ela-2017:RI.7.9ela-2017:RI.7.1ela-2026:RI.7.9
ela-2017:RI.7.9 Analyze how two or more authors writing about the same topic shape their presentations of key information by emphasizing different evidence or advancing different interpretations of facts.
ela-2017:RI.7.1 Cite several pieces of textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
ela-2026:RI.7.9 Analyze how two or more authors writing about the same topic present information differently by choosing different evidence or offering different interpretations of facts.
Learning goal: Analyze how two authors writing about the same topic shape their presentations of key information by emphasizing different evidence or advancing different interpretations of facts, citing several pieces of textual evidence for each claim about how a presentation is shaped.
Original report — Trail Supporters Fill Commission Hall. An invented news report from the invented Harlow Junction Courier, by an invented reporter, Ben Ostrowski. The meeting, the people and the figures are fictional and match the companion article.
HARLOW JUNCTION — About 140 residents filled the county commission's meeting room on Tuesday night, the largest crowd anyone present could remember, as 22 speakers addressed the future of the Kettle Creek Branch. Fifteen spoke in favor of converting the 6.8-mile rail corridor into a trail. Seven spoke against.
Priya Nair, chair of the 220-member Kettle Creek Trail Coalition, drew the evening's longest applause when she told commissioners that the corridor was "the only thing in Corwin County" that runs across the county "in one unbroken piece." Several speakers described riding Pine Run Trail in the neighboring county, where an automated counter recorded 38,000 passes in the trail's third year. "My kids could ride to their grandmother's without touching a road," said Ana Delgado of Harlow Junction.
Supporters also pointed to the county's own survey, in which 59 percent of respondents favored a trail. "The county has spoken," said coalition member Luis Ferreira.
County engineer Marisol Vega presented three options, including a compromise that would keep the corridor in public ownership without building a trail right away. Commissioners asked few questions.
Opponents, led by farmer Walt Brenner, raised concerns about trespassing and long-term cost. Brenner presented a petition signed by 19 adjoining landowners and told the commission that "pledges are not budgets."
A state recreation grant would cover 75 percent of the estimated $2.8 million construction cost. Upkeep is estimated at $61,200 a year. A March storm damaged the trestle over Kettle Creek, and Vega said decking it for trail use is now estimated at $260,000.
The commission is expected to vote in June. Nair said the coalition would hold a ride along the corridor's public road crossings on the Saturday before the vote.
Original report — Landowners Press Commission on Trail's Twenty-Year Cost. An invented news report from the invented Corwin County Ledger, by an invented reporter, Dana Whitfield. The meeting, the people and the figures are fictional and match the companion article.
HARLOW JUNCTION — Adjoining landowners pressed the Corwin County commission on Tuesday over the long-term cost of a proposed trail on the Kettle Creek Branch, a commitment the county engineer's report puts at about $1.92 million over twenty years.
Farmer Walt Brenner, whose land adjoins 1.1 miles of the corridor, delivered a petition signed by 19 of the 31 landowners along the line. "The grant pays to build it," Brenner said. "It does not pay to keep it."
Engineer Marisol Vega's figures put the county's share of construction at $700,000 after a 75 percent state grant, with upkeep of $61,200 a year. Her report also offers an option to hold the corridor in public hands without a trail, at about $320,000 over twenty years, which Brenner called "a $320,000 way to put off a decision," and an option to let the corridor revert to adjoining owners, at a one-time cost to the county of about $180,000 to remove the trestle.
Trail supporters cited a county survey in which 59 percent of respondents favored a trail. The survey drew 900 responses from a county of about 14,000 residents, fewer than one resident in fifteen.
About 140 people attended and 22 spoke, 15 of them in favor of a trail. Many of those speakers identified themselves as members of the Kettle Creek Trail Coalition. Coalition chair Priya Nair told the commission that the corridor "cannot be taken back" once it is divided, and said the coalition could not promise to replace the upkeep cost with volunteer labor.
A March storm undercut the east abutment of the trestle over Kettle Creek. Vega said the span is stable for now and that decking it for trail use is estimated at $260,000, up $40,000 since the storm.
The commission is expected to vote in June. Two of the three commissioners declined to say how they would vote; the third, Ruth Kimani, said she wanted "a number for what doing nothing costs."
The same topic, the same facts. Before analyzing difference, establish agreement, because an analysis that treats every difference as a disagreement about facts will be wrong. Both reports cover the same meeting on the same night. Both give the attendance as about 140 and the speakers as 22, with 15 in favor. Both give the $61,200 yearly upkeep, the 75 percent grant, the $260,000 estimate for decking the trestle and the 59 percent survey result. Both quote Nair on the corridor being unbroken or unable to be taken back, and both report Brenner's petition of nineteen. Neither report states a fact that the other, or the companion article, contradicts. A reader who lists these shared facts first has established that whatever differs between the reports is not a matter of which reporter got the facts right. It is a matter of shaping.
