Write an argument with a precise claim, a fairly developed counterclaim and the strengths and limitations of both

Learning goal: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. Establish a clear and thorough thesis; introduce a precise claim and distinguish it from alternate or opposing claims; organize so that the relationships among claim, counterclaims, reasons and evidence are clear; develop claim and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each and pointing out the strengths and limitations of both for a particular audience; link sections with words, phrases and clauses; keep a formal style and objective tone suited to the discipline; and conclude in a way that follows from the argument.

The scenario this unit uses. Linden Ridge High School is invented, and so is every number attached to it. The school, which enrolls 1,140 students, is deciding whether to require students to lock their phones in magnetic pouches during class periods, unlocking them at lunch and at the end of the day. The simulated sources are these. Cost sheet: 1,140 pouches at 25 dollars each (28,500 dollars) plus six unlocking stations at 450 dollars each (2,700 dollars), a total of 31,200 dollars, to be paid from a one-time fund of 35,000 dollars. Pilot log: two ninth-grade English sections, 58 students in all, used pouches for six weeks; their two teachers counted phone-related redirections and recorded an average of 9 per 50-minute period in the three weeks before the pilot and 2 per period during it. Pilot quizzes: unit-quiz averages were 74 percent before the pilot and 79 percent during it, on different units. Student survey: 640 of the 1,140 students responded; 384 opposed the policy, 192 supported it and 64 were unsure. Parent letter: 41 families signed a letter asking how they would reach their children in an emergency. Oakmere report: a neighboring district, also invented, replaced 90 of its 750 pouches in the first year because of damage or loss. None of this describes a real school, and the evidence supports more than one reasonable position.

What grades 9-10 add. In earlier grades an argument acknowledged the other side and answered it. At grades 9-10 the standard asks for more exact work in three places. The claim must be precise: it says exactly what the writer holds and no more. In a policy argument like this one, that means what should happen, to whom, when and under what conditions; in an argument about a text, it means exactly which interpretation, of which part, on what evidence. This lesson builds the architecture of an argument on a policy topic; the lesson on drawing evidence from literary and informational texts applies the same moves to arguments about texts. The counterclaim must be developed fairly: it gets its own evidence, not a straw version. And both sides are weighed: the writer points out the strengths and the limitations of the evidence for the claim as well as for the counterclaim. An argument that admits a limitation in its own evidence is more persuasive to a careful reader, not less, because the reader can see that the writer is not hiding anything.

A clear and thorough thesis. A thesis is the sentence (occasionally two) that states the position the whole text defends. Clear means a reader can say in their own words what the writer wants. Thorough means it contains the conditions that make the claim defensible and, often, previews the line of reasoning. "Phones are distracting" is too general to be the thesis for this assignment; almost no one needs an essay to accept it, and it says nothing about what the school should do. "Linden Ridge should adopt the pouch policy" is a claim but not yet a thorough one. "Linden Ridge should lock phones in pouches during class periods, but not at lunch, beginning next fall and only after it publishes an emergency-contact protocol, because the pilot evidence points to fewer interruptions, the cost fits the fund, and the families' safety concern can be answered directly" is thorough: it defines the policy's scope, attaches a condition and previews three reasons.

Precise claims, distinguished from alternate and opposing claims. Precision matters because a vague claim cannot be distinguished from anything. An opposing claim says the opposite (do not adopt the policy). An alternate claim offers a different answer to the same question (adopt a classroom-by-classroom rule instead of pouches). A strong introduction names the question, states the claim and shows exactly where it parts from the others: "The disagreement is not about whether phones distract; almost everyone agrees they sometimes do. It is about whether a school-wide lock is a proportionate answer."

Organization that shows relationships. Every paragraph in an argument has a job, and a reader should be able to name it: a reason with its evidence, a counterclaim, a response to the counterclaim, a limitation, a conclusion. One sound plan for this essay is: introduction and thesis; reason one (the pilot) with its limits; reason two (cost); the strongest counterclaim (student opposition and safety) developed with its own evidence; the response; conclusion. The order puts the counterclaim late, after the reader has seen the evidence, so that the response can use that evidence.

