Provide Concluding Statement for Argument
Help Questions
8th Grade Writing › Provide Concluding Statement for Argument
A student writes an essay arguing that 8th graders should learn basic first aid in health class. The claim is that first-aid skills prepare students for real emergencies. Reasons include: accidents happen at school and at home, quick action can prevent injuries from getting worse, and learning first aid builds confidence and responsibility. Evidence includes examples such as nosebleeds, minor burns, and allergic reactions, plus a statement from the school nurse that students often do not know what to do while waiting for an adult. The student addresses a counterclaim that teachers are not medical professionals by proposing that certified trainers or the nurse could lead the unit.
Which conclusion best synthesizes the argument without adding new unrelated ideas?
In conclusion, our school should teach first aid, and the cafeteria should also serve healthier food every day.
I think first aid might be useful, but it probably will not matter very much either way.
Given that emergencies can happen anywhere, teaching basic first aid in health class would help students respond safely, reduce the severity of common injuries, and build responsibility—especially if the unit is led by certified staff.
In conclusion, first aid is important. That is all.
Explanation
This question tests providing concluding statements that follow from arguments presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and support arguments (restate claim, synthesize main points, reinforce significance, provide closure) without adding new unrelated ideas. Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated accidents happen at school/home, quick action prevents worsening, and builds confidence/responsibility through specific examples like nosebleeds and burns plus nurse testimony, conclusion synthesizes these exact points), maintains scope matching evidence strength (8th grade health class as proposed, not all students everywhere). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("teaching basic first aid in health class would help students respond safely" restates position with purpose), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("respond safely, reduce severity of common injuries, and build responsibility"—brings three benefits together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("emergencies can happen anywhere" establishes universal relevance), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("would help" based on nurse's observations and specific injury examples). Strong conclusion example: "Given that emergencies can happen anywhere, teaching basic first aid in health class would help students respond safely, reduce the severity of common injuries, and build responsibility—especially if the unit is led by certified staff." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—if body presented evidence about accidents at school/home, quick action preventing worse outcomes, and building confidence, this synthesizes those points into "respond safely," "reduce severity," and "build responsibility." (2) Supports argument—restates claim (teach first aid in health class), synthesizes reasons (safety + injury reduction + responsibility), addresses counterargument mentioned in body (teacher qualification concerns handled by certified staff), reinforces significance (emergencies happen anywhere), maintains scope (health class unit, not broader requirement). (3) Uses appropriate tone—formal language consistent with evidence-based argument about safety education. (4) Provides closure—"Given that" signals conclusion reasoning, brings argument to completed statement addressing implementation. Choice A best synthesizes the argument without adding new unrelated ideas by combining all key elements: restating the claim, synthesizing the three main benefits, addressing the counterargument solution, and explaining significance. Choice B error: introduces new argument not discussed in body—brings up cafeteria food which is completely unrelated to first aid training; Choice C error: too vague—"first aid is important" doesn't specifically synthesize reasons about emergency response, injury prevention, or building responsibility, and "That is all" provides no real closure; Choice D error: apologizes or undermines—says "probably will not matter very much" after building evidence-based case with nurse testimony and specific injury examples, completely undermining the argument's purpose. Writing effective conclusions: (1) Stay focused on presented argument—don't introduce cafeteria food when discussing first aid training, (2) synthesize actual reasons given—combine emergency response capability, injury severity reduction, and responsibility building rather than vague statements, (3) maintain confident tone—after presenting nurse testimony and specific examples, don't undermine with "probably won't matter," (4) address implementation—including "if the unit is led by certified staff" shows consideration of the counterargument addressed in body, (5) explain significance—"emergencies can happen anywhere" establishes why this skill matters universally for students.
A student argues that students should be allowed to redo certain major assignments for partial credit. The student’s reasons are: revisions teach responsibility and reflection; learning improves when students correct mistakes; and partial credit policies still hold students accountable. The student addresses a counterclaim that redoes create extra grading by suggesting limits, such as only one redo per quarter and requiring students to meet with the teacher first.
Which conclusion best follows from the argument and provides strong closure?
In conclusion, teachers give grades for many reasons, and school can be challenging for everyone.
In conclusion, we should stop grading completely because grades are unfair.
In conclusion, assignment redoes are probably a bad idea, even though I argued for them above.
