Extended Response Ged Ready Source Texts
Extended Response Ged Ready Source Texts
The enclosed source texts are drawn directly from the Extended Response (ER) tasks on
the GED Ready® practice test - RLA. In those ER tasks, students are asked to analyze the
relationship between a quotation and a passage in an essay-length response. We provide
these source texts so that you may refer to them as your score your students’ responses.
Use these source texts in conjunction with other RLA Extended Response scoring
resources for educators, including the:
• Educator Scoring Tool for GED Ready® - RLA
• Extended Response Resource Guide for Educators – RLA
2. Students’ written responses are available in each student’s Enhanced Score Report
under the “Review My Written Answers” section. Ask each student to print out his or
her score report and give you a copy, which you can then use to score the
response.
3. Only use these source texts for the purpose of scoring student GED Ready®
practice test responses. If you give students these source texts before taking the
GED Ready® practice test, it may compromise the accuracy of their scores and the
ability of the GED Ready® practice test to predict their scores on the operational
GED® test.
GED Testing Service LLC’s GED Ready® prompts and passages are to be used to score and not
to teach the direct content to students. GED Testing Service LLC permits non-commercial re-use of
any of the GED Ready® prompts and passages when proper attribution is provided. You are free
to copy and use the GED Ready® prompts and passages, under the following conditions:
Attribution: You must clearly attribute the work to the GED Testing Service LLC, Copyright ©2018
GED Testing Service LLC All rights reserved. Noncommercial: You may not use the GED Ready®
prompts and passages for commercial purposes.
www.GED.com
GED and GED Testing Service are registered trademarks of the American Council on Education (“ACE”). They may not be used or reproduced without the express written
® ®
permission of ACE or GED Testing Service. The GED® and GED Testing Service® brands are administered by GED Testing Service LLC under license from the American Council on
Education.
Stimulus Materials for GED Ready® - RLA
1 The diamond mining industry directly affects an estimated 10 million people around
the world. Eleven nations are currently considered major producers of diamonds,
and several other countries also currently operate diamond mines. While some
companies and countries have made a fortune from diamond mining, the diamond
mining industry as a whole has a long history of abusing human rights and
exploiting workers. The industry's devastating impact on the environment is another
reason why diamond mining should be banned.
2 During any mining process, the soil, water, and air surrounding a mine become
polluted. Diamond mining is no different. Large quantities of soil must be removed,
reducing available natural land resources. For example, the process of removing
soil along the coast forever changes shorelines, which has a wide-ranging impact.
In addition, any mine's expansion encroaches on natural animal habitats,
decreasing wildlife populations.
3 Diamond mining also affects water supply and quality. Water is used to extract
diamonds, but water is a scarce resource in Africa, where many of the world's
diamond mines are located. Many countries cannot afford to trade a necessity like
clean water for a luxury like diamonds. Canada's Northwest Territories provides an
example of how water is affected by diamond mining. Companies have drained
twenty lakes, causing massive changes to the environment and disrupting the
natural habitats of many species. Caribou in the Northwest Territories appear to be
migrating away from traditional habitats that have been disturbed by diamond
mining operations.
4 Finally, energy sources used to operate diamond mines create greenhouse gases.
Diesel fuels, electricity, and hydrocarbons used in diamond mining all release
harmful carbons into the air. These chemicals cause smog, climate change, and
other environmental hazards yet to be discovered. The long-term environmental
impact is simply not worth the financial gains a few corporations and countries
desire.
5 The diamond mining Industry is not the environmental villain it is often portrayed to
be. Although any mining operation for any important mineral can disturb delicate
ecology, diamond mining companies have proven to be responsive to public
concern and have worked hard to reduce the impact of their search for what could
be argued as the world's most precious and symbolic resource. World governments
are cooperating to ensure environmental safety and preservation around diamond
mines. In some cases, areas surrounding the mines are actually improved!
6 A number of wildlife preserves have been established to protect and breed species
of animals endangered by diamond mines. For example, the Diavik Diamond Mine
in Canada has implemented an advisory board to study ways to protect the fish
near the mining area. The program was so successful that it has widened to include
the arctic deer. In South Africa, the national parks system has worked together with
the Peace Parks Foundation and the diamond industry to set up a conservation
area for wildlife near the Venetia Diamond Mine.
7 Governments are trying to reduce waste and reuse resources while mining for
diamonds. Environmental management companies closely monitor the mines and
routinely publish reports on their environmental impact. Many of the mines even do
more than the minimum required by regulated standards. A number of mine
operators restore topsoil removed from a mining site. Researchers are working on
new, less water-intensive methods of diamond extract ion. Measures to use energy
sources that do not emit dangerous carbons into the air have been put into place,
and the levels of chemicals that reach the air are closely monitored. With support
and regulation from governments, the mining industry can safely continue to benefit
a large number of people who live in the countries where diamonds are mined.