Shaping by emphasis: what comes first, what comes last, what gets quoted. Emphasis is the weight a presentation gives to a piece of information through position, space and voice. Position: a news report's headline and first paragraph tell the reader what the story is about. The Courier's headline and first paragraph are about the crowd, "the largest crowd anyone present could remember," and the 15-to-7 split among speakers. The Ledger's headline and first paragraph are about a number, "$1.92 million over twenty years," which the Courier never prints at all. Space: the Courier gives the coalition three paragraphs, three direct quotations and a personal detail about a child riding to a grandmother's house, and gives the cost figures one paragraph near the end. The Ledger gives the cost figures its first three paragraphs and the crowd one paragraph near the end. Voice: the Courier quotes Nair's most memorable line and Delgado's and Ferreira's supporting remarks; the Ledger quotes Brenner twice and Nair once, and chooses the Nair remark, reported in paraphrase rather than quoted, that concedes the coalition "could not promise to replace the upkeep cost." Both reporters are choosing among things that were actually said. Emphasizing different evidence is not lying; it is deciding which true things a reader will meet first and remember.
Shaping by interpretation: the same fact read two ways. An interpretation is a statement about what a fact means or how much it weighs. The two reports interpret the same three facts differently, and the differences are visible in single words. The survey: the Courier reports "59 percent of respondents favored a trail" and follows it with a quotation, "The county has spoken," letting a source interpret the figure as a verdict. The Ledger reports the same 59 percent and follows it with a fact of its own choosing, "900 responses from a county of about 14,000 residents, fewer than one resident in fifteen," which interprets the figure as a small sample. Neither sentence is false; the second adds a denominator and the first adds a voice. The engineer's hold option: the Courier calls it "a compromise," a word that carries approval, while the Ledger reports Brenner calling it "a $320,000 way to put off a decision," a description that carries disapproval and is placed in a source's mouth rather than the reporter's. The speaker count: the Courier presents 15 of 22 as the evening's shape; the Ledger presents the same count and adds "Many of those speakers identified themselves as members of the Kettle Creek Trail Coalition," which invites the reader to discount it. In each case, the fact is shared and the interpretation is advanced by what is placed next to it.
How to analyze the shaping. The analysis has four steps, and each needs evidence. First, name the topic both texts share and list at least three facts both report. Second, for each text, identify what its headline and first paragraph emphasize and what it places last, quoting both. Third, find at least two facts that both report and show how each text interprets them, quoting the word or the neighboring sentence that carries the interpretation. Fourth, state what each presentation, taken as a whole, leads a reader to believe about the topic: the Courier's reader believes the county wants the trail and the cost is a detail; the Ledger's reader believes the trail is an expensive commitment favored by an organized minority. Then say which facts a reader of only one report would not know. The Courier's reader does not learn the twenty-year total, the 900-response count or the hold and reversion prices; the Ledger's reader does not learn about Delgado's child, the applause or the planned ride.
Two misconceptions. The first is that one report is biased and the other objective. Both are shaped; the Ledger's decision to print the denominator is as much a choice as the Courier's decision to print the applause, and the Ledger's commissioner quotation, "a number for what doing nothing costs," is chosen to end the story on cost, exactly as the Courier's closing line about a ride is chosen to end on enthusiasm. The second is that shaping means the reporters made things up. Every quotation in each report was, within the fiction, actually said, and every figure that the companion article also gives matches it. The standard asks how authors shape presentations of key information by emphasis and interpretation, not whether they invented it, and the honest answer is that both did the first and neither did the second. A reader who wants the whole picture reads both and the article, and notices that the article's central claim, that the decision is really two decisions, appears in neither report.
Worked emphasis comparison: Fact: upkeep is $61,200 a year. Courier: sixth paragraph of seven, one sentence, after the grant is mentioned. Ledger: third paragraph, tied to the $700,000 share and the $1.92 million total in the lead, under a headline about the twenty-year cost. Same fact, different weight. Evidence of shaping: the position (near the end versus near the top) and the company it keeps (the grant's 75 percent in the Courier, the twenty-year total in the Ledger). The Courier's reader learns the cost; the Ledger's reader learns the cost first and in its largest form.
Worked interpretation comparison: Fact: 59 percent of survey respondents favored a trail. Courier's next sentence: "The county has spoken," a quotation from a coalition member, so the interpretation is a source's, but the reporter chose to print it. Ledger's next sentence: 900 of 14,000, "fewer than one resident in fifteen," a fact the reporter chose to add. Both interpretations are advanced by placement rather than by assertion. Cite both sentences, name whose voice each is in, and state that neither disputes the 59 percent.