In conclusion, allowing limited redoes for partial credit would make grading reflect learning more accurately by rewarding improvement, while clear limits and conferences can prevent an unmanageable workload for teachers.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated A, B, C through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim D unrelated to those points; if proved X for specific context, doesn't generalize to all situations without qualification), maintains scope matching evidence strength (doesn't overclaim). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("Therefore, schools should implement extended lunch periods" restates position), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("The academic, health, and social benefits collectively demonstrate necessity of change"—brings three separate reasons together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("Given that nutrition affects every student, this policy change constitutes essential support for learning"), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("Research clearly demonstrates" not tentative "maybe" or apologetic "just my opinion" after building evidence-based case). Strong conclusion: "In conclusion, allowing limited redoes for partial credit would make grading reflect learning more accurately by rewarding improvement, while clear limits and conferences can prevent an unmanageable workload for teachers." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—synthesizes all three reasons (responsibility/reflection, learning from mistakes, accountability with partial credit) and addresses the counterclaim about teacher workload. (2) Supports argument—restates claim with development ("limited redoes for partial credit"), explains significance ("reflect learning more accurately"), addresses counterargument with specific solutions (limits and conferences). (3) Provides strong closure—confident language, complete synthesis of argument. Choice C best follows from the argument and provides strong closure by synthesizing reasons and addressing the counterclaim. Choice A is too vague—generic statement "teachers give grades for many reasons" doesn't synthesize specific reasons or restate claim about assignment redoes. Choice B introduces new argument not discussed in body—completely stopping grading wasn't part of the original argument about allowing redoes for partial credit. Choice D apologizes or undermines—says redoes are "probably a bad idea" after arguing for them throughout the essay, completely contradicting the argument at the crucial final moment.
A student writes an argumentative paragraph claiming that the school should replace most paper worksheets with digital assignments. The student argues that (1) students lose fewer papers because files are stored online, (2) teachers can give faster feedback using comments, and (3) the school can reduce printing costs and waste. The student also addresses a counterclaim: some families have limited internet access at home, and the student responds that the school can offer offline downloads and keep the library open after school for Wi-Fi.
Which conclusion best follows from and supports the argument?
In conclusion, if we switch to digital assignments, the cafeteria should also stop using plastic forks to protect the environment.
Anyway, that is why I feel like digital work is probably better for some people.
Therefore, by reducing lost work, speeding up feedback, and cutting printing waste while offering access supports for students without reliable internet, our school should shift most assignments to digital formats.
In conclusion, digital assignments are important, and schools should think about using them more.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated lost work, faster feedback, and cost reduction through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim unrelated benefits; maintains scope matching evidence strength), Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development, synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together, reinforces significance explaining why argument matters, uses confident language based on evidence presented. Strong conclusion example: "Therefore, by reducing lost work, speeding up feedback, and cutting printing waste while offering access supports for students without reliable internet, our school should shift most assignments to digital formats." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—synthesizes the three reasons presented (lost work, feedback speed, costs) plus addresses the counterclaim solution (access supports). (2) Supports argument—restates claim (shift to digital formats), synthesizes all reasons in one flowing statement, maintains confident tone ("should shift"). (3) Provides closure—"Therefore" signals conclusion, brings argument to completed recommendation. Choice B provides an effective conclusion following from and supporting the argument by synthesizing all three reasons plus the counterclaim response in one comprehensive statement. The other choices fail because: Choice A is too vague—"important" and "think about using them more" doesn't specifically synthesize the three reasons or definitively restate the claim; Choice C introduces a new argument about cafeteria plastic forks not discussed in the body—brings up unrelated environmental claim too late; Choice D apologizes or undermines—"I feel like" and "probably better for some people" weakens the evidence-based argument after building a case with specific reasons.
A student argues that the school cafeteria should add a vegetarian main option every day. The claim is that daily vegetarian options would better meet student needs. Reasons and evidence include: some students avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons; some students have health-related dietary needs; and offering a consistent option can reduce food waste because students are more likely to choose meals they will eat. The student addresses a counterclaim that vegetarian meals are too expensive and responds that plant-based proteins (like beans and lentils) can be affordable and that predictable menus help with bulk purchasing.
