Water for Schools
Menu

Worksheet Grade 10 English Language Arts

Aging Pipes and a Rate Increase: An Argument-Analysis Worksheet

A grade 10 worksheet in which students read a short editorial on funding pipe replacement through higher water rates and analyze its claims, evidence, and counterclaims.

Objectives

  1. Students will identify a claim, its supporting evidence, and a counterclaim within a short argumentative text.
  2. Students will distinguish a nationwide statistic from a local claim within the same piece of writing.
  3. Students will draft an original counterclaim and rebuttal supported by evidence.

Vocabulary

Key words: claim, evidence, counterclaim, rebuttal, infrastructure

Teacher overview

A short op-ed is a compact place to practice the moves of argument writing, because its claim, evidence, and counterclaim all appear within a few sentences. This worksheet gives students a fictional op-ed written for the fictional Fairbridge Gazette, arguing that the town should raise water rates to fund pipe replacement, built entirely from real national infrastructure statistics attached to a fictional local claim. Students first read the piece to find its claim, evidence, and counterclaim, then use one additional real statistic to write a counterclaim and rebuttal of their own, the same moves grade 10 argument writing requires them to produce in their own essays.

Aging Pipes and a Rate Increase: An Argument-Analysis Worksheet — Grade 10 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Student Worksheet

Read this fictional op-ed, written for the fictional Fairbridge Gazette, then answer the questions that follow.

Op-Ed: It's Time to Fix Fairbridge's Pipes

By a fictional city engineer, written for this worksheet

Every two minutes, a water main breaks somewhere in the United States, and Fairbridge's aging pipes are no exception. Three of our own mains have broken since January, each one costing the city more in emergency repair than a planned replacement would have cost. Nationally, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave drinking water infrastructure a grade of C-minus in its most recent report card, and EPA's own needs assessment finds that $625 billion in drinking-water infrastructure investment is needed nationwide over the next 20 years, with distribution pipes like ours accounting for roughly two-thirds of that need.

Fairbridge's council has proposed a modest rate increase to fund a ten-year pipe replacement plan. Some residents will object to paying more, and that objection deserves to be taken seriously. But the choice is not between higher rates and no cost at all; it is between a planned rate increase now and unplanned emergency repairs, boil-water notices, and larger increases later. I urge the council to approve the plan.

  1. What is the op-ed's central claim?
  2. List two pieces of evidence the writer uses to support the claim, and name where each comes from.
  3. Identify the sentence where the writer acknowledges a counterclaim.
  4. How does the writer respond to that counterclaim?
  5. The op-ed states a water main breaks "every two minutes." Does this number describe Fairbridge specifically, or the United States as a whole? Explain how you know.
  6. Based on the op-ed, about what fraction of the nation's $625 billion drinking-water infrastructure need is attributed to distribution pipes?
  7. Write one additional counterclaim the op-ed does not address, using the fact that a widely used rule of thumb, built from two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5% of household income as a high burden.
  8. Write a one-sentence rebuttal to the counterclaim you wrote in question 7.
  9. Identify one word or phrase in the op-ed that signals the writer's opinion rather than a neutral fact.
  10. Does the op-ed's evidence adequately support its claim? Explain your reasoning, using at least one specific example from the text.

From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.

Answer Key
  1. Answer: Fairbridge should raise water rates to fund a planned pipe replacement program.
    The final paragraph states this directly: "I urge the council to approve the plan."
  2. Answer: Any two of: the national main-break rate (the op-ed gives no source for it); the ASCE report-card grade of C-minus (American Society of Civil Engineers); the $625 billion needs figure with two-thirds for distribution pipes (EPA's needs assessment); the three Fairbridge main breaks since January (the writer's own local account).
    The op-ed names the American Society of Civil Engineers and EPA as sources; the main-break rate and the local breaks are given without a named source.
  3. Answer: "Some residents will object to paying more, and that objection deserves to be taken seriously."
    This sentence states the opposing view directly rather than dismissing it.
  4. Answer: The writer argues the real choice is between a planned rate increase now and unplanned emergency repairs, boil-water notices, and larger increases later.
    This is the writer's rebuttal, reframing the counterclaim's cost concern against a different, larger cost.
  5. Answer: The United States as a whole.
    The sentence about Fairbridge's own mains is a separate sentence that follows, showing the writer distinguishes the national statistic from the local example.
  6. Answer: About two-thirds.
    The op-ed states this fraction directly when citing the EPA needs-assessment figure.
  7. Answer: Answers will vary. A strong response argues that a rate increase could push some Fairbridge households above the widely used 4.5% affordability threshold, a burden the op-ed does not mention.
    Accept any counterclaim that connects the affordability threshold to a concern the op-ed leaves unaddressed.
  8. Answer: Answers will vary. A strong rebuttal proposes a specific response, such as a discounted rate for low-income households, to address the affordability concern without abandoning the plan.
  9. Answer: Answers will vary; accept any evaluative word or phrase, such as "no exception," "modest," or "I urge," that expresses the writer's judgment rather than a verifiable fact.
  10. Answer: Answers will vary. A strong response cites a specific piece of evidence (the ASCE grade, the EPA figure, or the local main-break count) and explains whether it directly supports the claim that Fairbridge specifically needs a rate increase now.

Differentiation

Support (below grade level)

Provide the op-ed with the claim sentence, the counterclaim sentence, and the rebuttal sentence already highlighted in three different colors before students answer items 1 through 4.

Extension (above grade level)

Ask students to rewrite the op-ed's final paragraph in a more neutral, informational tone, removing evaluative language while keeping every factual claim intact, then explain in one sentence what was lost by removing the opinion.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "claim," "evidence," "counterclaim," "rebuttal," and "infrastructure" with simple definitions and a labeled example sentence for each term drawn from the op-ed. Allow items 7 and 8 to be drafted orally with a partner before writing.