Critical Engineering Literacy Test (CELT v4.0)
Table 1. Blueprint for Writing Assessment Items
Item number
Objectives (Students can…)
Part 1
Part 2
Information Seeking (Recognizing Need and Locating Information)
1. Differentiate referenced information from unsupported assumptions
2
14
2. Select key words to locate information relevant to a specific topic
10
16
3. Identify credible and authoritative information sources
4
18
4. Activate prior knowledge to critically examine new information
3*
19*
5. Identify limitations of information
6
14, 17*
6. Accurately interpret and summarize information
1, 5
11
7. Identify relevant information needed to support arguments
7
12, 15
8. Identify necessary elements of citations and in-text references
8
20
9. Determine when referencing external information sources is appropriate
9*
13*
Information Evaluation (Assessing Relevance and Credibility)
Information Application (Using Information and Constructing an Argument)
Information Documentation (Citing and Referencing Information)
*Select all that apply items
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
1
PART 1: The memo below was prepared by a group of environmentally conscientious students who want
to improve energy efficiency and sustainability of their dorm buildings.
Read the memo. In the next step, you will answer a series of questions related to the content of this
memo.
To: University Residence Hall Director
From: Engineering Consultant Team
Subject: Recommendations for Improving Sustainability in Dorm Rooms in Lafayette
Date: January 3, 2013
We are a group of students dedicated to reducing energy consumption and increasing sustainability of university dorms.
Our proposal is to replace all of the incandescent light bulbs in the dorm rooms with compact fluorescent light (CFL)
bulbs.
The Environmental Protection Agency states that CFL light bulbs use 75% less energy than regular incandescent light
bulbs (EPA, 2008). Many lighting fixtures in place in the U.S. are not energy efficient. For example, light fixtures used in
the average U.S. home together can consume more energy than a refrigerator (EPA, 2008). On average, refrigerators use
approximately one sixth of the energy consumed by the average American household, more than any other single
electric appliance (California Energy Commission). Replacing regular incandescent bulbs that use 60 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
of electricity per hour with equivalent CFL bulbs that use only 14 kWh of electricity per hour would produce significant
energy savings.
After surveying students on one floor of a dormitory, we found that the average student leaves their overhead lights on
for approximately 5 hours a day. This number can be higher or lower depending on the time of the semester, but 5 hours
a day is the average for the entire year. We also identified that the average cost per kWh for the City of Lafayette is 6
cents (Duke Energy, 2008). For our calculations, we used the following information:





The lights are on 5 hours a day
The average student is in his or her room 200 days a year
There are two bulbs per overhead light
All dorm rooms currently use incandescent 60 W light bulbs
The new CFL bulbs installed are 14 W
Shown in Table 1, we calculated the total cost of using the CFL to be $840, compared to the cost of using incandescent
bulbs, which we estimated to be $3,600. This shows that switching to the CFL would save $2,760 a year per dorm room.
In general, CFL bulbs cost on average around $3, compared to $1.35 for incandescent bulbs (O’neil, 2008). These savings
would more than offset for the $50 cost per room to install the CFL bulbs.
Table 1. Energy Saving Calculations
Light Type
CFL
Incandescent
$$ Savings
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cost of
Electricity
($/kWh)
$0.06
$0.06
Energy
Consumed
(kWh)
14
60
Average Hours
per Day Lights
are in Use
5
5
Average Days per
Year Lights are in
Use
200
200
Annual Cost of
Electricity for Light
($/Bulb)
$840
$3,600
$2,760
References
Duke Energy. (2008). Energy Rates. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.duke-energy.com
O'neill, R. (2008). Green Topics: Incandescent vs. CFL vs. LED Bulb Challenge. Green Topics. Retrieved November 8,
2009, from http://greentopics.blogspot.com/2008/10/incandescent-vs-cfl-vs-led-light-bulbs.html
Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Light Bulbs (CFLs). Retrieved November 9, 2009, from
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
California Energy Commission. (n.d.). “Refrigerators and Freezers: Energy Choices from the Home.” Retrieved
November 8, 2009, from http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/refrigerators.html
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
2
Please answer the following questions based on the students’ memo.