Which conclusion best synthesizes the reasons and reinforces the significance of the argument without adding new topics?
In conclusion, because daily vegetarian options respect student beliefs, support health needs, and can even reduce waste and costs through affordable ingredients, the cafeteria should provide a vegetarian main dish every day.
In conclusion, I might be wrong, but I feel like vegetarian food could maybe work.
In conclusion, the cafeteria should add vegetarian meals, and the school should also change the bell schedule to make lunch longer.
In conclusion, the cafeteria should provide a vegetarian main dish every day.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that synthesizes reasons and reinforces significance without adding new topics—a complete conclusion that brings together all evidence presented. The argument presents three main reasons (religious/ethical needs, health needs, waste reduction) plus addresses cost concerns. Choice A: "In conclusion, because daily vegetarian options respect student beliefs, support health needs, and can even reduce waste and costs through affordable ingredients, the cafeteria should provide a vegetarian main dish every day." This conclusion excels because: (1) Synthesizes all three main reasons—brings together beliefs, health, and waste in one flowing statement. (2) Addresses counterclaim—incorporates the cost response about affordable ingredients. (3) Reinforces significance—"respect student beliefs" and "support health needs" explain why this matters. (4) Restates claim clearly—"should provide a vegetarian main dish every day." (5) Maintains appropriate scope—focuses on daily options in the cafeteria, not broader claims. The other choices have weaknesses: Choice B restates claim but doesn't synthesize reasons or reinforce significance; Choice C introduces new topic about bell schedule and lunch length not discussed in body; Choice D apologizes or undermines with "I might be wrong" and "maybe" after building evidence-based case. Choice A best synthesizes the reasons and reinforces the significance of the argument without adding new topics, making it the most effective conclusion.
In an argumentative letter, a student claims the cafeteria should add at least two vegetarian main-dish options each day. The student gives reasons and evidence: some students cannot eat meat for religious or health reasons; offering vegetarian options can increase fruit/vegetable intake; and schools with more varied menus often have less food waste because students choose meals they will actually eat. The student addresses a counterclaim that vegetarian meals are more expensive by noting that beans, lentils, and seasonal vegetables can cost less than meat.
Which conclusion better supports the argument?
In conclusion, adding two vegetarian main dishes daily would make lunch more inclusive, reduce waste, and provide healthy choices, and it can be done affordably by using low-cost plant proteins.
In conclusion, students should be allowed to leave campus for lunch so they can buy whatever food they want.
In conclusion, food is important to everyone at school.
In conclusion, the cafeteria should add two vegetarian main-dish options each day because the cafeteria should add two vegetarian main-dish options each day.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated A, B, C through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim D unrelated to those points; if proved X for specific context, doesn't generalize to all situations without qualification), maintains scope matching evidence strength (doesn't overclaim). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("Therefore, schools should implement extended lunch periods" restates position), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("The academic, health, and social benefits collectively demonstrate necessity of change"—brings three separate reasons together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("Given that nutrition affects every student, this policy change constitutes essential support for learning"), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("Research clearly demonstrates" not tentative "maybe" or apologetic "just my opinion" after building evidence-based case). Strong conclusion: "In conclusion, adding two vegetarian main dishes daily would make lunch more inclusive, reduce waste, and provide healthy choices, and it can be done affordably by using low-cost plant proteins." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—synthesizes the three reasons (inclusivity for religious/health needs, reduced waste, healthy choices) and addresses cost counterclaim. (2) Supports argument—restates claim (add two vegetarian main dishes daily), synthesizes all reasons in one statement, addresses counterargument about expense with specific solution (low-cost plant proteins). (3) Provides closure—"In conclusion" signals end, brings argument to completed statement. Choice A provides an effective conclusion that follows from and supports the argument by synthesizing all reasons and addressing the counterclaim about cost. Choice B simply repeats thesis word-for-word—exact copy "the cafeteria should add two vegetarian main-dish options each day because the cafeteria should add two vegetarian main-dish options each day" shows no development through argument, circular reasoning provides no synthesis. Choice C introduces new argument not discussed in body—brings up unrelated claims about leaving campus for lunch, which wasn't part of the original argument about vegetarian options. Choice D is too vague—generic statement "food is important to everyone" doesn't specifically synthesize reasons or restate claim about vegetarian options.
