What Are Zoos For?
A sectioned essay on the zoo question that argues a third position between 'empty the cages' and 'the kids are smiling' — and then, in its final section, explains why its own architecture WAS the argument. Students map each section's job, trace how the author distinguishes their position from two others, and test the structure by rearranging it.
Common Core standards covered
- RI.7.5Analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development of the ideas.
- RI.7.6Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how the author distinguishes his or her position from that of others.
© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.
Teacher-facing overview
Big idea: Analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text — how the major sections contribute to the whole — and determine the author's point of view, analyzing how the author distinguishes their position from others'.
Student target: “I can name the job each major section does for a text's whole argument, explain why the order is load-bearing, and trace exactly how the author distinguishes their position from others' — including the concessions and the price.”
Success criteria: I can title each section's job in my own words. · I can explain what the section ORDER contributes — and what rearranging breaks. · I can quote the fence-sentences where the author splits from each neighboring position. · I can identify the position's PRICE and say what paying it buys.
Essential question
An essay's sections are not chapters of a list — they're moves in an order that argues. How do the major sections of a text each do a job for the whole, and how does an author carve their own position out from between two louder ones?
Learning target: I can name the job each major section does for a text's whole argument, explain why the order is load-bearing, and trace exactly how the author distinguishes their position from others' — including the concessions and the price.
Success criteria
- I can title each section's job in my own words.
- I can explain what the section ORDER contributes — and what rearranging breaks.
- I can quote the fence-sentences where the author splits from each neighboring position.
- I can identify the position's PRICE and say what paying it buys.
Why this matters
RI.7.5 asks how major sections contribute to the whole, and RI.7.6 asks how an author distinguishes their position from others' — and most texts do both quietly, leaving students to guess. This essay does both in the open: six titled sections, each with a nameable job, an order the text itself declares load-bearing, and a final section that explains the architecture and dares readers to rearrange it. The position-carving is equally explicit — two fences in one paragraph, a kept piece of the opposition's case, and a price paid on the author's own side. Students who map this essay have a template for every op-ed they'll ever read: find the sections' jobs, find the fences, find the price — and check whether the order could survive shuffling.
Students should already be able to
- Claim, concession, evidence vocabulary.
- The steelman concept (from the argument lessons, ideally).
- Citing by paragraph number.
Where this shows up outside the classroom
Assessment plan
Formative — for feedback during the lesson
- Warm-up — order defended with reasons.
- Job-title check — verbs, not topics, before the ledger.
- Fence hunt — verbatim quotes, both neighbors.
Summative — the graded evidence: Exit ticket (job + fence + shuffle verdict) plus the completed ledger; the shuffled drafts and fourth position rank as extension evidence.
The passage: “What Are Zoos For?”
An original essay written for this lesson (≈700 words). The conservation cases — condor, black-footed ferret, Arabian oryx, Przewalski's horse — are documented. Reproduce freely for your classroom.
¶1 THE QUESTION AT THE GATE. Every year, more people walk through zoo gates than attend every major professional sport combined. And every year, the question at those gates gets louder: should places like this exist at all? It is the right question, and it deserves better than the two shouted answers it usually gets. This essay will argue a third position — but to earn it, we need to walk through the other two honestly first, and the order of that walk matters.
¶2 WHAT THE ABOLITIONISTS SEE. The case against zoos is not silly, and it is not new. Animals evolved for ranges measured in miles and lives measured in choices; even a good enclosure offers yards and a schedule. Critics point to stereotypy — the repetitive pacing, swaying, and circling of animals under chronic stress — as the visible bill for captivity. Elephants in particular, with their vast ranges and complex social lives, fare so poorly in ordinary enclosures that some major zoos have closed their elephant exhibits and sent the animals to sanctuaries. The abolitionist conclusion: no cage is good enough, so empty them all. Hold that thought — this essay will keep part of it.