Worked whole-presentation statement: Courier: headline about supporters, lead about the crowd, three coalition quotations, cost near the end, closing on a ride. Reader's takeaway: the county wants this. Ledger: headline about cost, lead about $1.92 million, two Brenner quotations, the Nair concession, the denominator, closing on a commissioner asking what doing nothing costs. Reader's takeaway: this is an expensive commitment pushed by an organized group. Facts missing from each: the Courier omits the twenty-year total and the response count; the Ledger omits the applause and the personal stories. Neither omission is a false statement; both are shaping.
Side-by-side chart: Make a three-column chart. Column one: a fact both reports share (find at least six). Column two: where and how the Courier presents it (paragraph number, neighboring sentence, quoted word that interprets it). Column three: the same for the Ledger. Below the chart, list facts that appear in only one report. Then write each report's headline, first sentence and last sentence one above the other and describe, in one sentence each, what the beginning and ending emphasize.
Independent performance: Write a four-paragraph analysis. Paragraph one names the shared topic and at least three facts both reports present identically. Paragraph two analyzes how each reporter shapes the presentation by emphasizing different evidence, using position, space and choice of quotation, with at least two quotations from each report. Paragraph three analyzes how the two reports advance different interpretations of the same two facts, quoting the word or neighboring sentence that carries each interpretation and saying whose voice it is in. Paragraph four states what a reader of only each report would believe and what that reader would not know. Success criteria: every claim about shaping cites a specific location or quotation; no report is called false without evidence of a false statement, and no report is called biased without evidence, which may be a pattern of selection, omission or framing rather than a false fact; interpretation is distinguished from emphasis; and at least one instance of shaping in each report is identified, not only in one.
An adult may read the prompts aloud. Answer independently with words, objects, drawings or a demonstration before opening the answer guide. Award 1 point for a correct result or claim and 1 point for a matching explanation or demonstration; where a question asks only for a result (a corrected sentence, a spelling, a count), a fully correct result earns both points, and the answer guide shows what a complete response contains. Record prompting separately. The total (two points per question) is local practice feedback, not an Ohio proficiency level.
List three facts both reports present identically and explain why establishing shared facts comes before analyzing differences.
Both give about 140 attending and 22 speakers with 15 in favor, $61,200 a year in upkeep, and 59 percent of survey respondents favoring a trail. Establishing agreement first shows that the differences between the reports are matters of emphasis and interpretation, not of one reporter getting the facts wrong.
How does each report’s headline and first paragraph emphasize different evidence? Quote both.
The Courier’s headline is “Trail Supporters Fill Commission Hall” and its lead describes “the largest crowd anyone present could remember” and the 15-to-7 split. The Ledger’s headline is about the “Twenty-Year Cost” and its lead gives “about $1.92 million over twenty years,” a figure the Courier never prints. Position gives each fact its weight.
Show how the two reports advance different interpretations of the same 59 percent figure.
The Courier follows the figure with a coalition member’s “The county has spoken,” interpreting it as a verdict. The Ledger follows it with “900 responses from a county of about 14,000 residents, fewer than one resident in fifteen,” interpreting it as a small sample. Neither disputes the 59 percent; each shapes it by what is placed next to it.
Compare how the hold option is described in the two reports and identify whose voice carries each description.
The Courier calls it “a compromise” in the reporter’s own voice, a word carrying approval. The Ledger reports Brenner calling it “a $320,000 way to put off a decision,” a disapproving description placed in a source’s mouth. Both are interpretations of the same option from the same engineer’s report.
What does the Ledger add to the speaker count of 15 in favor, and what effect does the addition have?
It adds that “Many of those speakers identified themselves as members of the Kettle Creek Trail Coalition.” The sentence is factual, but placed after the count it invites the reader to discount the 15 as organized rather than representative, an interpretation advanced by juxtaposition.
What would a reader of only the Courier not know, and a reader of only the Ledger not know?
The Courier’s reader would not know the $1.92 million twenty-year total, the 900-response count, or the prices of the hold and reversion options. The Ledger’s reader would not know about Delgado’s child, the applause for Nair, or the planned ride. Each omission is a choice of emphasis, not a false statement.
Why is “one report is objective and the other is biased” a weak analysis of these two texts?
Both are shaped. The Ledger’s choice to print the denominator and end on a commissioner’s question about cost is as much a choice as the Courier’s choice to print the applause and end on a ride. Neither states a false fact. Each could fairly be called slanted by its selection and framing, but the same is true of both, so the more useful analysis is that both emphasize different evidence and advance different interpretations, and that neither report carries the article’s central claim that the decision is really two decisions.