A statement or conclusion that answers the original question/problem.
“They thought that maybe it was a virus, and once one bee got it was a rapidly contagious virus and they were constantly getting killed off” (Ms. Cooper).|
|“The farmers take to (sic) much...” (Ms. Cooper). Level 1|
Scientific data that support the claim. The data need to be appropriate and sufficient to support the claim.
|“They’re taking these beehives, and they’re going to different states to go to different farmlands to make the bees pollinate all these different crops” (Ms. Cooper). Level 1||“Yeah, was our agricultural getting 80% of the water or 40% of the water?” (Ms. Cooper). Level 1|
A justification that connects the evidence to the claim. It shows why the data count as evidence by using appropriate and sufficient scientific principles.
|I guess that’s one of the ones that could be tested. You crush up the bees or their honey or whatever and see if the pesticide or metabolic of the pesticide is there. That one I think you can actually test. The virus that the bees are getting and the parasitic mite I would think for people who were experts, they could dissect the bee and find out (Ms. Coleman). Level 2||“So I’m thinking that it’s ground water. So even if there’s... less than normal rainfall, the fact that the aquifers haven’t refilled so that’s why there’s still drought” (Ms. Cooper). Level 1|
Recognizes and describes alternative explanations, and provides counter evidence and reasoning for why the alternative explanation is not appropriate.
|“There was the cell phone towers disoriented the bees. Of course there was no link, at least in the four articles we had, there’s no link there” (Ms. Coleman). Level 1||“The other person goes ‘Hey, it’s all because of Colorado rivers’ and the other is like ‘Nooo, the urbans aren’t cutting back, the farmers need to cut back’” (Ms. Coleman). Level 1|