DEVELOPING EVIDENCE-BASED
ASSESSMENTS FOR SOCIAL STUDIES
COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS
SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT
www.ccsoh.us/socialstudies.aspx
Evidence-Based Argumentation Overview
Constructing an Argument
Claim – the overall thesis. A claim states your position on the issue you have chosen
to write about
Evidence – the data used support your claim. Like a lawyer presenting evidence to a
jury, you must support your claim with facts; an unsupported claim is merely an
assertion
Reasoning (Warrant) – interprets the evidence and shows how it supports your
claim. The warrant, in other words, explains why the evidence proves the claim.
“This supports my claim because….”
Counterclaim – a claim that negates or disagrees with the thesis/claim
General Example
Claim
Our school has an excellent academic program.
Evidence
Our students perform well on AP exams in math, science, and history.
Reasoning
AP exams are widely regarded by universities as rigorous measures of student
knowledge. Students who perform well on these exams are very likely to do well
in college.
Historical Example
Claim
The American Revolution was a radical movement.
Evidence
The Declaration of Independence argued that sovereignty resides with the
people.
Reasoning
This belief was radical because it contradicted the British government’s belief
that sovereignty resides with the “King in Parliament.”
Evidence-Based Assessment
1
Sample Assessment – One Source – Multiple Choice
The following source in an excerpt of a speech by President John F. Kennedy on a bill
that would expand Social Security to include health insurance (Medicare) to retired
Americans.
Excerpt from a Speech by President John F. Kennedy, May 20, 1962
This bill [to establish Medicare] serves the public interest. It involves the government
because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not
make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities to
advance the general welfare, and that is what we're attempting to do. . . .
And then I read that this bill would sap the individual self-reliance of Americans. I can't
imagine anything worse, . . . to sap someone of self-reliance, than to be sick, alone,
broke-- or to have saved for a lifetime and put it out in a week, two weeks, a month, two
months. . .
Nobody in this hall is asking for it for nothing. They are willing to contribute during their
working years. That is the important principle which has been lost sight of. . . .
The fact of the matter is that what we now talking about doing, most of the countries of
Europe did years ago. The British did it 30 years ago. We are behind every country,
pretty nearly, in the Europe, in this matter of medical care for our citizens.
Part A
Which statement reflects President Kennedy's thesis on whether Medicare is
constitutional?
A. Medicare is unconstitutional because people would be receiving it for nothing.
B. The Constitution makes the President and Congress powerless on this issue.
C. Congress and the President have the constitutional power to establish Medicare.
D. Although most European countries provide similar programs, Medicare is
unconstitutional in the United States.
Evidence-Based Assessment
2
Part B
What evidence does President Kennedy cite to support this thesis?
A. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to advance the
general welfare.
B. The countries of Europe have shown that Medicare does not serve the public
welfare.
C. The Constitution states that providing Medicare would be giving people
something for nothing.
D. Medicare is constitutional because it will increase the self-reliance of Americans.
Evidence-Based Assessment
3
Sample Assessment – One Source – Constructed Response
The speech below was presented by Susan B. Anthony after she was arrested for
attempting to vote in 1872.
Excerpt from "Is it a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?" by Susan
B. Anthony
Friends and Fellow-citizens: I stand before you tonight, under indictment for the alleged
crime of having voted at the last Presidential election, without having a lawful right to
vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only
committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's right, guaranteed to me
and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any
State to deny.
The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of
the several states and the organic laws of the territories, all alike propose to protect the
people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow
rights.
"All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed."
...Here, in this very first paragraph of the declaration, is the assertion of the natural right
of all to the ballot; for, how can "the consent of the governed" be given, if the right to
vote be denied. . . .
The preamble of the federal constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and established this constitution for the United States of America."
It was we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor yet we, the male citizens; but
we, the whole people, who formed this Union. And we formed it, not to give the
blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our
posterity, but to the whole people-women as well as men. And it is downright mockery
to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the
use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican
government—the ballot.
Evidence-Based Assessment
4
Part A
What thesis does Susan B. Anthony present in this speech?
A. No government in the United States has the right to deny voting rights to women.
B. The Declaration of Independence protects the right to vote for women, but the
Constitution does not.
C. Under the Constitution, only the national government, not state governments may
deny a woman the right to vote.
D. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution only grant men the right to
vote.
