Apply Reading Standards to Literature
Help Questions
7th Grade Writing › Apply Reading Standards to Literature
Carlos writes about theme in Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred D. Taylor:
“Carlos: The theme is racism is bad. The book shows that people are treated unfairly. Cassie learns a lesson about how the world works, and it is sad. This theme is shown many times.”
Which feedback best identifies what Carlos needs to add to meet grade 7 literary analysis expectations?
He should add a list of characters and settings, because naming them is the main requirement for textual support.
He should avoid theme statements and only write a summary of the events to prove he read the book.
He should include specific incidents and direct quotes (dialogue or narration) and explain how those details develop Cassie’s understanding and the theme over the plot.
He should add more emotional language (like “heartbreaking” and “shocking”) so the reader knows how he feels about the theme.
Explanation
Tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Must use TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (direct quotes showing what analyzing, specific scenes/pages referenced, character's actual dialogue/actions cited, descriptions from text, multiple examples). Analysis EXPLAINS how and why, INTERPRETS significance, ANALYZES craft—not just summarizes what happens. Carlos attempts theme analysis but provides only a general statement ("racism is bad") without any specific textual support showing how Taylor develops this theme. Choice B correctly identifies what he needs: specific incidents from the novel and direct quotes (dialogue or narration showing racist events), plus explanation of how those concrete details develop Cassie's growing understanding and the theme throughout the plot—moving from vague claims to evidence-based analysis. Choice A wrongly emphasizes emotional language over evidence, Choice C incorrectly suggests avoiding theme for summary, and Choice D mistakenly thinks listing names provides textual support.
Jamal writes a response about the main character in The Giver by Lois Lowry, focusing on Jonas’s character development:
“Jamal: Jonas is brave and responsible. He becomes the Receiver and learns things. He is scared sometimes but he keeps going. In the end he leaves the community because it is wrong. I liked how he didn’t give up.”
What is the biggest problem with Jamal’s analysis in terms of applying grade 7 reading standards to literature (W.7.9.a)?
It focuses on character instead of theme, and grade 7 standards only allow theme analysis.
It relies on general statements and opinion without specific scenes or direct quotes showing Jonas’s thoughts, words, or actions.
It is too long and includes too many claims about Jonas’s personality for one paragraph.
It uses first-person language (“I liked”), which automatically makes the response not literary analysis.
Explanation
Tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Must use TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (direct quotes showing what analyzing, specific scenes/pages referenced, character's actual dialogue/actions cited, descriptions from text, multiple examples). Analysis EXPLAINS how and why, INTERPRETS significance, ANALYZES craft—not just summarizes what happens. Jamal attempts character analysis of Jonas but provides only general statements like "brave and responsible" without any specific textual support. Choice B correctly identifies the fundamental problem: he relies on vague opinions without specific scenes, dialogue, or direct quotes showing Jonas's actual thoughts, words, or actions from the text. Choice A incorrectly focuses on length, Choice C wrongly claims only theme analysis is allowed, and Choice D mistakenly suggests first-person language automatically disqualifies analysis—the real issue is lack of textual evidence.
Jamal writes a response about the main character in The Giver by Lois Lowry, focusing on Jonas’s character development:
“Jamal: Jonas is brave and responsible. He becomes the Receiver and learns things. He is scared sometimes but he keeps going. In the end he leaves the community because it is wrong. I liked how he didn’t give up.”
What is the biggest problem with Jamal’s analysis in terms of applying grade 7 reading standards to literature (W.7.9.a)?
It relies on general statements and opinion without specific scenes or direct quotes showing Jonas’s thoughts, words, or actions.
It is too long and includes too many claims about Jonas’s personality for one paragraph.
It uses first-person language (“I liked”), which automatically makes the response not literary analysis.
It focuses on character instead of theme, and grade 7 standards only allow theme analysis.
Explanation
Tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Must use TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (direct quotes showing what analyzing, specific scenes/pages referenced, character's actual dialogue/actions cited, descriptions from text, multiple examples). Analysis EXPLAINS how and why, INTERPRETS significance, ANALYZES craft—not just summarizes what happens. Jamal attempts character analysis of Jonas but provides only general statements like "brave and responsible" without any specific textual support. Choice B correctly identifies the fundamental problem: he relies on vague opinions without specific scenes, dialogue, or direct quotes showing Jonas's actual thoughts, words, or actions from the text. Choice A incorrectly focuses on length, Choice C wrongly claims only theme analysis is allowed, and Choice D mistakenly suggests first-person language automatically disqualifies analysis—the real issue is lack of textual evidence.
Riley writes about figurative language in Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street. Riley writes:
“Cisneros uses similes and metaphors a lot. The language is pretty and makes you imagine things. For example, she compares stuff sometimes. This makes the book better and more descriptive.”
Which choice best identifies what is missing for Riley to meet W.7.9.a expectations?
Riley needs to avoid quotes because quoting counts as copying, and analysis must be only in Riley’s own words.
Riley needs to add specific quoted examples of figurative language and explain how those lines create tone or reveal Esperanza’s perspective.
Riley needs to stop mentioning craft and instead list all the chapters in order to show understanding.