An argumentative paragraph claims that the school should replace most single-use plastic water bottles sold on campus with refill stations and reusable bottle options. The writer’s reasons include: plastic waste often ends up in local waterways; refill stations can save families money over time; and students are more likely to drink water when refilling is convenient. The writer addresses a counterclaim that stations are expensive by noting that local businesses sometimes sponsor them and that maintenance costs are predictable.
A student writes this conclusion: “Therefore, our school must ban all plastic everywhere in the entire city because it is always harmful.”
What is the main problem with this conclusion?
It overgeneralizes beyond the argument’s scope by expanding from school bottle sales to banning all plastic in the entire city.
It repeats the thesis word-for-word and adds no new development.
It introduces unrelated evidence about homework that was not discussed.
It is too vague and does not mention any specific reasons from the argument.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated A, B, C through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim D unrelated to those points; if proved X for specific context, doesn't generalize to all situations without qualification), maintains scope matching evidence strength (doesn't overclaim). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("Therefore, schools should implement extended lunch periods" restates position), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("The academic, health, and social benefits collectively demonstrate necessity of change"—brings three separate reasons together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("Given that nutrition affects every student, this policy change constitutes essential support for learning"), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("Research clearly demonstrates" not tentative "maybe" or apologetic "just my opinion" after building evidence-based case). Weak conclusion: "Therefore, our school must ban all plastic everywhere in the entire city because it is always harmful." This fails because it overgeneralizes beyond the argument's scope—the original argument was specifically about replacing single-use plastic water bottles sold on campus with refill stations, but the conclusion expands to banning ALL plastic EVERYWHERE in the ENTIRE CITY. This goes far beyond what the evidence supported (which was limited to water bottles at school). The conclusion also uses absolute language ("always harmful") not supported by the specific evidence presented about water bottles in waterways and convenience factors. Choice C correctly identifies that the main problem is overgeneralization beyond the argument's scope by expanding from school bottle sales to banning all plastic in the entire city. Choice A is incorrect—the conclusion isn't vague, it's actually too specific in the wrong direction. Choice B is incorrect—the conclusion doesn't introduce homework evidence. Choice D is incorrect—while the conclusion doesn't repeat the thesis word-for-word, that's not the main problem here.
A student writes an argument that the school should allow students to redo major assessments (tests or projects) for partial credit. The claim is that redo opportunities improve learning without removing accountability. Reasons: students learn from mistakes, one bad day should not define a grade, and redo policies encourage students to seek feedback. Evidence: the student cites a teacher’s data showing fewer failing grades when revisions are allowed and explains that many sports and arts activities use practice-and-improve models. The counterclaim is that redos are unfair to students who did well the first time and create extra work for teachers. The student responds that redos could be limited (for example, one per unit) and require students to complete corrections or tutoring first.
Which conclusion is most effective as a call to action that still matches the argument’s scope?
For these reasons, the school should adopt a limited redo policy next semester—such as one reassessment per unit after required corrections—so grades reflect learning while keeping the workload reasonable.
In conclusion, redos are good because students learn from mistakes, one bad day should not define a grade, and redos encourage feedback, and teachers have data, and sports use practice.
Anyway, that’s what I think about redos.
In conclusion, every school in the country must immediately change all grading policies in every class.