🔒 The full text — 6 numbered paragraphs, plus the photocopy-ready handout — ships in the kit. See plans →
The task students work on
The class titles each section's JOB (not its topic), builds the architecture ledger — job, contribution to the whole, and what breaks if it moves — then maps the three positions and quotes the fence-sentences that separate the author's from each neighbor. The rearrangement test runs BEFORE reading ¶6's own answer: teams predict what position-first and evidence-first versions would sound like, then check against the essay's self-grading. Cite by ¶ throughout.
The architecture ledger — every section's job, and the cost of moving it.
| Section | Its JOB (not its topic) | What it contributes to the whole | What breaks if it moves or vanishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ¶1 — the gate | |||
| ¶2 — the abolitionists | |||
| ¶3 — the turnstile defenders | |||
| ¶4 — the ark | |||
| ¶5 — the position | |||
| ¶6 — the walk back out |
Anticipated student strategies
Job titling first because the ledger needs functions. Fence hunting second — position-carving is the second standard's core. Rearrangement last, ideally before ¶6 is discussed, so the essay's self-grading confirms rather than replaces student thinking.
- Job titling. The student renames each section by its FUNCTION (steelman, fence, receipts) rather than its topic (critics, defenders, condors).
The core RI.7.5 move — topics describe, jobs analyze. Share first and police the difference.
🔒 2 more anticipated strategies with select-and-sequence guidance are in the full lesson. See plans →
Lesson script
Collect the architectures: soften first, show responsibility, handle the objections BEFORE they're raised, ask last. Name the recognition: everyone in the room already sequences arguments strategically. Today's essay does it at full scale — and then, in its last section, turns around and explains its own blueprint.
Listen for: Instant no — the ask lands before the ground is prepared. Position-first fails at dinner tables and in essays for the same reason; hold this for the rearrangement test.
The full essay is in the workbook and the handout, sections labeled. Build the job list on the board, policing topic-vs-job hard — it's the lesson's central discipline. The six jobs, in student words: stake and promise (¶1), steelman the enemy (¶2), fire the weak ally (¶3), show receipts (¶4), plant the flag with fences and a price (¶5), explain the blueprint (¶6). Flag the two sentences that make this text special: '¶1's 'the order of that walk matters' and ¶6's 'the architecture was the argument' — the essay announces and then grades its own structure.
- Jobs, not topics — the difference IS the standard.
- The essay promises its architecture in ¶1 and audits it in ¶6.
Listen for: The weak ally is more dangerous than the enemy — the author's position dies if it's mistaken for 'zoos are fine.' Fencing off the ally is position-carving; hold it for the fence hunt.
🔒 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
- “The author is pro-zoo.” Read the fences: the author concedes confinement is harm, fires the 'kids are smiling' defense, and accepts fewer zoos and no badly-kept elephants. The position is a TEST zoos must pass, not a team jersey — 'pro-zoo' is exactly the misfiling ¶3 exists to prevent.
- “Sections are just paragraphs with titles — order is cosmetic.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “Conceding to the abolitionists weakens the essay.” — the teacher response is in the full lesson.
- “¶6 is padding — the essay already made its point.” — 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 three positions. State all three answers to the gate question, each with its ¶ and its strongest single piece of support.
🔒 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 section: its job (a verb phrase) and what it manufactures for the section after it.
🔒 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: First read: the essay straight through, no marking. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 2: Second read: title each section's JOB in your own words. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 3: Map the three positions — and the exact sentences that fence the author's off from each neighbor. Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
- Step 4: Run the rearrangement test: what breaks when sections move? Ask: “What do you notice?”, “What could you try next?”, and “How can you prove that?”
Differentiation and inclusion
Support: The all-caps section titles make the architecture visible to every reader; extend with the concession-audit and the rearrangement rewrite.
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: One section-job identification with its contribution to the whole, plus one fence-sentence quoted — where the author splits from a neighboring position.
Mastery: The student completes the task accurately and explains the strategy with limited prompting.