Riley needs to include a stronger opinion about whether figurative language is good or bad, without using text evidence.
Explanation
This question tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Riley's paragraph about figurative language in The House on Mango Street contains only vague statements ('uses similes and metaphors a lot,' 'pretty,' 'she compares stuff sometimes') without any specific quoted examples of figurative language or explanation of how those lines create tone or reveal Esperanza's perspective. The correct answer A identifies the missing element: specific quoted examples and explanation of their effects. Answer B is wrong because listing chapters doesn't analyze craft; C is wrong because opinion without evidence isn't analysis; D is wrong because quotes are essential for analyzing author's language. Riley needs to quote specific similes/metaphors (like 'hair like rosettes' or houses 'tight like the houses of a heart') and explain how Cisneros uses these images to reveal Esperanza's perspective on identity and belonging.
Marcus writes about the short story “Thank You, M’am” by Langston Hughes, analyzing character motivation.
Marcus’s paragraph: “Roger tries to steal because he is a bad kid. Mrs. Jones is nice and teaches him a lesson. She takes him home, feeds him, and gives him money. Roger learns stealing is wrong.”
Which question would best help Marcus revise his paragraph into stronger grade 7 character analysis with textual support (W.7.9.a)?
What is Marcus’s opinion about whether stealing is ever acceptable, regardless of what the story says?
Which exact lines or actions show Roger’s fear or shame (like his reaction when Mrs. Jones says, ‘I have done things, too’), and how do those details explain why he changes?
How many sentences can Marcus add so the paragraph looks longer, even if the ideas stay the same?
What are the story’s main events in order, and how can Marcus retell them with more detail but no interpretation?
Explanation
This question tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Marcus's paragraph makes unsupported claims about Roger being 'a bad kid' and learning 'stealing is wrong' without any textual evidence showing Roger's actual motivations, feelings, or how he changes through specific moments in the story. The correct answer is A because asking about exact lines showing Roger's fear/shame (like his reaction to Mrs. Jones's confession) and how those details explain his change would guide Marcus to analyze motivation with evidence rather than making assumptions. Answer B focuses on length over substance; C asks for personal opinion instead of textual analysis; D encourages plot summary rather than interpretation. Character motivation analysis requires examining what the text reveals about why characters act as they do, using their words, actions, and reactions as evidence.
Riley writes about plot structure and conflict in “Thank You, Ma’am” by Langston Hughes:
“Riley: The story starts when Roger tries to steal a purse. Then Mrs. Jones catches him and takes him home. She makes him wash his face and gives him food. She talks to him and then gives him money to buy shoes. After that he says thank you and leaves.”
What is the most accurate evaluation of Riley’s writing as literary analysis?
It is mostly plot summary; it needs explanation of how the conflict changes and why key events matter, supported by specific lines or dialogue.
It is strong analysis because it includes the beginning, middle, and end of the story in order.
It is strong analysis because it avoids quoting and instead uses the student’s own words.
It is weak only because it doesn’t mention the setting; plot structure cannot be analyzed in 7th grade.
Explanation
Tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Must use TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (direct quotes showing what analyzing, specific scenes/pages referenced, character's actual dialogue/actions cited, descriptions from text, multiple examples). Analysis EXPLAINS how and why, INTERPRETS significance, ANALYZES craft—not just summarizes what happens. Riley attempts to discuss plot structure but merely lists events chronologically: Roger steals, Mrs. Jones catches him, takes him home, feeds him, gives money, he leaves. Choice B correctly identifies this as plot summary lacking analysis—Riley needs to explain how the conflict develops and changes, why key events matter to the story's meaning, and support claims with specific dialogue or narration from the text. Choice A wrongly calls it strong for including story sequence, Choice C incorrectly values avoiding quotes, and Choice D falsely claims plot structure can't be analyzed in 7th grade.
Amir is writing a paragraph about S. E. Hinton’s The Outsiders to analyze point of view.
Amir’s paragraph: “The story is told by Ponyboy, so it is first-person. This makes it better because you can tell what he thinks. There are lots of events like fights and running away. The point of view is important because it is from a Greaser.”
What is the most important thing Amir needs to add to better apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (W.7.9.a)?
A list of all the characters’ names and which social group each one belongs to, without discussing narration.
Specific textual evidence (quotes or scene references) and explanation of how Ponyboy’s perspective shapes what readers understand about characters and conflicts.
A longer summary of every major event so the reader knows the whole plot before discussing point of view.
More opinions about whether first-person is better than third-person, without using examples from the novel.
Explanation
This question tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Amir's paragraph identifies first-person narration and mentions it's from a Greaser's perspective but provides no textual evidence or analysis of how Ponyboy's viewpoint shapes reader understanding of events, characters, or conflicts between Greasers and Socs. The correct answer is A because Amir needs specific quotes or scene references showing how Ponyboy's perspective influences what readers know and understand—for example, how his descriptions of other characters or interpretation of events are shaped by his position as a Greaser. Answer B wrongly suggests plot summary helps; C reduces analysis to listing names; D promotes opinion over textual analysis. Point of view analysis requires showing through specific examples how the narrator's perspective affects the story's meaning, not just identifying which POV is used.