Explanation
This question tests providing concluding statements as effective calls to action that follow from arguments presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and support arguments while maintaining appropriate scope. Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated learning from mistakes, bad days not defining grades, and feedback benefits through teacher data and sports analogies, conclusion must reflect these specific points). Support argument with call to action—restates claim as specific recommendation ("adopt a limited redo policy next semester"), synthesizes main reasons into rationale ("grades reflect learning while keeping workload reasonable"), provides concrete implementation suggestion ("one reassessment per unit after required corrections"), maintains scope matching evidence (this school based on this teacher's data, not all schools everywhere). Call to action elements—specific recommendation not vague hope, actionable steps (next semester timeline, one per unit limit, required corrections), addresses counterargument concerns (workload kept reasonable through limits), based on evidence presented (teacher's data on fewer failures). Strong conclusion example: "For these reasons, the school should adopt a limited redo policy next semester—such as one reassessment per unit after required corrections—so grades reflect learning while keeping the workload reasonable." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—"grades reflect learning" synthesizes the learning from mistakes and feedback benefits, "keeping workload reasonable" addresses teacher concern from counterargument. (2) Provides specific call to action—"adopt...next semester" gives timeline, "one reassessment per unit after required corrections" gives concrete implementation matching the limited approach discussed. (3) Maintains appropriate scope—"the school" not all schools, "limited policy" not unlimited redos. (4) Synthesizes benefits and constraints—balances learning goals with practical limitations. Choice A provides the most effective call to action with appropriate scope, specific implementation suggestions, and synthesis of the argument's key points. Choice B error: wrong scope—"every school in the country must immediately change all grading policies" massively overclaims beyond evidence about one teacher's data and one school's consideration; Choice C error: too casual and vague—"Anyway, that's what I think" provides no call to action, undermines evidence-based argument, offers no closure; Choice D error: rambling list without synthesis—runs together all points without clear connections, lacks specific implementation suggestion, difficult to follow. Writing effective calls to action: (1) Be specific—"adopt a limited redo policy next semester" not vague "consider redos someday," (2) provide implementation details—"one reassessment per unit after required corrections" shows how it would work, (3) maintain evidence-based scope—this school based on this evidence, not universal mandate, (4) address concerns raised—"keeping workload reasonable" shows consideration of teacher counterargument, (5) create urgency with timeline—"next semester" provides concrete starting point for action.
A student argues that the town should add more public water bottle filling stations in parks. The claim is that filling stations improve health and reduce plastic waste. Evidence includes: people are more likely to drink water when it is convenient; reusable bottles reduce single-use plastic; and parks get crowded during sports seasons, so access matters. The student addresses a counterclaim that the stations may be vandalized and responds that durable designs exist and regular maintenance is already part of park upkeep.
Which conclusion does NOT follow from the argument because it introduces a new, unrelated claim?
Therefore, installing more filling stations would make it easier for park visitors to choose water and would reduce plastic bottle trash over time.
Thus, public filling stations are a sensible improvement that supports both convenience and sustainability in our parks.
In conclusion, the town should install filling stations, and it should also build a new movie theater downtown to create more entertainment options.
In conclusion, since durable stations can be maintained like other park equipment, the benefits to health and the environment outweigh the risks of vandalism.
Explanation
This question tests identifying conclusions that do NOT follow from the argument because they introduce new, unrelated claims—a common error where writers bring up topics not discussed in the body paragraphs. The argument focuses on water filling stations in parks with evidence about health benefits, plastic waste reduction, and addressing vandalism concerns. Choice C states: "In conclusion, the town should install filling stations, and it should also build a new movie theater downtown to create more entertainment options." This conclusion fails because it introduces a new argument about a movie theater that was never discussed in the body—entertainment options are completely unrelated to the water station argument. This violates the principle that conclusions should synthesize presented evidence, not introduce new topics. The other conclusions appropriately follow from the argument: Choice A synthesizes health and environmental benefits; Choice B directly addresses the vandalism counterclaim while reinforcing benefits; Choice D provides general synthesis about convenience and sustainability. Only Choice C introduces new arguments not discussed in the body by suddenly bringing up a movie theater and entertainment options, making it the conclusion that does NOT follow from the argument.
A student’s essay argues that 8th graders should complete a short financial literacy unit in math class. The writer supports the claim by explaining that students soon face real decisions about saving, budgeting, and avoiding scams; practicing with examples like paychecks and bank fees builds confidence; and learning early can prevent costly mistakes later. The writer addresses a counterclaim that “there isn’t time” by suggesting the unit replace a small portion of repeated review content.
Which conclusion most effectively reinforces the significance of the argument?
In conclusion, math class is already hard, and some students do not like learning about budgets.
In conclusion, the school should also teach cooking every day so students can save money by making meals at home.
In conclusion, financial literacy is important, and financial literacy is important, and financial literacy is important.