Part B
Identify two pieces of evidence that Susan B. Anthony uses to support her claim.
Evidence-Based Assessment
5
Sample Assessment – Two Sources
With the annexation of Hawaii and the Philippines in 1898, the United States joined
other nations in imperialist ventures. Many Americans debated whether the U.S. should
participate in imperialism.
Use the two sources below to answer the questions that follow.
Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League, 1899
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward
militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has
become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of
whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We
maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
We insist that the subjugation [forcing people to submit to the rule of another] of any
people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our
government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in the
Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. . . .
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by Spain and
continued by us. . .
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which
permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept
sovereignty over an unwilling people. . . .
The March of the Flag, Albert Beveridge, 1898
It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen people; a history heroic
with faith in our mission and our future; a history of statesmen who flung the boundaries
of the Republic out into unexplored lands and savage wilderness. . . .
. . . Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy
of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty
wax in strength, until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all
mankind? . . .
Evidence-Based Assessment
6
Hawaii is ours; Puerto Rico is to be ours; at the prayer of her people Cuba finally will be
ours; in the islands of the East, even to the gates of Asia, coaling stations are to be ours
at the very least; the flag of a liberal government is to float over the Philippines. . .
The opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I
answer, the rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent
of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government. We govern
the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we
govern our children without their consent. How do they know what our government
would be without their consent? Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just,
humane, civilizing government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and
extortion from which we have rescued them?
Part A
What is the thesis of the Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League?
A. Washington and Lincoln did not affirm the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.
B. American policy in the Philippines is consistent with the principles of the
American founding.
C. Imperialism violates the principles of liberty and self-government.
D. Stronger nations have a right to rule weaker ones.
Part B
What argument does Albert Beveridge make in The March of the Flag against the
position of the American Anti-Imperialist League?
A. The people of the Philippines voted to keep American rule.
B. Government by consent should only be extended to those who are capable of
self-government.
C. God did not grant the United States the right to expand its borders.
D. The American founders did not believe in the principles of liberty and selfgovernment.
Evidence-Based Assessment
7
Excerpt from “The Need for Better Enforcement of Prohibition,” by Ella Boole,
1926
The closing of the open saloon with its doors swinging both ways, an ever-present
invitation for all to drink—men, women, and boys—is an outstanding fact, and no one
wants it to return. It has resulted in better national health, children are born under better
conditions, homes are better, and the mother is delivered from the fear of a drunken
husband. There is better food. Savings-banks deposits have increased, and many a
man has a bank account today who had none in the days of the saloon.
The increase in home owning is another evidence that money wasted in drink is now
used for the benefit of the family. Improved living conditions are noticeable in our former
slum districts. . . .
Safety-first campaigns on railroads and in the presence of the increasing number of
automobiles are greatly strengthened by prohibition.
The prohibition law is not the only law that is violated. Traffic laws, anti-smuggling laws,
as well as the Volstead [prohibition] Act, are held in contempt. It is the spirit of the age.
Life-insurance companies have long known that drinkers were poor risks, but they
recognize the fact that prohibition has removed a preventable cause of great financial
loss to them. . . .
Your attention has been called to the failures [of prohibition]. We claim these have been
the result of lax enforcement. The machinery of enforcement should be strengthened.
Evidence-Based Assessment
8
Speech on U.S. Army Intervention in Little Rock, Dwight Eisenhower, 1957
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, where white
crowds barred nine African-American students from entering an all-while high school.
. . . In that city [Little Rock], under the leadership of demagogic extremists, disorderly
mobs have deliberately prevented the carrying out of proper orders from a federal court.
Local authorities have not eliminated that violent opposition and, under the law, I
yesterday issued a proclamation calling upon the mob to disperse. . . .
The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the
President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure that carrying
out the decisions of the federal courts, even, when necessary, with all means at the
President’s command. . . .
Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.
Now, let me make it very clear that federal troops are not being used relieve local and
state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and the order of the
community. . . .
The proper use of the powers of the Executive Branch to enforce the orders of a federal
court is limited extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Manifestly, such an
extreme situation has been created in Little Rock. This challenge must be met and with
such measures as will preserve to the people as a whole their lawfully protected rights
in a climate permitting their free and fair exercise.
