Water for Schools
Menu

Worksheet Grade 12 English Language Arts

Evaluating Evidence in Fenwick's PFAS Op-Ed

A grade 12 worksheet where students evaluate and revise a fictional utility op-ed on PFAS testing, strengthening its claim, evidence, and counterclaim.

Objectives

  1. Students will identify claim, evidence, and counterclaim (or its absence) in a persuasive text.
  2. Students will distinguish supported claims from unsupported opinion stated as fact.
  3. Students will revise weak argumentative sentences into claims supported by evidence.

Vocabulary

Key words: claim, evidence, counterclaim, rebuttal, op-ed

Teacher overview

Local newspapers and community newsletters regularly publish op-eds on water issues that are more emotion than evidence, and a capstone ELA skill is being able to tell the difference and improve on it. This worksheet gives students a persuasive text about Fenwick, a fictional town, and its water utility's response to PFAS contamination, deliberately written with a real but under-supported claim, so students can practice identifying weak argumentative moves and strengthening them, a skill that transfers directly to their own argument writing.

Evaluating Evidence in Fenwick's PFAS Op-Ed — Grade 12 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Student Worksheet

Fenwick is a fictional town used for this worksheet. Read the op-ed below, submitted to the town's local paper, then answer the questions that follow.

"Fenwick Should Act on PFAS Now"

PFAS is dangerous and something must be done immediately. Recent tests found PFAS above the federal limit at two of Fenwick's five municipal wells, and the utility says it plans to wait until the federal compliance deadline before installing treatment. That is not good enough. The federal government has set the maximum allowed level for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 parts per trillion each, and Fenwick's own tests already exceed that number at two wells. Waiting years to fix a known problem is irresponsible. So obviously Fenwick needs to act now.

  1. What is the op-ed's central claim?
  2. Underline the sentence that states the op-ed's strongest piece of evidence, and explain in one sentence why it counts as evidence rather than opinion.
  3. The op-ed's first sentence ("PFAS is dangerous and something must be done immediately") is an unsupported claim. Rewrite it as a claim directly supported by a fact stated later in the passage.
  4. Does the op-ed address a counterclaim a reader might raise? If yes, quote it. If no, write one sentence stating a counterclaim a utility ratepayer worried about cost might raise.
  5. Find one sentence in the op-ed that states an opinion as if it were a fact, and explain the difference between the two.
  6. What is the federal maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS stated in the passage?
  7. Using only the passage's own information, write one rebuttal sentence a utility might use to argue that waiting until the federal deadline is a reasonable choice.
  8. The op-ed's final sentence ("So obviously Fenwick needs to act now.") is a weak conclusion. Revise it into a stronger concluding sentence that restates the claim and calls for one specific action.
  9. On a scale of 1 to 4, rate how well the op-ed uses evidence to support its claim, and justify your rating in two sentences.
  10. Write a two-to-three sentence counterclaim paragraph responding to the op-ed from the perspective of a Fenwick ratepayer concerned about cost, including a rebuttal to your own counterclaim.

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: Fenwick's water utility should install PFAS treatment immediately rather than waiting until the federal compliance deadline.
  2. Answer: The sentence stating that recent tests found PFAS above the federal limit at two of Fenwick's five wells. It counts as evidence because it reports a specific, checkable result rather than an unsupported feeling.
  3. Answer: Answers will vary; a strong revision links the claim directly to the cited fact, for example: "Because two of Fenwick's five wells already exceed the federal PFAS limit of 4.0 parts per trillion, the utility should not wait for the compliance deadline to act."
  4. Answer: No, the op-ed does not address a counterclaim. A reasonable counterclaim a ratepayer might raise: "Installing treatment early could raise water bills before the utility is legally required to act."
  5. Answer: "Waiting years to fix a known problem is irresponsible" states an opinion (a judgment about what counts as responsible) as though it were an established fact, rather than presenting evidence that waiting causes specific harm.
  6. Answer: 4.0 parts per trillion each for PFOA and PFOS.
  7. Answer: Answers will vary; a reasonable rebuttal notes that federal rules already set a compliance timeline specifically to give utilities time to plan and pay for treatment responsibly, so following that timeline is not the same as ignoring the problem.
  8. Answer: Answers will vary; a strong revision restates the claim and names a specific action, for example: "Fenwick's utility should begin installing PFAS treatment at its two affected wells this year, rather than waiting for a federal deadline that is still years away."
  9. Answer: Answers will vary but should reference that the op-ed has one specific piece of evidence (the well-testing result) but otherwise relies on unsupported claims and no counterclaim, placing it in the lower-middle of a 1-4 scale (commonly a 2).
  10. Answer: Answers will vary. A strong response states a specific cost concern, then rebuts it using logic or a value judgment, for example: "Some ratepayers worry that early treatment will raise their bills before the deadline requires it. But paying more now to remove a contaminant already found in two wells is a reasonable tradeoff for water residents can trust sooner."

Differentiation

Support

Provide a claim/evidence/counterclaim graphic organizer with the op-ed's sentences already sorted into "claim," "evidence," and "missing" columns, so students confirm rather than identify the categories before revising.

Extension

Ask students to find a second unsupported statement in the op-ed beyond the one identified in item 3, and revise it using the same method: pairing the opinion with a specific fact already present in the passage.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "claim," "evidence," "counterclaim," and "rebuttal" with one plain definition and one non-water example for each (for example, "claim: I should get a later curfew"). Allow items 1, 2, and 6 to be answered with a short phrase rather than a full sentence.