eurekami
Rhetoric and persuasive techniques
9th grade (Year 10 in England) · 16 questions · Common Core: RI.9-10.6, RI.9-10.8 · England: GCSE English Language Paper 2 Q3, AP Language
Name
Date
Score/ 16
The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls
In recent years, a growing number of companies have experimented with a four-day working week, in which employees work about 80 per cent of their usual hours for 100 per cent of their pay, on the condition that they maintain their output. Supporters argue that the model could transform working life. Critics warn that its benefits may be exaggerated.
The most widely reported trials have produced striking results. In one large study involving several dozen organisations, most companies chose to continue the four-day week after the trial ended. Employees reported less stress, better sleep and fewer days off sick, while company revenue remained broadly stable. For businesses struggling to recruit, the promise of an extra day off can be a powerful attraction.
Yet these findings come with important caveats. Companies that volunteer for such trials may already be enthusiastic about flexible working and well suited to it. Their success may not be representative of all workplaces. Moreover, many of the participating organisations were offices or creative businesses, where output is relatively easy to reorganise. In hospitals, schools or factories, where staff must be present to deliver a service, reducing hours without hiring more people may simply be impossible.
There are also questions about what happens in the long term. Early enthusiasm can fade, and the pressure to fit five days of work into four may eventually lead to longer, more intense working days, cancelling out the benefits to wellbeing.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed. It does suggest that the four-day week is less a universal solution than a tool that may suit some sectors far better than others. The challenge for policymakers is to learn from the trials without assuming that what worked for a marketing agency will work for an emergency ward.
Question 1
Read "The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls". What is the main point of paragraph 3?
- A. The trials were dishonest.
- B. Offices are better than hospitals.
- C. The trial results may not apply to all kinds of workplaces.
- D. Four-day weeks always fail.
Question 2
Imagine a world without bees: no apples, no almonds, no strawberries. That world is closer than you think. Which technique opens this text?
- A. a statistic
- B. asking the reader to imagine a vivid scenario
- C. an expert quotation
- D. a personal anecdote
Rethinking Screen Time
Few debates generate as much anxiety among parents as the question of screen time. Headlines warn that smartphones are "destroying a generation", while technology companies insist that their products connect and empower young people. The truth, as so often, is more complicated than either side admits.
Part of the problem is that "screen time" is a crude measure. An hour spent video-calling a grandparent, coding a game or researching a school project is not the same as an hour spent scrolling through an endless feed of short videos. Researchers increasingly argue that what young people do on screens matters more than how long they spend on them.
That said, quantity is not irrelevant. Several large studies have linked very heavy use – more than five or six hours a day of recreational screen time – to poorer sleep and lower wellbeing. Screens can displace other activities that support health: exercise, face-to-face friendship and, crucially, sleep. Light from devices and the stimulation of social media late at night can delay sleep for teenagers, whose body clocks already push them towards later bedtimes.
It is worth noting, however, that most of these studies show correlation, not causation. Teenagers who are already unhappy may turn to their phones more, rather than their phones making them unhappy. Untangling cause and effect is notoriously difficult.
What, then, should families do? Rather than fixating on a single number, experts suggest asking three questions. Is screen use getting in the way of sleep? Is it crowding out exercise and real-world relationships? And does the young person feel in control of it, or controlled by it? If the answers are reassuring, the exact number of minutes may matter less than we fear.
Question 3
Read "Rethinking Screen Time". Why does the writer say "screen time" is "a crude measure"?
- A. Parents exaggerate the numbers.
- B. It is impossible to count hours.
- C. It treats very different activities as if they were the same.
- D. Screens are bad in every case.
Cooling the City (with data)
On hot summer afternoons, the centres of large cities can be several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. This "urban heat island" effect occurs because dark surfaces such as asphalt and roofing absorb sunlight and release it slowly as heat, while buildings trap warm air and reduce the cooling effect of wind. A lack of vegetation makes the problem worse: trees and plants cool the air by providing shade and releasing water vapour.
In a recent study, researchers measured the average afternoon surface temperature in July across four neighbourhoods of one city, alongside the percentage of each area covered by trees. Their results are summarised below.
Neighbourhood | Tree cover (%) | Average July afternoon surface temperature (°C)
Northgate | 8 | 41
Riverside | 15 | 38
Elm Park | 27 | 34
Hillcrest | 35 | 32
The researchers caution that tree cover is not the only factor: Riverside, for instance, is next to a large river, which may have cooled it independently. Nevertheless, they conclude that expanding urban tree cover is a promising strategy for reducing extreme heat, particularly in neighbourhoods where many residents lack air conditioning.
Question 4
Read "Cooling the City (with data)". Which conclusion do the researchers draw?
- A. Planting more trees is a promising way to reduce extreme urban heat.
