Reading Standards for Informational Text > Author’s Choices in Storytelling (CCSS.RI.7.9) Practice Test

Text 1 — Author A (Leena Ortiz, environmental scientist, City University) Claim: Local bans on single-use plastic shopping bags reduce plastic waste and protect wildlife. In 2019, the city of Brookdale passed a law that limited single-use plastic shopping bags and required stores to charge 10 cents for paper bags. A single-use bag is a thin plastic bag given at checkout and meant to be used once. In the first year after the law, city street-sweep audits reported a 65% drop in plastic shopping-bag litter. Sanitation records also showed about 40 fewer tons of plastic entering the waste stream. Stores reported a 25% rise in customers bringing reusable bags. Some residents bought small trash bags to line their bins. Sales of those liners went up 120%. However, the Brookdale Environmental Report estimates that this increase added only about 10 tons of plastic. Even after counting this, the city still used about 30 fewer tons of plastic than before. Wildlife workers reported an 18% decline in calls about animals tangled in bags. Figure 1: A bar chart comparing bag litter counts before and after the law shows a drop from 1,200 pieces found in 2018 to 420 pieces in 2020. Critics say paper bags have their own costs, but the 10-cent fee pushed people to bring reusables. Early data from the 2020 statewide ban show similar trends. The evidence points to a clear result: fewer loose bags on streets and less plastic overall.

Text 2 — Author B (Mark Rivera, economist, Brookdale Policy Forum) Claim: Bag bans shift where and how plastic is used instead of solving the problem. Brookdale's 2019 bag rule changed what people carried home, but the total picture is more complicated. The city's own report shows that household trash-bag sales rose 120% in the first year. People still needed something to line cans and pick up pet waste, so they bought thicker plastic liners. When you count those liners, the drop in plastic by weight is smaller than it looks. While the city reports about 30 fewer tons of plastic overall, weight alone does not tell the full story. Thicker items can be harder to break down and may take up more space in landfills. Supporters point to the 65% decline in bag litter. That is an easy-to-see win, but loose bags are only part of the plastic problem. Early statewide numbers also show a jump in paper-bag use. More paper deliveries meant extra truck trips each week, adding to traffic and emissions. The report's wildlife data are encouraging, but one year is not enough to judge long-term effects. The same facts can be read in another way: the ban changed the form of plastic use rather than making it disappear.

Text 1 — Author A (Dr. Hana Kim, sleep researcher) Claim: End the clock changes by adopting year-round standard time to protect health and safety. Daylight Saving Time (DST) was first adopted in the United States in 1918 to shift an hour of daylight to the evening. But the spring clock change costs sleep. Studies show that in the week after the spring shift, car crashes rise by about 6%, and there is a small but measurable increase in heart attacks. Students and workers lose sleep and struggle to focus. Energy savings, once used to justify DST, are now tiny—often around 0.3%—because modern lighting is efficient and air conditioning changes how we use electricity. Figure 1: A line graph of weekly car crash rates spikes in the first three days after the spring change, then levels out. Some people enjoy brighter evenings, but the price is a twice-a-year shock to our body clocks. The 2007 extension of DST made the spring jump arrive earlier in March, when mornings are still dark for many students waiting for buses. If we want safer roads and better sleep, we should stop changing clocks and keep standard time all year.

Text 2 — Author B (Jordan Ellis, director of city parks) Claim: Keep DST because longer evening light supports recreation, local business, and public safety over many months. DST began in 1918 and still brings a clear benefit: more light when people are awake and active. While some studies show a 6% rise in crashes right after the spring change, the effect is brief. For the next eight months, many cities see a 7% drop in robberies during the brighter evening hours. Parks departments track a 20% increase in evening program attendance under DST. Local shops and restaurants often report 3–4% more evening sales when sunset is later. Energy savings today are modest, but later sunsets spread demand and help families do outdoor activities after work. Schools can adjust start times or plan the shift to reduce sleep loss. The same data that critics use to argue against DST describe a short-term problem. Over the longer season, the extra evening light supports safer public spaces and stronger community life.