Evidence-Based Assessment
9
Excerpt from Black Power, Stokely Carmichael, 1967
. . . One of the tragedies of the struggle against racism is that up to this point there has
been no national organization which could speak to the growing militancy of young
black people in the urban ghettos and the black-belt South. There has been only a "civil
rights" movement, whose tone of voice was adapted to an audience of middle-class
whites. . . .It claimed to speak for the needs of a community, but it did not speak in the
tone of that community. None of its so-called leaders could go into a rioting community
and be listened to. In a sense, the blame must be shared—along with the mass
media—by those leaders for what happened in Watts, Harlem, Chicago, Cleveland, and
other places. Each time the black people in those cities saw Dr. Martin Luther King get
slapped they became angry. When they saw little black girls bombed to death in a
church and civil rights workers ambushed and murdered, they were angrier; and when
nothing happened, they were steaming mad. We had nothing to offer that they could
see, except to go out and be beaten again. We helped to build their frustration. . . .
A key phrase in our buffer-zone days was non-violence. . . . There are many who
still sincerely believe in that approach. From our viewpoint, rampaging white mobs and
white night-riders must be made to understand that their days of free head-whipping are
over. Black people should and must fight back. Nothing more quickly repels someone
bent on destroying you than the unequivocal message: "OK, fool, make your move, and
run the same risk I run--of dying." . . .
Those of us who advocate Black power are quite clear in our own minds that a "nonviolent" approach to civil rights is an approach black people cannot afford and a luxury
white people do not deserve. It is crystal clear to us—and it must become so with the
white society—that there can be no social order without social justice. White people
must be made to understand that they must stop messing with black people, or the
blacks will fight back!
Evidence-Based Assessment
10
The Establishment Clause, Excerpt from The Words We Live By, Linda Monk,
2003
The first part of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion known as the
Establish Clause. It declares that Congress shall make no law “respecting an
establishment of religion.” Americans continue to disagree about what constitutes an
establishment of religion. Accommodationists believe that the government must
allowances for the significant role that religion plays in American life. Separationists
argued that the Constitution prohibits any mingling of church and state.
Baptists played a critical role in the early development of the separation of church and
state in America. After Thomas Jefferson was elected president, the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut wrote him a letter protesting the fact that in their state
“religion is considered as the first object of legislation.” Jefferson replied in 1802 that the
First Amendment prohibited the U.S. Congress from taking such action, “thus building a
wall of separation between church and state.”
The Supreme Court quoted Jefferson’s metaphor in Everson v. Board of Education
(1947). In that case, the Court for the first time incorporated the Establishment Clause
to apply to the states—opening the door to a plethora of church-state cases. The Court
outlined the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause as follows:
Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass
laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force...a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Although the Supreme Court in Everson cited Jefferson’s phrase of “a wall of separation
between church and state,” those words do not actually appear in the First Amendment.
However, neither does the Constitution refer to the terms “God,” “Creator,” or “Divine
Providence,” unlike the Declaration of Independence. In addition to Everson, the
Supreme Court has used a variety of legal tests regarding Establishment Clause issues.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist has long objected to the “wall of separation” doctrine,
and the Rehnquist Court has generally taken a more accommodationist view of churchstate issues.
Evidence-Based Assessment
11
The New Deal and Minorities, Excerpt from U.S. History and Government, by
Andrew Peiser and Michael Serber, 2001
For the first time since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, African Americans had the
support of the president. “Among American citizens there should be no forgotten men
and no forgotten race.” So said President Roosevelt, expressing his awareness that
blacks had long been neglected by the U.S. government. Backing the president’s words
were New Deal programs that gave African Americans what they most needed—jobs.
Many thousands of jobs were made available by the WPA and CCC.
Roosevelt also brought to the White House, a “Black Cabinet,” consisting of
distinguished African American leaders. Among them were Robert Weaver, an expert
on urban housing problems, and Mary McLeod Bethune, and expert in education.
Perhaps most significant of all was the response of Eleanor Roosevelt to an incident of
racial discrimination. In 1939, the great African American contralto Marian Anderson
had been denied the right to sing at an important concert in Washington, D.C. When
Eleanor Roosevelt learned of this, she invited Anderson to sing at the Lincoln Memorial.
The Roosevelts thus won a reputation for supporting the cause of racial justice. As a
result, many thousands of African American voters left the Republican Party and
become loyal Democrats.
Evidence-Based Assessment
12