- B. Air conditioning should be banned.
- C. Cities should be built near rivers.
- D. Tree cover is the only cause of temperature differences.
The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls
In recent years, a growing number of companies have experimented with a four-day working week, in which employees work about 80 per cent of their usual hours for 100 per cent of their pay, on the condition that they maintain their output. Supporters argue that the model could transform working life. Critics warn that its benefits may be exaggerated.
The most widely reported trials have produced striking results. In one large study involving several dozen organisations, most companies chose to continue the four-day week after the trial ended. Employees reported less stress, better sleep and fewer days off sick, while company revenue remained broadly stable. For businesses struggling to recruit, the promise of an extra day off can be a powerful attraction.
Yet these findings come with important caveats. Companies that volunteer for such trials may already be enthusiastic about flexible working and well suited to it. Their success may not be representative of all workplaces. Moreover, many of the participating organisations were offices or creative businesses, where output is relatively easy to reorganise. In hospitals, schools or factories, where staff must be present to deliver a service, reducing hours without hiring more people may simply be impossible.
There are also questions about what happens in the long term. Early enthusiasm can fade, and the pressure to fit five days of work into four may eventually lead to longer, more intense working days, cancelling out the benefits to wellbeing.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed. It does suggest that the four-day week is less a universal solution than a tool that may suit some sectors far better than others. The challenge for policymakers is to learn from the trials without assuming that what worked for a marketing agency will work for an emergency ward.
Question 5
Read "The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls". What is the main point of paragraph 3?
- A. Four-day weeks always fail.
- B. Offices are better than hospitals.
- C. The trial results may not apply to all kinds of workplaces.
- D. The trials were dishonest.
Question 6
Critics claim the plan is too expensive. Yet doing nothing will cost us far more in repairs within a decade. What does the writer do in these sentences?
- A. describes a setting
- B. agrees completely with the critics
- C. tells a personal story
- D. acknowledges a counterargument and rebuts it
Rethinking Screen Time
Few debates generate as much anxiety among parents as the question of screen time. Headlines warn that smartphones are "destroying a generation", while technology companies insist that their products connect and empower young people. The truth, as so often, is more complicated than either side admits.
Part of the problem is that "screen time" is a crude measure. An hour spent video-calling a grandparent, coding a game or researching a school project is not the same as an hour spent scrolling through an endless feed of short videos. Researchers increasingly argue that what young people do on screens matters more than how long they spend on them.
That said, quantity is not irrelevant. Several large studies have linked very heavy use – more than five or six hours a day of recreational screen time – to poorer sleep and lower wellbeing. Screens can displace other activities that support health: exercise, face-to-face friendship and, crucially, sleep. Light from devices and the stimulation of social media late at night can delay sleep for teenagers, whose body clocks already push them towards later bedtimes.
It is worth noting, however, that most of these studies show correlation, not causation. Teenagers who are already unhappy may turn to their phones more, rather than their phones making them unhappy. Untangling cause and effect is notoriously difficult.
What, then, should families do? Rather than fixating on a single number, experts suggest asking three questions. Is screen use getting in the way of sleep? Is it crowding out exercise and real-world relationships? And does the young person feel in control of it, or controlled by it? If the answers are reassuring, the exact number of minutes may matter less than we fear.
Question 7
Read "Rethinking Screen Time". Why does the writer say "screen time" is "a crude measure"?
- A. Screens are bad in every case.
- B. It treats very different activities as if they were the same.
- C. Parents exaggerate the numbers.
- D. It is impossible to count hours.
Cooling the City (with data)
On hot summer afternoons, the centres of large cities can be several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. This "urban heat island" effect occurs because dark surfaces such as asphalt and roofing absorb sunlight and release it slowly as heat, while buildings trap warm air and reduce the cooling effect of wind. A lack of vegetation makes the problem worse: trees and plants cool the air by providing shade and releasing water vapour.
In a recent study, researchers measured the average afternoon surface temperature in July across four neighbourhoods of one city, alongside the percentage of each area covered by trees. Their results are summarised below.
Neighbourhood | Tree cover (%) | Average July afternoon surface temperature (°C)
Northgate | 8 | 41
Riverside | 15 | 38
Elm Park | 27 | 34
Hillcrest | 35 | 32
The researchers caution that tree cover is not the only factor: Riverside, for instance, is next to a large river, which may have cooled it independently. Nevertheless, they conclude that expanding urban tree cover is a promising strategy for reducing extreme heat, particularly in neighbourhoods where many residents lack air conditioning.
Question 8
Read "Cooling the City (with data)". Which conclusion do the researchers draw?
- A. Tree cover is the only cause of temperature differences.
- B. Planting more trees is a promising way to reduce extreme urban heat.