In conclusion, since money decisions affect nearly every part of adult life, a brief financial literacy unit is an essential responsibility of schools and a practical way to prepare students for the real world.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated A, B, C through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim D unrelated to those points; if proved X for specific context, doesn't generalize to all situations without qualification), maintains scope matching evidence strength (doesn't overclaim). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("Therefore, schools should implement extended lunch periods" restates position), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("The academic, health, and social benefits collectively demonstrate necessity of change"—brings three separate reasons together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("Given that nutrition affects every student, this policy change constitutes essential support for learning"), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("Research clearly demonstrates" not tentative "maybe" or apologetic "just my opinion" after building evidence-based case). Strong conclusion reinforcing significance: "In conclusion, since money decisions affect nearly every part of adult life, a brief financial literacy unit is an essential responsibility of schools and a practical way to prepare students for the real world." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—connects to reasons about real decisions, building confidence, preventing mistakes. (2) Reinforces significance—explains why argument matters ("money decisions affect nearly every part of adult life"), establishes importance ("essential responsibility of schools"). (3) Addresses practicality—"brief" unit connects to counterclaim response about limited time. (4) Provides strong closure—confident language, clear statement of importance. Choice A most effectively reinforces the significance of the argument by explaining why financial literacy matters for students' futures. Choice B is too casual and doesn't support claim—mentions math is hard but doesn't conclude that financial literacy should be taught, undermines argument instead of supporting it. Choice C simply repeats "financial literacy is important" three times—repetitive without synthesis or development, doesn't restate specific claim about teaching it in 8th grade. Choice D introduces new argument not discussed in body—brings up daily cooking classes, which wasn't part of the original argument about financial literacy unit.
A student writes an argumentative essay claiming that the school should create a homework-free weekend once a month. The student argues that (1) students report higher stress during long stretches of assignments, and a monthly break would support mental health; (2) teachers could assign longer-term projects that encourage planning instead of nightly worksheets; and (3) families would have more time for responsibilities and community events. The essay also addresses a counterclaim: some people worry students will fall behind, but the student notes that one weekend per month is limited and could be paired with clear project deadlines to maintain learning.
Which conclusion best follows from and supports the argument?
In conclusion, homework is sometimes stressful, and students do not always like doing it after school.
In conclusion, our school should also replace all tests with group projects so students can collaborate more often.
Therefore, introducing one homework-free weekend each month is a practical way to reduce student stress, encourage better long‑term learning habits, and support family time without causing students to fall behind.
Anyway, that is just what I think, and maybe it would work for some students but probably not for most.
Explanation
This question tests providing a concluding statement that follows from the argument presented (logically connected to reasons and evidence) and supports the argument (restates claim, synthesizes main points, reinforces significance, provides closure). Effective conclusions must: Follow from argument—logically connected to reasons and evidence presented in body (if argument demonstrated A, B, C through evidence, conclusion doesn't claim D unrelated to those points; if proved X for specific context, doesn't generalize to all situations without qualification), maintains scope matching evidence strength (doesn't overclaim). Support argument—restates claim in rephrased form showing development not exact thesis repetition ("Therefore, schools should implement extended lunch periods" restates position), synthesizes main reasons showing how they work together ("The academic, health, and social benefits collectively demonstrate necessity of change"—brings three separate reasons together), reinforces significance explaining why argument matters ("Given that nutrition affects every student, this policy change constitutes essential support for learning"), uses confident language based on evidence presented ("Research clearly demonstrates" not tentative "maybe" or apologetic "just my opinion" after building evidence-based case). Strong conclusion: "Therefore, introducing one homework-free weekend each month is a practical way to reduce student stress, encourage better long-term learning habits, and support family time without causing students to fall behind." This conclusion: (1) Follows from argument—synthesizes the three reasons presented (stress reduction, long-term learning habits, family time) and addresses the counterclaim about falling behind. (2) Supports argument—restates claim (homework-free weekend monthly), synthesizes all three reasons in one statement, uses confident language ("practical way"), addresses counterargument mentioned in body. (3) Provides closure—"Therefore" signals conclusion, brings argument to completed statement. Choice B provides an effective conclusion that follows from and supports the argument by synthesizing all three reasons and addressing the counterclaim. Choice A is too vague—generic statement doesn't specifically synthesize reasons or restate claim presented, just mentions homework is "sometimes stressful" without connecting to the specific argument about monthly homework-free weekends. Choice C introduces new argument not discussed in body—brings up unrelated claims about replacing tests with group projects, which wasn't part of the original argument. Choice D apologizes or undermines—says "just what I think" and "probably not for most" after building evidence-based case, weakening argument at crucial final moment.