Sofia writes an essay paragraph about Gary Soto’s short story “Seventh Grade” to analyze how the author uses humor to reveal character.
Sofia’s paragraph: “Soto uses humor to show that Victor wants to seem impressive, even when he is insecure. When Mr. Bueller asks if anyone knows French, Victor blurts out ‘Oui’ even though he barely knows the word (p. 5). The funny part is that Victor’s confidence is fake, and Soto shows this by describing how Victor ‘felt himself rising to the occasion’ while he is actually panicking inside (p. 5). Then, when Teresa speaks, Victor pretends to understand and answers with more random French. The humor isn’t just for laughs—it highlights how desperate Victor is for Teresa’s attention, and it makes readers see that his choices are driven by embarrassment and hope rather than real knowledge.”
Which statement best evaluates Sofia’s writing as a grade 7 literary analysis?
It is strong analysis because it identifies a technique, uses specific moments and quoted words, and explains the effect on understanding Victor.
It is mostly plot summary because it retells the classroom scene without explaining how the humor reveals Victor’s motivation.
It is strong mainly because it includes the French word ‘Oui,’ which automatically proves the author’s craft.
It is weak because it mentions page numbers, which are not allowed as evidence in literary analysis.
Explanation
This question tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Sofia's paragraph demonstrates strong literary analysis by identifying humor as a technique, providing specific quoted words ('Oui') and descriptions ('felt himself rising to the occasion'), citing page numbers, and most importantly explaining how the humor reveals Victor's insecurity and desperation for Teresa's attention. The correct answer is B because Sofia goes beyond identifying humor to analyze its purpose—showing Victor's false confidence and true motivation—with multiple pieces of textual evidence. Answer A wrongly calls this plot summary when Sofia actually analyzes technique and character; C incorrectly claims page numbers aren't allowed; D absurdly suggests one French word proves craft. Effective technique analysis requires identifying the technique, providing specific examples from the text, and explaining how the technique creates meaning or reveals character.
Chen writes an essay about plot in A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle. Here is part of his paragraph:
“First Meg is at school and people are mean to her. Then she goes home and meets Mrs. Whatsit. Then Charles Wallace goes with her and Calvin. After that they travel to other planets and meet IT. In the end they defeat IT and Meg saves Charles Wallace and they go home.”
What is the best revision goal for Chen to meet grade 7 literature standards (W.7.9.a) when writing about plot?
Include personal opinions about which parts were exciting without referring to the text.
Remove character names so the paragraph focuses only on the setting.
Add more events so the summary includes every important scene from the novel.
Explain cause-and-effect and how conflicts build and resolve, using specific scenes or quotes as evidence.
Explanation
This question tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Chen's paragraph about A Wrinkle in Time merely lists events in order ("First... Then... After that... In the end") without analyzing how plot elements connect or build tension, lacking any textual evidence or explanation of cause-and-effect relationships. Answer B correctly identifies the best revision goal: explaining cause-and-effect relationships and how conflicts build and resolve, supported by specific scenes or quotes as evidence—this moves from summary to analysis. Answer A fails because adding more events would create longer summary, not analysis; C fails because removing character names wouldn't improve plot analysis; D fails because personal opinions without textual support don't meet standards for evidence-based analysis.
Amir compares how two texts show courage: “The Scholarship Jacket” by Marta Salinas and the poem “If—” by Rudyard Kipling.
Amir: “Both texts are about courage. In ‘The Scholarship Jacket,’ Martha is brave because she wants the jacket, and in ‘If—’ the speaker says to be brave too. They are similar because they both want you to be strong.”
What is the most important thing missing from Amir’s comparison to meet grade 7 expectations (W.7.9.a)?
A longer plot summary of both texts, including every event in the correct order.
Specific textual evidence from both texts (quotes or precise moments) and explanation of how each author develops courage in different ways.
A statement about which text Amir liked better, since preference is required in comparative analysis.
A definition of courage from a dictionary to prove the theme is correct.
Explanation
Tests W.7.9.a—apply grade 7 reading standards to literature (analyze theme, character, plot, technique in depth with textual evidence). Writing about literature requires IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS (not plot summary): examining THEME (how develops through details, interpreting message with text support), CHARACTER (describing using thoughts/words/actions from text, analyzing development/motivation with quotes/scenes), TECHNIQUES (explaining how author uses figurative language/symbolism/POV/structure and effects, citing instances). Must use TEXTUAL EVIDENCE (direct quotes showing what analyzing, specific scenes/pages referenced, character's actual dialogue/actions cited, descriptions from text, multiple examples). Analysis EXPLAINS how and why, INTERPRETS significance, ANALYZES craft—not just summarizes what happens. Amir attempts comparative analysis but provides only general statements about courage in both texts without any specific evidence. Choice A correctly identifies what's missing: specific textual evidence from both texts (quotes or precise moments showing courage) and explanation of how each author develops the theme differently through their unique techniques and details. Choice B wrongly suggests plot summary, Choice C incorrectly requires stating preference, and Choice D mistakenly thinks dictionary definitions prove themes—the issue is lack of textual support for claims.