Developing claims and counterclaims fairly: strengths and limitations of both. Fairness is a technique, not a mood. For each body of evidence, ask two questions: what does it show well, and what can it not show? The pilot log's strength is that it was recorded in this school, in real classes, over six weeks. Its limitations are that it covers 58 of 1,140 students, that the two teachers who counted the redirections volunteered for the pilot and may have hoped it would work, and that a new routine may change behavior for a while simply because it is new. The student survey's strength is its size: 640 responses, and 384 of them, 60 percent of the respondents, oppose the policy. Its limitations are that the respondents chose to answer (so 60 percent describes respondents, not the school) and that a preference is not evidence about learning. The 41 families' letter raises a concern whose strength does not depend on numbers at all: a school must be able to connect a parent and a child in an emergency. A writer who states all of these is anticipating the audience's knowledge level and concerns. The audience here is the school board and families; they know the school but not the pilot's method, and their main concerns are safety and cost, so the essay explains the method briefly and answers safety directly rather than burying it.

Words, phrases and clauses that link and clarify. Cohesion at this level comes less from single transition words than from clauses that carry a relationship. "Although 384 of the 640 respondents oppose the policy, that figure measures preference rather than effect" relates a counterclaim to the claim in one sentence. Useful links include the strongest objection is, this evidence has a limit, even granting that, for that reason, by contrast and which means that. Each names a relationship: between claim and reason, reason and evidence, or claim and counterclaim. Links also work at the scale of the whole essay: the first sentence of each body paragraph should connect it to the section before ("The policy is also affordable"; "The strongest objection comes from students and families"), so the major sections read as one line of reasoning rather than a stack of separate points. That is what cohesion means: every part visibly connected to the parts around it.

Formal style, objective tone and the norms of the discipline. In an argument written for a board, a formal style uses exact nouns (respondents, redirections, protocol), avoids slang, and lets evidence do the persuading instead of intensifiers such as obviously or everyone knows. An essay like this one also usually avoids addressing the reader as you, although that is a convention of the genre and not a test of formality: formal instructions and many formal speeches address the reader or listener directly. An objective tone treats the opposing side as reasonable people with reasons. Disciplines add norms of their own, and the norms vary with the kind of text: a policy argument names each source and its date; a literary argument uses present tense for events in the text and quotes the exact words it analyzes; a full science report usually describes how data were collected before reporting what they show, although its abstract often states the main finding first.

A concluding section that follows from and supports the argument. The conclusion restates the claim in light of what was shown, including the conditions, and may state what should happen next. It does not add a new reason or a new proposal the essay has not earned.

Original model argument — first draft (kept for revision).

Phones are ruining school and Linden Ridge needs to lock them up. The pilot proved it: redirections went from 9 to 2 and quiz scores went up 5 points. Some students don't like it, but students never like rules. Parents worry about emergencies, but there are phones in the office. In conclusion, lock the phones and maybe also ban smartwatches.

What is wrong with it. The thesis is neither clear nor thorough; "ruining school" is an exaggeration and the policy's scope is never defined. "Proved" overstates what a six-week before-and-after count in two classes, with no comparison group, can show, and the quiz comparison is used without its limit: the two averages come from different units, so the 5-point difference could reflect the units rather than the pouches. The counterclaim is dismissed with a generalization ("students never like rules"), and the safety concern gets one clause and no evidence. The conclusion adds smartwatches, which the essay never argued.

Original model argument — revised draft.

Linden Ridge High School should lock students' phones in pouches during class periods, but not at lunch, beginning next fall, provided that the school first publishes an emergency-contact protocol. The pilot suggests the policy reduces interruptions, its cost fits the available fund, and the strongest objections, student opposition and the families' concern about emergency contact, can be weighed and answered rather than ignored.

The best evidence comes from the six-week pilot in two ninth-grade English sections. Their teachers recorded an average of 9 phone-related redirections per 50-minute period in the three weeks before the pilot and 2 per period during it. That evidence has limits the board should weigh: it covers 58 of 1,140 students, the counts were kept by teachers who volunteered, and six weeks may capture the effect of a new routine rather than a lasting one. The quiz averages, 74 percent before and 79 percent during, cannot support the claim at all, because they come from different units. Even so, a drop from 9 redirections to 2 in the same classrooms is large enough to justify a school-wide trial with independent counting.

The policy is also affordable. Pouches and unlocking stations together cost 31,200 dollars, within the one-time fund of 35,000 dollars. The Oakmere report adds a caution: that district replaced 90 of its 750 pouches, 12 percent, in its first year. At that rate Linden Ridge might replace about 137 pouches, roughly 3,400 dollars, which the remaining 3,800 dollars would cover in the first year but not indefinitely.