- C. Cities should be built near rivers.
- D. Air conditioning should be banned.
The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls
In recent years, a growing number of companies have experimented with a four-day working week, in which employees work about 80 per cent of their usual hours for 100 per cent of their pay, on the condition that they maintain their output. Supporters argue that the model could transform working life. Critics warn that its benefits may be exaggerated.
The most widely reported trials have produced striking results. In one large study involving several dozen organisations, most companies chose to continue the four-day week after the trial ended. Employees reported less stress, better sleep and fewer days off sick, while company revenue remained broadly stable. For businesses struggling to recruit, the promise of an extra day off can be a powerful attraction.
Yet these findings come with important caveats. Companies that volunteer for such trials may already be enthusiastic about flexible working and well suited to it. Their success may not be representative of all workplaces. Moreover, many of the participating organisations were offices or creative businesses, where output is relatively easy to reorganise. In hospitals, schools or factories, where staff must be present to deliver a service, reducing hours without hiring more people may simply be impossible.
There are also questions about what happens in the long term. Early enthusiasm can fade, and the pressure to fit five days of work into four may eventually lead to longer, more intense working days, cancelling out the benefits to wellbeing.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed. It does suggest that the four-day week is less a universal solution than a tool that may suit some sectors far better than others. The challenge for policymakers is to learn from the trials without assuming that what worked for a marketing agency will work for an emergency ward.
Question 9
Read "The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls". What is the main point of paragraph 3?
- A. Offices are better than hospitals.
- B. Four-day weeks always fail.
- C. The trial results may not apply to all kinds of workplaces.
- D. The trials were dishonest.
Question 10
When I was twelve, my grandmother's village flooded. I watched her lose everything she owned. That is why I care about climate policy. Why does the writer include this story?
- A. to entertain with a comedy
- B. to present the opposing view
- C. to appeal to emotion and show personal stakes
- D. to give statistical evidence
Rethinking Screen Time
Few debates generate as much anxiety among parents as the question of screen time. Headlines warn that smartphones are "destroying a generation", while technology companies insist that their products connect and empower young people. The truth, as so often, is more complicated than either side admits.
Part of the problem is that "screen time" is a crude measure. An hour spent video-calling a grandparent, coding a game or researching a school project is not the same as an hour spent scrolling through an endless feed of short videos. Researchers increasingly argue that what young people do on screens matters more than how long they spend on them.
That said, quantity is not irrelevant. Several large studies have linked very heavy use – more than five or six hours a day of recreational screen time – to poorer sleep and lower wellbeing. Screens can displace other activities that support health: exercise, face-to-face friendship and, crucially, sleep. Light from devices and the stimulation of social media late at night can delay sleep for teenagers, whose body clocks already push them towards later bedtimes.
It is worth noting, however, that most of these studies show correlation, not causation. Teenagers who are already unhappy may turn to their phones more, rather than their phones making them unhappy. Untangling cause and effect is notoriously difficult.
What, then, should families do? Rather than fixating on a single number, experts suggest asking three questions. Is screen use getting in the way of sleep? Is it crowding out exercise and real-world relationships? And does the young person feel in control of it, or controlled by it? If the answers are reassuring, the exact number of minutes may matter less than we fear.
Question 11
Read "Rethinking Screen Time". Why does the writer say "screen time" is "a crude measure"?
- A. It treats very different activities as if they were the same.
- B. Screens are bad in every case.
- C. Parents exaggerate the numbers.
- D. It is impossible to count hours.
Cooling the City (with data)
On hot summer afternoons, the centres of large cities can be several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. This "urban heat island" effect occurs because dark surfaces such as asphalt and roofing absorb sunlight and release it slowly as heat, while buildings trap warm air and reduce the cooling effect of wind. A lack of vegetation makes the problem worse: trees and plants cool the air by providing shade and releasing water vapour.
In a recent study, researchers measured the average afternoon surface temperature in July across four neighbourhoods of one city, alongside the percentage of each area covered by trees. Their results are summarised below.
Neighbourhood | Tree cover (%) | Average July afternoon surface temperature (°C)
Northgate | 8 | 41
Riverside | 15 | 38
Elm Park | 27 | 34
Hillcrest | 35 | 32
The researchers caution that tree cover is not the only factor: Riverside, for instance, is next to a large river, which may have cooled it independently. Nevertheless, they conclude that expanding urban tree cover is a promising strategy for reducing extreme heat, particularly in neighbourhoods where many residents lack air conditioning.
Question 12
Read "Cooling the City (with data)". Which conclusion do the researchers draw?
- A. Planting more trees is a promising way to reduce extreme urban heat.
- B. Tree cover is the only cause of temperature differences.
- C. Cities should be built near rivers.
- D. Air conditioning should be banned.
