Water for Schools
Menu

Worksheet Grade 11 English Language Arts

Corrigan Falls' Lead Line Op-Ed: A Rhetorical Analysis Worksheet

A grade 11 worksheet where students analyze a persuasive op-ed on replacing lead lines in a fictional town, identifying claim, evidence, and counterclaim.

Objectives

  1. Students will identify the claim, evidence, and reasoning in a persuasive op-ed about municipal infrastructure funding.
  2. Students will locate and evaluate a counterclaim and its rebuttal within an argumentative text.
  3. Students will analyze specific rhetorical techniques an author uses to persuade a target audience.

Vocabulary

Key words: claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, rhetorical question, appeal to urgency

Teacher overview

Corrigan Falls is a fictional town used for this worksheet, one weighing whether to fund faster replacement of its remaining lead service lines through a local bond. The town newspaper publishes an op-ed making the case for the bond, and this worksheet asks students to read that op-ed the way a careful reader should: locating its claim, testing its evidence, and noticing where the writer anticipates and answers an objection. A common misconception worth addressing directly is that students often treat a persuasive text as either "all logic" or "all emotion," when strong arguments, including this one, typically blend a factual claim with an appeal to the reader's sense of urgency; the questions below ask students to separate those threads rather than blur them.

Corrigan Falls' Lead Line Op-Ed: A Rhetorical Analysis Worksheet — Grade 11 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Student Worksheet

Read the op-ed excerpt below, then answer the questions that follow.

"Replace the Pipes Now," an op-ed submitted to the Corrigan Falls Gazette (fictional, written for this worksheet)

Every glass of water a family in this town drinks still travels through pipes the city itself has never fully mapped. Corrigan Falls has known for years that some of its oldest neighborhoods are served by lead service lines, the short pipes connecting the water main to each house. Nationally, EPA estimates that about 4 million lead service lines remain in service, and federal rules are tightening: the lead action level is dropping from 15 to 10 parts per billion in 2027, with utilities required to replace nearly all remaining lead lines within a decade. Corrigan Falls cannot wait for a deadline to force its hand.

Some on the city council argue that a bond to fund faster replacement will raise water bills at a difficult time. That concern is not unreasonable, and no resident should be asked to absorb a rate increase without understanding why. But what is the cost of doing nothing? A delayed project does not disappear; it becomes a more expensive one, tackled under a tighter federal deadline with less time to plan. Every year this town delays is a year more children drink water that has passed through a pipe with no place in a modern water system.

The council should approve the bond this spring, fund the engineering study, and give residents a firm timeline for the neighborhoods still waiting.

  1. Identify the op-ed's central claim in one sentence, using your own words.
  2. List two separate pieces of evidence the writer uses to support that claim.
  3. The writer cites a national figure about lead service lines in the first paragraph. What is that figure, and why might the writer have included a national statistic in an op-ed about one town?
  4. Find the sentence in the second paragraph that states a counterclaim, the concern raised by "some on the city council." Restate that counterclaim in your own words.
  5. How does the writer respond to the counterclaim? Quote the sentence you think contains the rebuttal.
  6. Is the writer's rebuttal effective? Explain your reasoning, addressing whether it actually answers the concern about rising bills or simply changes the subject.
  7. Locate the rhetorical question in the second paragraph. What effect is that question likely intended to have on a reader?
  8. Evaluate the reasoning that connects the writer's evidence to the central claim. Is it valid and sufficiently supported, or does the argument need more evidence? Explain your answer.
  9. Suppose you were drafting a short letter opposing immediate approval of the bond. Write one sentence stating a counterclaim to the op-ed's central claim.

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: The city council should approve the bond this spring to fund faster replacement of Corrigan Falls' remaining lead service lines. Accept any restatement that captures the call for prompt bond approval.
  2. Answer: Any two of: the national EPA estimate of about 4 million remaining lead service lines, the tightening federal deadline (the action level dropping from 15 to 10 ppb by 2027), or the requirement that utilities replace nearly all lead lines within a decade.
  3. Answer: EPA estimates that about 4 million lead service lines remain in service nationally. A national figure suggests the problem is not unique to Corrigan Falls, which can make a local reader take the town's own lines more seriously as part of a larger, documented issue.
  4. Answer: The counterclaim is that funding faster replacement through a bond will raise water bills at a time when residents may already be struggling financially.
  5. Answer: "But what is the cost of doing nothing?" begins the rebuttal, which argues that delay does not avoid the cost, it only makes the eventual project more expensive under a tighter deadline. Accept also "A delayed project does not disappear; it becomes a more expensive one, tackled under a tighter federal deadline with less time to plan," which states the rebuttal's reasoning directly.
  6. Answer: Answers will vary. A strong response notes that the rebuttal partially answers the concern, since it reframes cost as unavoidable either way, but does not directly address whether residents can afford the bond right now, so it may not fully satisfy a reader focused on near-term affordability.
  7. Answer: "But what is the cost of doing nothing?" The question likely shifts the reader from weighing the bond's cost alone to weighing it against the cost of continued delay, making inaction feel like a choice with its own price.
  8. Answer: Answers will vary; accept well-reasoned responses either way. A response noting the argument is valid but could be strengthened with a specific cost comparison, showing what delay actually costs in dollars, demonstrates the kind of evaluation this item is asking for.
  9. Answer: Answers will vary; accept any sentence that states a genuine objection to immediate bond approval, such as concern about rate increases, uncertainty about the engineering study's cost, or a preference to seek state or federal grant funding first.

Differentiation

Support

Provide a simple graphic organizer with four labeled boxes (Claim, Evidence, Counterclaim, Rebuttal) for students to fill in as they read, before attempting the analysis questions, and allow items 6 and 8 to be answered orally in a small group before being written.

Extension

Ask students to find a second rhetorical technique in the op-ed not already covered by the questions, such as the direct address to the council or the repetition of "this town," and explain, in a short paragraph, how it strengthens or weakens the writer's case.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "claim," "counterclaim," "rebuttal," and "rhetorical question" with a one-sentence definition and a simple example unrelated to water before reading, and allow students to answer items 1, 2, and 4 with underlined phrases from the text instead of full original sentences.