To answer this question correctly, students must first explain why a newspaper account alone is not conclusive evidence about the role of workers in the 1877 railroad strike in Columbus. They then must determine whether each of three documents could be used to corroborate the newspaper account.
Level: Proficient
Question 1
Student explains that the newspaper article might not provide enough evidence to understand the role of workers in the Columbus violence because it is a second-hand account published hundreds of miles away.
Question 2
a. Student rejects the source and explains that it contradicts the information from the D.C. newspaper account.
b. Student rejects the source and explains that information about the riots in St. Louis is not directly relevant to understanding workers’ actions in Columbus.
c. Student explains how the source would support the newspaper account that the workers were not responsible for the violence in Columbus.
Level: Emergent
Question 1
Student shows some understanding of the limits of using the article to determine the role of workers in the Columbus violence but does not provide a full explanation.
Question 2
a. Student rejects the editorial but provides only a partial explanation of the problems of using it to support the D.C. newspaper account.
b. Student rejects the source but provides only a partial explanation of why it does not support the D.C. newspaper account.
c. Student correctly notes that it would support the D.C. newspaper account but provides only a partial explanation of why.
Level: Basic
Question 1
Student does not identify the limitations of using the newspaper article to understand the role of workers in the Columbus violence.
Question 2
a. Student does not reject the source or provides an unclear explanation.
b. Student does not reject the source or provides an unclear explanation.
c. Student rejects the source or provides an unclear explanation.