The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls
In recent years, a growing number of companies have experimented with a four-day working week, in which employees work about 80 per cent of their usual hours for 100 per cent of their pay, on the condition that they maintain their output. Supporters argue that the model could transform working life. Critics warn that its benefits may be exaggerated.
The most widely reported trials have produced striking results. In one large study involving several dozen organisations, most companies chose to continue the four-day week after the trial ended. Employees reported less stress, better sleep and fewer days off sick, while company revenue remained broadly stable. For businesses struggling to recruit, the promise of an extra day off can be a powerful attraction.
Yet these findings come with important caveats. Companies that volunteer for such trials may already be enthusiastic about flexible working and well suited to it. Their success may not be representative of all workplaces. Moreover, many of the participating organisations were offices or creative businesses, where output is relatively easy to reorganise. In hospitals, schools or factories, where staff must be present to deliver a service, reducing hours without hiring more people may simply be impossible.
There are also questions about what happens in the long term. Early enthusiasm can fade, and the pressure to fit five days of work into four may eventually lead to longer, more intense working days, cancelling out the benefits to wellbeing.
None of this means the idea should be dismissed. It does suggest that the four-day week is less a universal solution than a tool that may suit some sectors far better than others. The challenge for policymakers is to learn from the trials without assuming that what worked for a marketing agency will work for an emergency ward.
Question 13
Read "The Four-Day Week: Promise and Pitfalls". What is the main point of paragraph 3?
- A. Offices are better than hospitals.
- B. The trials were dishonest.
- C. Four-day weeks always fail.
- D. The trial results may not apply to all kinds of workplaces.
Question 14
We are not asking for much. We are asking for safe roads. We are asking for clean air. We are asking for a future. Which technique is used?
- A. onomatopoeia
- B. repetition (anaphora)
- C. a statistic
- D. understatement
Rethinking Screen Time
Few debates generate as much anxiety among parents as the question of screen time. Headlines warn that smartphones are "destroying a generation", while technology companies insist that their products connect and empower young people. The truth, as so often, is more complicated than either side admits.
Part of the problem is that "screen time" is a crude measure. An hour spent video-calling a grandparent, coding a game or researching a school project is not the same as an hour spent scrolling through an endless feed of short videos. Researchers increasingly argue that what young people do on screens matters more than how long they spend on them.
That said, quantity is not irrelevant. Several large studies have linked very heavy use – more than five or six hours a day of recreational screen time – to poorer sleep and lower wellbeing. Screens can displace other activities that support health: exercise, face-to-face friendship and, crucially, sleep. Light from devices and the stimulation of social media late at night can delay sleep for teenagers, whose body clocks already push them towards later bedtimes.
It is worth noting, however, that most of these studies show correlation, not causation. Teenagers who are already unhappy may turn to their phones more, rather than their phones making them unhappy. Untangling cause and effect is notoriously difficult.
What, then, should families do? Rather than fixating on a single number, experts suggest asking three questions. Is screen use getting in the way of sleep? Is it crowding out exercise and real-world relationships? And does the young person feel in control of it, or controlled by it? If the answers are reassuring, the exact number of minutes may matter less than we fear.
Question 15
Read "Rethinking Screen Time". Why does the writer say "screen time" is "a crude measure"?
- A. It is impossible to count hours.
- B. Parents exaggerate the numbers.
- C. It treats very different activities as if they were the same.
- D. Screens are bad in every case.
Cooling the City (with data)
On hot summer afternoons, the centres of large cities can be several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. This "urban heat island" effect occurs because dark surfaces such as asphalt and roofing absorb sunlight and release it slowly as heat, while buildings trap warm air and reduce the cooling effect of wind. A lack of vegetation makes the problem worse: trees and plants cool the air by providing shade and releasing water vapour.
In a recent study, researchers measured the average afternoon surface temperature in July across four neighbourhoods of one city, alongside the percentage of each area covered by trees. Their results are summarised below.
Neighbourhood | Tree cover (%) | Average July afternoon surface temperature (°C)
Northgate | 8 | 41
Riverside | 15 | 38
Elm Park | 27 | 34
Hillcrest | 35 | 32
The researchers caution that tree cover is not the only factor: Riverside, for instance, is next to a large river, which may have cooled it independently. Nevertheless, they conclude that expanding urban tree cover is a promising strategy for reducing extreme heat, particularly in neighbourhoods where many residents lack air conditioning.
Question 16
Read "Cooling the City (with data)". Which conclusion do the researchers draw?
- A. Air conditioning should be banned.
- B. Planting more trees is a promising way to reduce extreme urban heat.
- C. Cities should be built near rivers.
- D. Tree cover is the only cause of temperature differences.
All done? Color in the animal! · Free from eurekami.com/math