The strongest objection comes from students and families. Of the 640 students who answered the survey, 384, or 60 percent, oppose the policy, and 41 families have asked how they will reach their children in an emergency. The survey is large, and a policy that most respondents oppose will be harder to enforce. Its limit is that it records preference rather than effect on learning, and the respondents chose to answer. The families' concern needs no percentage to be serious. It is, however, a concern about contact, and contact can be provided: a published protocol that routes urgent calls through the front office, together with lunch-period access, could answer it more directly than leaving every phone unlocked. That is a proposal, not yet evidence: the one-year trial should test whether the office can take and deliver urgent calls quickly.

Therefore the board should adopt the class-period policy for one year, with the protocol published before the first day and redirections counted by staff who were not part of the pilot. If the count does not fall, the evidence for the policy will have failed, and the board should say so.

Reading the revision. The thesis now defines scope (class periods, not lunch), timing (next fall) and a condition (the protocol), and previews three reasons in the order the body follows. Each body of evidence is given its strength and its limit, including the writer's own. The counterclaim receives real numbers and is answered with a proposal, not a sneer. That evidence has limits, even so, also, the strongest objection and therefore mark the relationships. The conclusion follows from the argument and adds only a test of it.

Worked thesis revision: Draft: "The school should do something about phones." It is not clear (what should it do?) or thorough (no scope, no reasons). Revision one: "The school should adopt pouches." Clearer, but it still does not say when phones are locked or under what condition, so a reader cannot tell whether it means an all-day lock or a class-period one, and an opponent cannot tell exactly what is being claimed. Revision two: "Linden Ridge should lock phones in pouches during class periods, not at lunch, starting next fall, provided it first publishes an emergency-contact protocol, because the pilot points to fewer interruptions, the cost fits the fund and the safety concern can be answered." It now names scope, timing, condition and three reasons, which is what makes it thorough.

Worked strengths and limitations of both sides: For the claim's best evidence, the pilot: strength, recorded in this school over six weeks with a large change (9 redirections to 2 per period); limitations, 58 of 1,140 students, volunteer teachers doing the counting, and possible novelty. For the counterclaim's best evidence, the survey: strength, 640 responses, with 384 opposed, which is 384 divided by 640, or 0.60; limitations, self-selected respondents and a measure of preference, not learning. Writing both in the essay lets the board see that the writer weighed the evidence rather than choosing only the convenient half.

Worked arithmetic check for the cost paragraph: 1,140 times 25 is 28,500 dollars; 6 times 450 is 2,700; the sum is 31,200, which leaves 35,000 minus 31,200, or 3,800 dollars. Oakmere's rate is 90 divided by 750, which is 0.12. Twelve percent of 1,140 is 136.8, so about 137 pouches; 137 times 25 is 3,425 dollars, which the essay rounds to "roughly 3,400". Because 3,425 is less than 3,800, the claim that the remainder covers the first year holds, but only for one year, and the essay says so.

Worked linking clause: Two sentences: "Most respondents oppose the policy. The survey measures preference." Joined with a clause that states the relationship: "Although 60 percent of respondents oppose the policy, the survey measures what students prefer, not whether the policy changes what happens in class." The although clause concedes the counterclaim's strength; the main clause states its limit; the reader sees the relationship between claim and counterclaim without guessing.

Planning record: Choose a position: adopt the policy as stated, adopt an alternate (for example, a classroom-by-classroom rule or a ninth-grade-only trial), or reject it. Write a thesis that names scope, timing, any condition and at least two reasons. Then build a two-sided evidence table with four columns: evidence and source, what it shows well, what it cannot show, and who in the audience cares about it. Complete at least two rows for your claim and two for the strongest opposing or alternate claim. A partner checks one row on each side and writes whether you stated the limitation fairly.

Independent performance: Write a 600-800-word argument addressed to the Linden Ridge school board. Success criteria: a clear and thorough thesis that defines the claim precisely; the claim distinguished from at least one opposing and one alternate claim; paragraphs whose jobs are identifiable and whose order shows the relationships among claim, counterclaims, reasons and evidence; the counterclaim developed with its own evidence; at least one strength and one limitation stated for the evidence on each side; every number traced to a named simulated source and every calculation correct; linking words, phrases and clauses that name relationships; formal style and objective tone throughout; a concluding section that follows from the argument and adds no new proposal. Submit the plan, the first draft, the revised draft and a 100-word note explaining the most important change you made and why.