Prompt
While opponents of diamond mining believe that the hazards associated with the industry
should lead to a ban, proponents argue that companies are sufficiently improving practices
and addressing public concerns. In your response, analyze the two articles to determine
which position is best supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both articles to
support your response.
Plastic Bags
1 The editorial staff at the Gulftowne Gazette says three cheers for the Gulftowne
Ordinance Committee! Finally, they are serious about making reusable shopping
bags mandatory in every store with Proposition 328.
2 Americans concerned about our environment agree that plastic bags litter our
landscape and threaten wildlife. Many cities across the country and around the
globe have banned their use. Paper bags are not the ideal replacement for plastic
bags either. Cutting down trees to make paper greatly diminishes
our forests. The actual manufacturing of paper bags contributes
to pollution. The obvious solution is to mandate that consumers
bring reusable bags with them when they go shopping.
3 Reusable bags are made from canvas or other cloth, man-made fibers, or sturdy
plastic. A variety of these bags are sold at most supermarket checkout stands.
Discount stores and even dollar stores sell reusable bags. These bags are
lightweight, washable, and durable. Many styles can last for years. It is mind-
boggling to think of how many trees would be saved and how much landfill space
could be freed if all shoppers used reusable bags. A widely reported study found
that the United States uses 100 billion disposable plastic shopping bags every year!
4 The cost to consumers to purchase reusable bags is minimal, some costing less
than a dollar. Many retailers already charge fees to consumers who want their
purchases placed in disposable plastic or paper shopping bags. While these fees
are small, paying for one-time use bags on a weekly basis adds up. Eventually, the
purchase of reusable bags is more cost-effective.
5 Those opposing the mandatory use of reusable shopping bags cite health concerns
as their reason. They base their fears on a study conducted at the University of
Arizona and Loma Linda University, which showed reusable bags to have
unacceptable levels of bacteria growth and mold after being used to haul groceries,
this issue can easily be addressed by washing the bags frequently. Using separate
bags for meats and produce also reduces the chance of contaminating food placed
in reusable bags.
6 Wake up, Gulftowne. Let 's all follow the ordinance committee's lead and finally put
an end to the "paper or plastic" quest ion. Making a long-term investment now by
purchasing reusable bags creates a win-win situation for our citizens and our
environment.
7 I strongly disagree with your editorial earlier this week on the new reusable bag
ordinance. Shop owners in Gulftowne rely on tourists to make a living.
Unfortunately, it appears the Ordinance Committee did not think beyond the grocery
store when considering this terrible ordinance.
8 I own a gift shop. Tourists buy mementos, figurines, t-shirts, postcards and beach
supplies. Many vacation purchases fit into bags no larger than an envelope.
Requiring our visitors to bring reusable bags for such purchases makes absolutely
no sense.
9 Most shop owners cannot afford to provide reusable bags to customers. The bags
used now have logos, addresses, phone numbers, and website addresses. They
are not free. Where in the ordinance is the cost to make new multi-sized bags with
store information? Where is the investment in our community businesses?
10 Shop owners are also concerned about the environment, but we don't want tourists
shopping in the next town where paper and plastic bags are still used to avoid this
hassle. People come to Gulftowne to enjoy the beach and for relaxation. Why
complicate their days and add an expense that makes them buy a bag for their
purchases? This requirement may make sense in a grocery store, where most
disposable bags are handed out anyway, but penalizing other types of shops who
don't really contribute to the problem is unacceptable.
11 If this ordinance goes into effect, I hope the committee plans to add a few words to
our city welcome sign: "Bring Your Own Bags".
Theo Jones
Owner, Gulftowne Gifts
Prompt
Some cities are beginning to address the environmental concerns associated with paper
and plastic bag use, but not everyone agrees about what should be done. In your
response, analyze both the editorial and the letter to the editor to determine which position
is best supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your
response.
1 The cuts to this year’s budget mean that fewer funds are available for many town
departments. We must thoughtfully examine how to use our resources most
effectively. I propose installing automatic traffic light cameras at 10 major
intersections in town.
4 Currently, drivers who get away with red-light violations tend to repeat the behavior,
making intersections less safe overall. Automatic cameras discourage this habit. A
2009 study of a program in Montgomery County, Maryland, showed an average
78% decline in the number of red-light tickets issued after the cameras had
operated for a year. Only about one-third of the drivers who each received a red-
light violation ticket repeated the violation within a two-year period.
5 In addition, by citing violators who may have gone unpunished without the
assistance of the cameras, our town would increase revenue through additional
traffic fines. A single intersection in Lawrence Township, New Jersey, generated
over $1 million in fines in only one year. The facts show that an investment in these
cameras pays for itself. Please support this proposal.
6 The town council’s proposal to install 10 automatic red-light cameras at traffic lights
is a proposal to waste money. I have scrutinized the details and calculated the
costs. The proposal does say that the company AutoCamera Inc. has promised to
waive installation fees that would normally run $50,000–$100,000 per intersection.
