Writing prompt Grade 10 English Language Arts
Should Fairview Fund Extra PFAS Filtration Early? A Writing Prompt
A grade 10 argument writing prompt on whether a fictional town should install PFAS filtration ahead of the federal deadline, using the actual EPA limit as evidence.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument essay that states a claim, addresses a counterclaim, and supports both with evidence.
- Students will use a real federal regulatory limit, including its compliance deadline and a proposed exemption, as evidence in an argument.
- Students will weigh a public-health consideration against a cost consideration in a policy argument.
Vocabulary
- PFAS
- A large family of human-made chemicals used in things like nonstick pans, waterproof fabric, and firefighting foam. They are called forever chemicals because they take a very long time to break down.
- Maximum contaminant level (MCL)
- A maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is the highest amount of a certain substance that federal rules allow in drinking water. Water systems test regularly to prove their water stays under each limit.
Also: compliance deadline, counterclaim
Teacher overview
Fairview (a fictional town used for this prompt) has learned that two PFAS chemicals in its water supply exceed the federal limit its utility will eventually have to meet, but the April 2029 compliance deadline is still years away, and a proposed rule would let eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, to April 2031. This prompt asks students to take a position on whether the town should install filtration now, ahead of any deadline, or wait and save money in the near term, using the actual federal rule and the proposed exemption as evidence.
Prompt
Background: PFAS are a group of manufactured chemicals. They do not break down easily in the environment, and they have raised real health concerns. For this reason, EPA has set a national limit for two PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS. The limit is 4.0 parts per trillion each, set under a rule finalized in April 2024. Water systems must meet that limit by April 2029. In May 2026, EPA proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, which would give them until April 2031. The exemption would not be automatic for every system, and the 4.0 parts per trillion limit would not change. As of September 2026, that proposal had not been finalized. Suppose Fairview's most recent water test found PFOA and PFOS levels each above the 4.0 parts per trillion limit. Fairview's utility engineer looked at two options. Installing filtration now would cost the town about $2 million. Waiting until closer to the deadline, which could be 2031 if Fairview qualifies for an exemption, is projected to cost about $3.5 million instead, since construction and equipment costs are expected to rise.
Writing task: Fairview's town council must decide what to do. Should the town fund PFAS filtration now, or wait for the compliance deadline? That deadline is April 2029, or April 2031 if the proposal is finalized and Fairview qualifies for an exemption. Write an argument essay that states a clear claim. Explain what Fairview should do. Address at least one counterclaim a resident or council member might raise about cost or timing. Support your position with evidence from the background material above.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim (should Fairview install filtration now or wait?) | |
| Reason 1 + evidence from background material | |
| Reason 2 + evidence from background material | |
| Counterclaim a resident or council member might raise | |
| Your rebuttal to the counterclaim | |
| Concluding statement |
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Exemplar & Rubric
Exemplar response:
Fairview's town council should fund PFAS filtration now rather than wait for the compliance deadline, because the town's own water test already shows levels above the federal limit, and delay carries both a health cost and a financial cost the council should not ignore. EPA has set the national limit for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 parts per trillion each, a rule finalized in April 2024 specifically because these chemicals do not break down easily in the environment and have raised real health concerns. Fairview's test results already exceed that limit, which means residents are currently drinking water above the standard the federal government has determined is acceptable, regardless of when the town is legally required to fix it.
Some residents will argue that Fairview should wait, since EPA proposed in May 2026 letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption that would move their deadline from April 2029 to April 2031, and waiting could let the town spread the cost over more years. This concern is reasonable, and the council should take it seriously. But waiting is also projected to cost more, not less: the utility engineer estimates filtration installed now would cost about $2 million, compared to roughly $3.5 million if the town waits, since construction and equipment costs are expected to rise. An exemption would change when the town is legally required to act, not whether the underlying water quality problem exists, and Fairview would be paying an extra $1.5 million later for the privilege of leaving a known contaminant in its water supply longer.
Fairview's council should approve funding for filtration now. The federal limit exists because PFAS levels above it raise real health concerns, Fairview's water already exceeds that limit, and installing filtration sooner is also the cheaper option once rising costs are taken into account.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position stated | States a position but it shifts or is vague | States one clear, consistent position | States a clear position and previews the essay's reasoning |
| Evidence & reasoning | No evidence from background material | Restates one fact without explaining its relevance | Uses at least one specific figure and explains how it supports the claim | Uses two or more specific figures and explains how each supports the claim |
| Counterclaim | No counterclaim addressed | Mentions an opposing view without a rebuttal | States a counterclaim and offers a rebuttal | States a counterclaim, rebuts it specifically, and ties the rebuttal back to the claim |
| Organization & conventions | Ideas are disconnected; frequent errors interfere with meaning | Some organization; errors are noticeable but do not block meaning | Clear paragraph structure; few errors | Clear, purposeful structure with a strong concluding statement; virtually error-free |
Differentiation
Support (below grade level)
Provide sentence starters for each Planning Organizer row ("Fairview should/should not install filtration now because the background material says ___.") and allow the counterclaim and rebuttal to be combined into a single simpler sentence.
Extension (above grade level)
Ask students to reason out, using only the background material provided and not outside sources, what might happen to Fairview's cost estimate if the exemption proposal is not finalized, or Fairview does not qualify, and the April 2029 deadline stays in place, and add a sentence addressing that possibility to their conclusion.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "PFAS," "maximum contaminant level," "compliance deadline," and "counterclaim" with simple definitions and a visual timeline showing the 2024 rule, the April 2029 deadline, the proposed April 2031 exemption date, and today's date. Allow the Planning Organizer to be completed with phrases rather than full sentences before drafting begins.