Analyzing Informational Text Flashcards

A student is reading a scientific article about the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive function. The author includes a section detailing a specific study where participants were divided into two groups: one that slept for eight hours and one that slept for four hours. The author then presents the results of various cognitive tests administered to both groups. What is the primary text structure used in this section of the article?

Answer: Compare and contrast

The author is detailing a study that directly compares two distinct groups (eight-hour sleepers vs. four-hour sleepers) and their performance on cognitive tests. This organizational pattern is a clear example of a compare and contrast structure, used to highlight the differences and similarities between the two conditions.

When analyzing an informational text, which of the following is most crucial for determining the author's primary purpose?

Answer: The author's word choice, the types of evidence presented, and the overall tone.

An author's purpose (to inform, persuade, entertain, etc.) is conveyed through the language they use (word choice), the facts and expert opinions they present (evidence), and the attitude they express toward the subject (tone). Analyzing these elements together provides the strongest insight into why the author wrote the text.

A student is evaluating two online articles about the benefits of renewable energy. Article A is a blog post written by an anonymous author, which includes several personal anecdotes but no links to external data. Article B is published on a government agency's website, written by a climate scientist, and includes numerous citations to peer-reviewed studies. To support a research claim, which article provides more credible evidence?

Answer: Article B, because it is written by a qualified expert and supported by verifiable data.

According to the principles of analyzing informational texts, credibility is established through expertise, evidence, and objectivity. Article B demonstrates these qualities through the author's credentials (climate scientist), its publication on a reputable source (government agency), and its use of verifiable, cited evidence (peer-reviewed studies).

Read the following excerpt from a historical text: 'The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was not a singular event but a culmination of factors. A prolonged and severe drought gripped the Great Plains, which was exacerbated by decades of agricultural practices that removed the deep-rooted native grasses. These factors left the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to the powerful winds that swept the region, leading to massive dust storms and economic devastation.' Which statement best identifies the central idea of this excerpt?

Answer: The Dust Bowl was caused by a combination of natural drought and human agricultural practices.

The excerpt explicitly states that the Dust Bowl was a 'culmination of factors,' then identifies both the natural drought and the human-caused agricultural issues as working together to create the disaster. This demonstrates the interaction of multiple causes, which is the central point of the passage.

In an argument presented in an informational text, what is the function of a counterclaim?

Answer: To acknowledge and then refute an opposing viewpoint, thereby strengthening the author's own argument.

A strong argument acknowledges potential objections or alternative views. By presenting a counterclaim and then effectively refuting it with evidence and reasoning, the author demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic and strengthens their own position by showing why it is more valid than the opposition's.

A student is tasked with writing an objective summary of an article about the construction of the Panama Canal. Which of the following should the student AVOID including in the summary?

Answer: The student's personal opinion that the project was an amazing feat.

An objective summary should accurately retell the central ideas and key details of a text without injecting the summarizer's personal feelings, opinions, or judgments. Including a personal opinion, such as calling the project 'an amazing feat,' violates the principle of objectivity.