W. James Popham defines a standardized test as a “test that is administered, scored, and interpreted in a standard, predetermined manner.” Throughout high school, students take standardized tests and put those results on display for colleges to look at. However, colleges have stopped looking at big tests, such as the SAT or the ACT, when deciding if they want to accept a student. This is causing people to argue over whether this is the correct choice. Both “Standardized Test Scores are Useful Predictors of Academic Success in College” by Priscilla Rodriguez and “Standardized Test Scores are Not Useful Predictors of Academic Success in College” by Robert Schaeffer share their viewpoint on whether colleges should consider standardized testing
…show more content…
Rodriguez writes reasoning that shows readers how important her evidence is. One example of this would be when she’s explaining that “students want to take the SAT” because they want to “find out how they did” (Rodriguez 1). She includes solid reasoning, which allows the reader to see her perspective. Including strong reasoning stops the reader from interpreting it however they want. When the reader interprets evidence however they want, they tend to miss the main ideas. This is seen in Schaeffer’s reasoning. He tries to include reasoning when he says that “applicants” aren’t “advantaged nor disadvantaged” when they submit their test scores (Schaeffer 1). The reasoning is weak, and there isn’t a lot. Unlike in the first article, the reader can interpret the author's reasoning however they want. If the reasoning was more developed and was seen more frequently, his argument would be more supported. Another aspect of a good argument is evidence. Rodriguez has strong evidence that convinces readers of her claim, colleges should look at high school test scores, unlike Schaeffer’s basic evidence. Rodriguez contains lots of evidence throughout her
Rodriguez writes reasoning that shows readers how important her evidence is. One example of this would be when she’s explaining that “students want to take the SAT” because they want to “find out how they did” (Rodriguez 1). She includes solid reasoning, which allows the reader to see her perspective. Including strong reasoning stops the reader from interpreting it however they want. When the reader interprets evidence however they want, they tend to miss the main ideas. This is seen in Schaeffer’s reasoning. He tries to include reasoning when he says that “applicants” aren’t “advantaged nor disadvantaged” when they submit their test scores (Schaeffer 1). The reasoning is weak, and there isn’t a lot. Unlike in the first article, the reader can interpret the author's reasoning however they want. If the reasoning was more developed and was seen more frequently, his argument would be more supported. Another aspect of a good argument is evidence. Rodriguez has strong evidence that convinces readers of her claim, colleges should look at high school test scores, unlike Schaeffer’s basic evidence. Rodriguez contains lots of evidence throughout her