words; explaining to the facilities committee, use the terms without long definitions. Formatting, graphics and multimedia to clarify information presented, if needed: headings for each stage, a labeled diagram of the water path, or a short video link, but only when they make the explanation clearer. Use of accurate, credible sources: many refill stations have a filter and a counter that estimates bottles filled, but the explanation should say "many models" unless a source confirms the school's model. A concluding statement or section that supports the information or explanation presented sums up the three stages and why they matter, without switching into argument.

A misconception to avoid. Many writers think an explanatory piece is just an argument without the word "should." In fact the purpose changes everything: an explanation presents both advantages and limits evenly and does not select evidence to win. Another misconception is that a credible source is automatically accurate. Even a credible report can be outdated or misquoted, so check the number itself.

Worked example 1 — Introduction with thesis, claims and an opposing claim. "Ridgeview has 14 drinking fountains, according to this year's district facilities report, and 4 of them, including the two most-used, have low water pressure. Ridgeview should replace its two most-used fountains with bottle-refill stations this year. Students have reported a clear demand for them, and replacing the two fountains would cost only $1,000 more than repairing them. Some families argue that the money would be better spent repairing existing fountains; that concern deserves an answer, and this letter gives one." Thesis: sentence two. Claims and organized reasons: sentence three previews two reasons in the order the body will follow. Opposing claim: acknowledged in sentence four.

Worked example 2 — A body paragraph with relevant evidence, logical reasoning and cohesion. "The first reason is demand. In the student council survey, 300 of the 400 students who responded, or 75%, said they would use a refill station at least once a day. Because 400 of 600 students responded, the survey does not speak for everyone; even so, 300 students is half the school, which shows the demand is real rather than the wish of a few. As a result, a station would be used, not ignored." Evidence: the survey, reported accurately with its limit. Reasoning: 300 of 600 is half the school. Cohesion: "The first reason is," "Because," "even so," "As a result."

Worked example 3 — Rejecting an inaccurate or non-credible source. A draft sentence reads, "Refill stations save thousands of bottles every month." The source is a manufacturer's advertisement, whose purpose is to sell, and the claim is vague and not about Ridgeview. Revision: remove it, or replace it with a checkable, local statement: "If the 300 students who said they would use a station refilled one bottle a day instead of buying one, the school would avoid about 300 disposable bottles on each school day, though actual use may be lower." The revision shows its calculation and its limit.

Worked example 4 — Language for audience and purpose. For the principal and parent council (argument, formal): "The district facilities report estimates installation at $1,400 per station, so replacing two fountains would cost about $2,800." For fifth graders (explanation, plain): "A refill station is a drinking fountain with a spout for bottles. It cleans the water with a filter, a part that traps some tiny bits in the water, before it comes out." A draft for the fifth graders that says "Stations are totally awesome and basically free" fails twice: the slang tells the reader nothing about how a station works, and "basically free" is inaccurate, because the report estimates $1,400 each. Changing the audience changes vocabulary, definitions and sentence length, never accuracy.

Worked example 5 — Explanatory structure, formatting and a supporting conclusion. Headings: "Stage 1: Supply," "Stage 2: Filtering and chilling," "Stage 3: Dispensing." A labeled diagram shows the water path from the building line to the spout. Conclusion: "Water reaches the proposed refill station from the same supply as a fountain, passes through a filter and often a chiller, and flows only when a sensor detects a bottle. Knowing these stages explains why a station needs a filter replaced on a schedule and a power connection that an ordinary fountain may not." The conclusion supports the explanation and does not argue for buying one.

Representation task — two plans side by side. Fold a page into two columns labeled Argumentative and Informative/explanatory. In each column, write your thesis, list your body sections in order, name the evidence for each section and its source, and mark each source C (credible) and A (accurate as you will report it) or explain why not. In the argument column add the opposing claim and your answer. In the explanatory column name your text structure and one graphic or format feature, with the reason it clarifies. At the bottom of each column, name the audience and write one sentence showing the tone you will use for that audience.

Independent performance. Choose a real question about your own school or community on which reasonable people disagree. Write a 450-word argumentative piece for a named adult audience and a 350-word informative/explanatory piece on a related "how does it work" or "what is it" question for a younger audience. Use at least three sources, and include a works-cited list with author or organization, title, date and URL or publication.

Success criteria: Each piece has a clear thesis in the introduction; the explanatory thesis previews what follows. The argument introduces its claims with organized reasons, acknowledges and answers an alternate or opposing claim, and supports each reason with relevant evidence and logical reasoning. The explanation develops its topic with facts, definitions, concrete details and at least one quotation, and follows a named text structure. Both use transitions that create cohesion, precise language and domain-specific vocabulary, and language appropriate to the stated audience and purpose. The explanation uses formatting, a graphic or multimedia only where it clarifies information. Every number is accurate to its source, every source is credible for the claim it supports, and each piece ends with a conclusion that supports what came before.