However, that same company will charge us $5,000–$6,000 each month per
camera to operate and maintain the cameras. That is at least $60,000 per year for
one camera. Installing 10 cameras will have quite a high price tag. Six hundred
thousand dollars per year could instead pay the salaries of new officers.
7 These cameras create other unexpected costs as well. In New Jersey and New
York, several cities have been sued over the timing of traffic lights with automatic
cameras. Plaintiffs often contend that the yellow lights are illegally short and that
required inspections of the cameras were not performed. Lawsuits over automatic
cameras are all too common, occurring also in states such as Ohio, Illinois,
Missouri, and California. In a single December in New Jersey alone, traffic light
company ATS settled 16 separate class-action lawsuits. Because we cannot control
public reaction to these cameras, the real costs are hidden. Any new fines collected
may pale in comparison to increased legal fees.
8 Additionally, the safety benefits of automatic red-light cameras are unclear. A 2005
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report says that some cities using
the cameras have seen a decrease in front-into-side accidents, but rear-end
collisions have increased. Apparently, speeding drivers notice the cameras at the
last minute. They apply their brakes abruptly, surprising the unsuspecting drivers
behind them and causing accidents. These additional collisions are avoidable if we
reject this proposal.
9 In every way, actual traffic police officers are superior to automatic red-light
cameras. The only investment we need to make is hiring more officers.
Prompt
Analyze the arguments presented in the speech and the letter to the editor.
In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better
supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to
support your argument.
Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree.
This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
NO
by Jennifer Fontaine, sports promoter
1 In the United States, sports are big business. That’s $435 billion-per-year big,
according to a 2012 market research estimate of the entire sports industry. The
center of this business is professional athletes. They are the ones making the diving
catches, bone-crushing tackles, and clutch three-point shots at the buzzer that thrill
us all. They are the reason a fan pays $1,000 for a playoff ticket. An athlete’s salary
is determined by basic math. If a sport pulls in billions of dollars, high salaries are
paid out. That is the business of sports.
2 Additionally, the size of athletes’ salaries is often exaggerated. Few actually earn
tens of millions of dollars a year. In 2010 and 2011, the average professional
athlete’s annual salary was $1.9 million for football, $3.34 million for baseball, and
$5.15 million for basketball. While some superstars do earn $30 million, $40 million,
or even $50 million, those players are the best of the best, imbued with rare talents.
Amateurs playing catch in the backyard should not delude themselves into thinking
such abilities come easily.
3 Professional athletes work harder than people in almost any other profession. They
perfect their skills during years of grueling training. The few who make the pros must
train even more. Then, after all that work, athletes’ careers are relatively short.
Compare a baseball player’s $3 million a year for only a few seasons to a highly paid
doctor’s $500,000 a year for 40 or more years. The athlete’s pay no longer seems
excessive. And injuries, which are all too frequent, can end a career prematurely.
Some athletes will literally pay for knee, back, or head injuries for the rest of their
lives. Treatments such as knee-replacement surgery can cost tens of thousands of
dollars.
4 Being an athlete comes at a heavy physical price. Yet professional athletes choose
to play the game—for us, the fans and ticketholders. Their physical feats inspire the
young children watching games on TV to reach for greatness themselves. Who can
deny the value of that?
YES
by Roberto Hinojosa, high school math teacher
5 Without teachers, police officers, and firefighters, our society would collapse. And
yet these professionals are paid a tiny fraction of the salaries earned by many
professional athletes. This makes no sense whatsoever.
6 Those who most support our way of life by protecting and educating our citizens
should be paid more than athletes. Teachers not only inspire and motivate
youngsters but also impart the knowledge that helps children and teenagers
become productive adults. Athletes, on the other hand, are nothing more than highly
paid entertainers; they serve no important function in the future well-being of our
country.
7 The average U.S. household income in 2012 was $54,000. Consider these average
salaries for 2012:
• for a teacher, $50,950
• for a police officer, $50,512
• for a lead firefighter, $57,000
8 Now compare those averages with the highest professional athlete salaries in the
same year:
• for football, $32.4 million
• for baseball, $31 million
• for basketball, $20.3 million
9 While many Americans are struggling to make ends meet and find good jobs, it is
frustrating to read about yet another athlete holding out for a few million dollars
more. Nothing justifies paying one person a yearly salary that is more than most
people make in a lifetime. For modest salaries, police officers and firefighters
protect our lives and property at great risk to themselves. According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 4,325 on-duty firefighters lost their lives
in the United States from 1977 through 2011. Very few professional athletes died on
the job during that same time.
10 Teachers and public servants should be paid at least as much as athletes.
Otherwise, the message our society sends is that we value entertainment more than
real, meaningful work.
Prompt
In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better
supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to
support your argument.
Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree.
This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Resources: