Backed or Bare?
A letter arguing for a longer lunch — written by an author who TELLS you two of their four reasons can't be proven, and dares you to find them. Built for RI.6.8's exact skill: tracing an argument and sorting its claims into supported-by-evidence and standing-bare — with 'everyone knows,' 'obviously,' and 'ask anyone' as the fingerprints of bare.
Common Core standards covered
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.
Student target: “I can trace an argument's claim and reasons, sort each reason as supported or unsupported by citing what it stands on, recognize the fingerprint phrases of bare claims, and explain why true-sounding and backed are different things.”
Success criteria: I can state the claim and list the four reasons. · I can sort all four with the backing (or absence) cited. · I can list three fingerprint phrases of unsupported claims. · I can explain ¶6's distinction: believing isn't backing.
Essential question
Four reasons for a longer lunch — two standing on stopwatches and studies, two standing on 'everyone knows.' All four might even be TRUE. What's the difference between a backed claim and a bare one, and why does the difference matter more than the believing?
Learning target: I can trace an argument's claim and reasons, sort each reason as supported or unsupported by citing what it stands on, recognize the fingerprint phrases of bare claims, and explain why true-sounding and backed are different things.
Success criteria
- I can state the claim and list the four reasons.
- I can sort all four with the backing (or absence) cited.
- I can list three fingerprint phrases of unsupported claims.
- I can explain ¶6's distinction: believing isn't backing.
Why this matters
RI.6.8's Grade 6 verb is DISTINGUISH — supported claims from unsupported ones — and it's the foundation of every argument skill that follows (Grade 7 evaluates sufficiency; Grade 8 catches irrelevance). This letter makes the distinction learnable by confession: the author plants two backed reasons (a stopwatch with a method, a study with its finding stated precisely) and two bare ones (wearing 'everyone knows' and 'obviously'), then tells you the game and sorts it themselves in ¶6. Students leave with the fingerprint list — the confidence-phrases that signal bareness in every ad, post, and argument they'll ever meet — and the distinction that matters most: bare doesn't mean false, and vivid doesn't mean backed. Believing isn't backing.
Students should already be able to
- Claim and reason vocabulary.
- Citing by paragraph number.
- Nothing else — the letter teaches its own game.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — checkability as the boundary.
- Trace check — the argument laid out first.
- Sort circulation — standings cited, fingerprints collected.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (backed + bare + thesis) plus the ledger; the ¶3 repair and bare-claim diary rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “Give Us Ten More Minutes”
An original letter written for this lesson (≈520 words), with two backed and two bare reasons planted — and confessed. The 20-minute seated-time research reflects real published findings.
¶1 GIVE US TEN MORE MINUTES — a letter to the editor of the school paper. Our lunch period is twenty-three minutes long, and I am writing to argue that it should be thirty-five. Before you roll your eyes: I have done my homework on this, and I'll show it. But I'll be honest — a couple of my reasons are ones I can't prove. See if you can tell which are which.
¶2 Start with the math, because it's checkable. Lunch runs 23 minutes by the bell schedule posted outside the office. Last Tuesday, our newspaper team timed the lunch line with a stopwatch: the average wait, across all three lunch waves, was 9 minutes — and the last students through the line had 11 minutes to eat. Eleven minutes. The federal school-nutrition people recommend students get AT LEAST 20 minutes of actual seated eating time. We measured; we're not close.
🔒 The full text — 6 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class traces the argument (the 35-minute claim, four reasons), takes the author's dare, and sorts: each reason BACKED (with its checkable evidence cited) or BARE (with its fingerprint phrases collected). The fingerprint kit gets built as a permanent tool. The ¶6 discussion lands the distinction — believing isn't backing — and the repair task closes it: what evidence WOULD back the bare pair?
The sort ledger — each reason, its verdict, and what it stands on.
| Reason (¶) | Verdict: BACKED or BARE | What it stands on (cite it) | If bare: the fingerprints |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — not enough time to eat (¶2) | |||
| 2 — eating fast hurts focus (¶3) | |||
| 3 — short lunches cut the healthy food (¶4) | |||
| 4 — longer lunch, happier school (¶5) |
Anticipated student strategies
Fingerprints first for speed and the tool. Truth-sorting confronted with ¶6's own words. Check-testing last — it deepens the sort into a definition.
- Fingerprint hunting. The student sweeps for the confidence-phrases and lets them flag the bare paragraphs.
The intended fast route — the phrases really are fingerprints, and collecting them builds the permanent tool. Share first.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Work it fast: the battery sentence names a test anyone could rerun — backed; the best-ever sentence stands on 'everyone says so' — a crowd nobody can find. Introduce the day's verdict words: BACKED (stands on something checkable) and BARE (stands on confidence). Then the tease: today's letter contains two of each — and the author TELLS you so, and dares you to sort them.
Listen for: Yes — with criteria and comparisons ('best battery of the five we tested'). Bare claims aren't doomed; they're unfinished. Hold this for the repair task.
The full letter is in the workbook and the handout. Board the trace: CLAIM — lunch should be 35 minutes, not 23. Reasons: (1) not enough time to actually eat (¶2); (2) fast eating hurts afternoon focus (¶3); (3) short lunches cut the healthy food specifically (¶4); (4) longer lunch means a happier school (¶5). Don't sort yet — the trace comes first because you can't evaluate an argument you haven't laid out. Note ¶6 exists but save it: the author's own answer key, sealed until the class has sorted.
- Trace before sorting — the argument laid out first.
- ¶6 is the answer key: sealed until your sort is done.
Listen for: Park it — ¶6 answers (honesty as strategy), and the question sets up the final discussion.
🔒 The remaining 4 steps — fully scripted with teacher-says lines, discourse questions, look-fors, and interventions — are in the full lesson. See plans →
Misconceptions and how to respond
- “If I agree with a claim, it's supported.” The sort checks what the claim stands on IN THE TEXT, not in your head. ¶3 is probably true and definitely bare — 'ask anyone' is not a standing. The author says it best: believing isn't backing.
- “Bare claims are lies.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Mentioning a study makes a claim backed.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Admitting weak reasons ruins an argument.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
🔒 Every misconception ships with a tested classroom response. See plans →
Scaffolded practice
The workbook follows gradual release rather than a page of blank prompts: 2 fully worked, 2 partially completed, then 4 independent.
- I doLiteral first — the trace. State the claim and the four reasons, one line each, cited.
🔒 7 more prompts across all three release tiers are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked solutions and scaffolds for every prompt are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Exit ticket
- One backed reason: its standing, cited.
🔒 2 more exit-ticket questions are in the full lesson. See plans →
Worked answers, the completed answer tables, and the scoring rubric are in the downloadable kit, included with membership. See plans and pricing.
Printable handouts in the kit
All handouts are in Printable_Handouts.pdf inside the kit download.
Materials and classroom resources
Student experience
Students enter through a low-floor prompt, build or sketch a model, test a strategy, revise their thinking, collaborate, and present a final solution. The task remains accessible while allowing for sophisticated reasoning.
Detailed facilitation notes
- Step 1: Read the letter — the author admits the game in ¶1 and ¶6. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Trace the argument: the claim and its four reasons. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Sort each reason: BACKED (evidence you could check) or BARE (assertion in confident clothes)? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Collect the fingerprints: the words that signal bare claims everywhere. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The author's self-aware frame makes the sort findable; extend with the repair task (backing the bare claims) and the still-believe question.
Language support: “I started by…”, “My model shows…”, and “I know my answer is reasonable because…”.
Extension: Require a second solution, alter a condition, or have students write a challenge for another group.
Accessibility: Manipulatives, enlarged visuals, oral response choices, partner reading, and reduced-copy student pages.
Assessment plan
Formative checks: Strategy choice, accuracy, representation, collaboration, and explanation.
End evidence: The four reasons sorted with the backing (or its absence) cited, plus the fingerprint list: three phrases that signal an unsupported claim.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.