1. Which one of the following statements best summarizes the authors' main argument?
a. CFL light bulbs cost more than incandescent light bulbs
b. Incandescent light bulbs use more energy than a refrigerator
c. Switching from incandescent light bulbs to CFL light bulbs would save energy
d. Incandescent light bulbs in the dorms should be replaced with CFL light bulbs
2. Which one of the following is an unsupported assumption presented in the memo?
a. Students occupy their dorm rooms 200 days a year
b. Students use dorm room lights for an average of 5 hours a day
c. The average cost of electricity in West Lafayette is 6 cents per kWh
d. CFL light bulbs are 75% more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs
2a. This statement is an unsupported assumption because…
3. Which of the following claims made by the authors are unreasonable? Select all that apply.
 Switching to CFL light bulbs would produce energy savings
 A typical 60 watt incandescent light bulb uses 60 kWh of electricity per hour
 The annual cost of electricity for an incandescent light bulbs is $3,600 per bulb
 Electricity cost savings would offset labor costs for installation of new CFL light bulbs
3a. The statement(s) is/are unreasonable because…
4. Which one of the following pieces of evidence used by the authors is the most reliable?
a. Students use overhead dorm lights an average of 5 hours per day
b. Incandescent 60 watt light bulbs are currently used in dorm rooms
c. CFL light bulbs use 75% less energy than incandescent light bulbs
d. The average cost of CFL and incandescent bulbs are $3 and $1.35, respectively
4a. This evidence is the most reliable because…
5. According to the authors, what does the $2,760 shown in Table 1 represent?
a. Total cost savings per light bulb per day
b. Total cost savings per dorm room per year
c. Electricity cost savings per student per day
d. Electricity cost savings per light bulb per year
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
3
6. Which one of the following represents the most significant limitation of the authors’ argument?
a. The evidence was misinterpreted by the authors
b. The evidence was not relevant to the main argument
c. The evidence was not applicable to the City of Lafayette
d. The evidence was primarily taken from untrustworthy sources
6a. Provide an example to support your choice above…
7. Which one of these additional pieces of information would be most relevant to strengthening the
authors' main argument?
a. Lighting spectra of CFL and incandescent bulbs
b. Average lifespan of CFL and incandescent light bulbs
c. Current natural gas utility rates for the City of Lafayette
d. The average amount of electricity consumed by refrigerators per year
7a. This information is the most relevant because…
8. The authors cite Duke Energy as the source of the cost of electricity per kWh for the City of
Lafayette. Which one of the following elements is missing or incomplete in the citation provided?
a. Webpage URL
b. Retrieval Date
c. Publication Date
d. Document Author
9. Which one of the following statements from the memo should be supported by a reference (i.e.,
include a citation in the text)? Select all that apply.
 Many lighting fixtures in place in the U.S. are not energy efficient
 Switching to the CFL light bulbs would save $2,760 per year per dorm room
 Replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFL light bulbs will produce energy savings
 These savings would more than offset the $50 cost per room to install the CFL bulbs
10. 10. If you wanted to find more information about the environmental impacts of using compact
fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs using an Internet search engine, which of the following searches would
likely yield the best results?
a. CFL eco-impact
b. Green light bulbs
c. CFL energy efficiency
d. CFL lifecycle assessment
10a. What makes your choice above a good search?
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
4
PART 2: The following article was written by a group of people who are concerned about the safety of
consuming genetically engineered food.
Read the article. In the next step, you will answer a series of questions related to the content of the
article.
Super Salmon or Super Trouble?
Genetically modified organisms, such as fish, must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Without a proper evaluation, the fish can be harmful both for consumption and
the environment. An example of such a product is a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon developed
by AquaBounty Technologies by inserting a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon and an on-off
gene switch from an ocean pout, another type of fish.
AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon reaches maturity in 18 months instead of three years,
since the growth hormone gene is constantly activated, unlike in conventional salmon. The genetically
engineered salmon (GE salmon) reaches the same overall mature size as a non-engineered Atlantic
salmon (non-GE salmon), so, the main difference between the AquaBounty fish and conventional fish is
the time to market. However, looking more closely at the data, we feel that the AquaBounty fish is not
equivalent, and on those grounds, should not be approved for production and consumption.
One of the parameters necessary for the safety of the fish is their omega fatty acid composition. Omega3 fatty acids are the ‘good’ oils, and Omega-6 fatty acids are less healthy for humans. The ratio of the
two is an indicator of the overall healthiness of foods. The genetically-engineered AquaBounty salmon
contains an omega-3/omega-6 ratio of 3.6, compared to 10.4 for wild-caught salmon, and thus the
AquaBounty salmon is unhealthy for human consumption (see Table 1).
In addition, there are additional concerns regarding the safety of genetically modified salmon. For
example, there is a 50% higher allergenic potential of the GE salmon meat [1], and there could be
terrible environmental impacts if fish escape from confinement. We encourage everyone to write to the
FDA and ask them to closely scrutinize the data provided by AquaBounty to determine whether their
genetically modified salmon is in fact a healthy alternative to currently available salmon.
Table 1. Omega-3 and Omega-6 Fatty Acid Levels in AquaBounty Salmon and Farmed Atlantic Salmon
Omega-3/Omega-6 Ratio
Conventional Farm
Raised Salmon
3.9
AquaBounty
Triploid Salmon
3.6
Wild-Caught
Salmon*
10.4
Farmed*
4.1
Notes. Aggregate results are reported for samples from each of the following populations: conventional farmraised salmon and the AquaBounty triploid salmon. The entries marked with an asterisk (*) have been taken from
the scientific literature [2].
