Graphic organizer Grade 7 English Language Arts
The Bilberry Cross PFAS Choice: An Argument and Rebuttal Organizer
A grade 7 argument organizer with a claim ladder and a counterclaim table that makes students name each response move as concede, qualify, or refute.
Objectives
- Students will support a claim with two reasons, each tied to a numbered piece of evidence.
- Students will name a response to a counterclaim as concede, qualify, or refute.
- Students will identify the objection their own argument answers least well.
Vocabulary
- Granular activated carbon
- Small black grains of specially treated carbon that grab contaminants as water flows through them. Utilities use big tanks of it to remove PFAS, bad tastes, and odors.
Also: claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, concede, qualify, refute
Teacher overview
This organizer is a claim ladder followed by a counterclaim table and a short closing frame. The ladder holds a claim, two reasons, and the evidence behind each reason; the table holds three objections a real opponent would raise, each with a named response move; the closing frame asks which objection the writer answered least well. The structure exists because of a specific grade 7 failure. Students can name an opposing view and then walk past it, writing "some people say the carbon is expensive, but I still think the town should build it," which repeats the claim instead of answering the objection. Forcing the writer to choose the word concede, qualify, or refute makes the response a decision rather than a transition, and the closing frame keeps students from claiming that every objection was fully answered.
Organizer
Bilberry Cross is a fictional town, and the decision brief below was written for this organizer. The federal limit named in bullet 2 is real and is cited with its source.
Decision brief: Bilberry Cross and Well 3
- Bullet 1. Bilberry Cross draws its water from three wells. Testing this spring found PFOA in Well 3 at 9.6 parts per trillion. Wells 1 and 2 tested clean.
- Bullet 2. The federal limit for PFOA in drinking water is 4.0 parts per trillion, set in the
April 2024 rule, and water systems must meet it by April 2029. In May 2026 the agency proposed
letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, to April 2031. The proposal is not
final, the exemption would not be automatic for every system, and the limit would not change.
Sources: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; EPA proposed rule, May 2026. - Bullet 3. Option A is to build granular activated carbon treatment on Well 3. Carbon vessels would cost the town about $2.8 million to install and about $190,000 a year to run, mostly for replacing the carbon.
- Bullet 4. Option B is to shut Well 3 and buy water through a new connection to the Wexley Regional line. The connection would cost about $1.6 million, and the purchased water would cost about $240,000 a year at today's wholesale rate.
- Bullet 5. Wells 1 and 2 together can supply the town on an average day. On the ten hottest days last summer, the town needed Well 3 as well.
- Bullet 6. Wexley Regional has spare capacity now. Its contract lets it raise the wholesale rate every three years, and Bilberry Cross would have no vote on that rate.
- Bullet 7. Carbon vessels require an operator to sample and to change the carbon on schedule. The town employs two operators and would need to train both.
- Bullet 8. A resident survey found that most residents want Well 3 kept in service, and that most also want the lowest possible water bill.
Frame 1: The claim ladder.
| Slot | What I write here |
|---|---|
| My claim (one sentence, names an option) | |
| Who I am asking to act | |
| Reason 1 | |
| Evidence for reason 1 (bullet number and what it says) | |
| Reason 2 | |
| Evidence for reason 2 (bullet number and what it says) |
Frame 2: The counterclaim table. Fill three rows. In the move column write one word only: concede, qualify, or refute.
| Objection someone would raise | Who would raise it | True, partly true, or not true | My move | My rebuttal sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Frame 3: Closing.
| Question | My answer |
|---|---|
| The objection my argument answers least well | |
| What I did about that in my paper | |
| Evidence that would change my mind |
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Completed Exemplar
This exemplar argues for Option A. A paper arguing for Option B can be just as strong, and the teacher's copy below is one defensible filling, not the only one.
Frame 1: The claim ladder.
| Slot | What I write here |
|---|---|
| My claim (one sentence, names an option) | Bilberry Cross should build granular activated carbon treatment on Well 3 rather than shut the well and buy water from Wexley Regional. |
| Who I am asking to act | The Bilberry Cross town council, which votes on the water budget. |
| Reason 1 | The town needs Well 3 on its hottest days, so shutting it trades a treatment problem for a supply problem. |
| Evidence for reason 1 (bullet number and what it says) | Bullet 5 states that Wells 1 and 2 can carry an average day, and that the town needed Well 3 on the ten hottest days last summer. |
| Reason 2 | Buying water hands the price to a supplier the town cannot vote on. |
| Evidence for reason 2 (bullet number and what it says) | Bullet 6 states that Wexley Regional may raise the wholesale rate every three years and that Bilberry Cross would have no vote on that rate. |
Frame 2: The counterclaim table.
| Objection someone would raise | Who would raise it | True, partly true, or not true | My move | My rebuttal sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon treatment costs far more to build than a connection does. | A resident who wants the lowest possible bill, as in bullet 8. | True | Concede | I concede that the carbon vessels cost about $1.2 million more to install, and I argue that the town should still build them, because bullet 6 shows the yearly cost of purchased water is set by someone else. |
| The town has only two operators and cannot take on more work. | The plant supervisor, from bullet 7. | Partly true | Qualify | I qualify this by agreeing that the carbon adds sampling and carbon changes to a small crew, and by proposing that the council fund the training bullet 7 says both operators would need. |
| The town may get an exemption until 2031, so it can wait. | A council member reading bullet 2. | Not true as an argument for waiting | Refute | I refute this because bullet 2 says the exemption is only proposed, is not automatic, and would not change the limit, and bullet 1 shows the well is over the limit now, so waiting risks building under a deadline the town did not choose. |
Frame 3: Closing.
| Question | My answer |
|---|---|
| The objection my argument answers least well | The cost objection, because bullet 3 and bullet 4 show carbon costs more to build and my answer rests on a price change that has not happened yet. |
| What I did about that in my paper | I conceded it in plain words rather than burying it, and I moved the argument to the yearly cost and to who controls it. |
| Evidence that would change my mind | A signed long-term contract holding the Wexley wholesale rate steady, or a summer supply study showing Wells 1 and 2 can carry the ten hottest days without Well 3. |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students the claim already written in Frame 1 and ask them to supply only the reasons and the evidence, and reduce Frame 2 from three rows to two with the objections supplied. Provide a word bank card defining concede, qualify, and refute with one short example of each. Allow the rebuttal sentences to start from the frames "I concede that ___, and yet ___" and "I refute this because ___."
Extension
Ask these students to complete a second copy of the whole organizer arguing the other option, then to write a paragraph naming which objection was hardest to answer from each side and why. A second option is to add a fourth row to Frame 2 for an objection no bullet in the brief addresses, and to write the question they would ask the town engineer to settle it.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "well," "carbon," "wholesale," "capacity," and "connection" with a labeled drawing showing three wells, a treatment vessel, and a purchased-water pipeline. Provide the counterclaim table with the "who would raise it" column already filled, so the language work sits in the rebuttal column. Allow students to write bullet numbers alone in the evidence cells and to explain the evidence aloud before writing it.
Extensions
Have students find the water quality report their own utility publishes and locate the section on regulated contaminants, then write two sentences on what the report tells a reader who wants to know whether anything was over a limit. Comparing that page with the decision brief here shows how much of a decision never reaches the published summary.