References
[1] Van Do, T., Elsayed, S., Florvaag, E., Hordvik, I., and Endresen, C. (2005). Allergy to fish parvalbumins: studies
on the cross-reactivity of allergens from 9 commonly consumed fish. Journal of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology, 1314-1320.
[2] FDA Briefing Packet. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee Sept. 20,
2010. AquaAdvantage Salmon.
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
5
11. What is the authors' main argument?
a. The omega-3/omega-6 ratio determines if fish is healthy for human consumption
b. Wild-caught salmon has a higher omega-3/omega-6 ratio than farm-raised salmon
c. AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon is not healthy for human consumption
d. Genetically engineered salmon has a higher allergenic potential than conventional salmon
12. The author of this article noted that the omega-3/omega-6 ratio of AquaBounty GE salmon is 3.6
compared to wild-caught salmon, which is 10.4. An AquaBounty representative replied that the
omega-3/omega-6 ratio of AquaBounty GE salmon is equivalent to other (non-GE) farm-raised fish.
Which of the following comparisons of omega-3/omega-6 ratios is most relevant in determining
whether the GE fish is equivalent to its non-GE counterpart?
a. The ratio of AquaBounty salmon to other AquaBounty fish
b. The ratio of farm-raised salmon to AquaBounty salmon
c. The ratio of wild-caught salmon to AquaBounty salmon
d. The ratio of wild-caught salmon to farm-raised salmon
12a. Why is this the most relevant to the argument?
13. Which of the following passage(s) from the text should be supported by a reference (i.e., include a
citation in the text)? Select all that apply.
 The AquaBounty salmon is unhealthy for human consumption
 There is a 50% higher allergenic potential of the GE salmon meat
 There are additional concerns regarding the safety of GE salmon meat
 AquaBounty’s GE salmon reaches maturity in 18 months instead of three years
14. Which of the following is the most significant limitation of the evidence used to support the claims
made in this article?
a. The evidence is primarily unsupported
b. The evidence is misinterpreted by the authors
c. The evidence is not relevant to the main argument
d. The evidence is not specific to U.S. government standards
15. Which of the following additional pieces of information would allow you to make the most informed
decision on whether the GE salmon is a healthy fat source?
a. Omega-3/omega-6 ratio of a variety of foods
b. Absolute amount of omega-3 fatty acid in the GE salmon samples
c. Absolute amount of omega-6 fatty acids in the GE salmon samples
d. Omega-3 fatty acid content of a variety of wild-caught and GE fish species
15a. Why would this allow you to make the most informed decision?
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
6
16. If you wanted to find more information about the healthy oil content of salmon using an Internet
search engine, which of the following searches would likely yield the best results?
a. Healthy oil ratio
b. Omega-3 salmon
c. Salmon fat content
d. Fatty acid concentration of Atlantic salmon
16a. What makes your choice above a good search?
Omega-3 (specific technical vocabulary for healthy oil) salmon (specific species of fish) is specific
without using too many terms
17. The data on AquaBounty GE-salmon is collected by the same company that produced the fish. How
can an FDA review panel reasonably evaluate the data presented? Check all that apply.
 Require the company to use independent laboratories to analyze samples
 Request to see the original data produced by the company
 Perform a surprise inspection of the company's facilities
 Request the company’s financial data
17a. What makes your choice(s) above a reasonable method to validate the company's data?
18. Where would you most likely find authoritative information on typical omega-3 levels of salmon?
a. Goodrecipes.com
b. Saveouroceans.org
c. International Journal of Fisheries
d. U.S. Department of Agriculture website
18a. Why would this be an authoritative information source for omega-3 levels of salmon?
19. Which one of the following claims should be supported by a reference (i.e., include a citation in the
text)? Select all that apply.
 AquaBounty salmon contains an omega-3/omega-6 ratio of 3.6 and is thus unhealthy
 There could be terrible environmental impacts if GE fish escapes from confinement
 Omega-3 fatty acids are the good oils and Omega-6 are less healthy for humans
 Genetically modified organisms, such as fish, must be approved by the FDA
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
7
20. In the following citation, which one of the required elements is missing?
Van Do, T., Elsayed, S., Florvaag, E., Hordvik, I., and Endresen, C. (2005). Allergy to fish parvalbumins:
studies on the cross-reactivity of allergens from 9 commonly consumed fish. Journal of Allergy
and Clinical Immunology, 1314-1320.
a.
b.
c.
d.
The journal title
The journal editor
The journal publisher
The journal volume and issue
© InfoSkills Research Team (Purzer, Fosmire, Van Epps, & Wertz), 2013
8