How does the author in Source 1 establish a formal tone in discussing prefabricated houses?

• By using straightforward and factual language to explain the construction process.

• Through the use of rhetorical questions that engage the reader directly.

• By incorporating personal anecdotes to make the topic more relatable.
  
  

• Through complex sentence structures that reflect technical jargon.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.7

How does the syntax in Source 2 contribute to the portrayal of the Goza family’s lifestyle?

• Short, direct sentences create a fast-paced, energetic tone that matches their nomadic life.

• Long, descriptive sentences create a reflective tone that highlights the complexity of their lifestyle.

• Repeated use of rhetorical questions helps emphasize the uncertainty of their lifestyle.

• The use of detailed lists makes the Goza family’s lifestyle seem overly complicated.

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.7

How does the diction in Source 3 contribute to the author’s argument about the appeal of tiny houses?

• The use of casual, conversational language creates a sense of accessibility and familiarity.

• The use of formal, technical terms enhances the credibility of the argument about tiny homes.

• The use of emotionally charged words emphasizes the negative aspects of traditional housing.
  
  

• The use of technical jargon makes the tiny house movement seem overly complex and unappealing.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

In Source 1, how does the sentence structure in the description of prefab houses influence the reader's understanding of these homes?

• Short, simple sentences emphasize the practicality and efficiency of prefab houses.

• Long, flowing sentences describe prefab houses as luxurious and sophisticated.

• Complex sentence structures highlight the intricacy and uniqueness of prefab designs.

• Repetitive sentence structures stress the negative aspects of traditional housing.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.7

What is the main argument of Source 1 regarding the benefits of prefabricated houses?

• Prefabricated houses are more cost-effective and environmentally friendly than traditional houses.

• Prefabricated houses are more customizable and flexible than traditional homes.

• Prefabricated houses are faster to build but less durable than traditional houses.

• Prefabricated houses offer fewer amenities and are unsuitable for long-term living.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

How does Source 2 develop the argument that RV living offers a unique way of life?

• By focusing on the Gozas’ freedom to travel and adapt to different environments.

• By emphasizing the comfort and luxury of RV living compared to traditional homes.

• By discussing the challenges and hardships of living in an RV full-time.

• By presenting RV living as the most practical solution for people seeking more space.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

How does Source 3 argue in favor of tiny homes as an alternative to traditional housing?

• By discussing how tiny homes are built with sustainable materials and reduce environmental waste.

• By highlighting the cost-effectiveness and mobility of tiny homes.

• By presenting the historical context of small housing and how it is becoming more popular.

• By comparing the benefits of tiny homes to those of traditional houses in terms of space and comfort.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

How do Source 1 and Source 3 differ in their argument about the sustainability of nontraditional housing?

• Source 1 argues that prefabricated homes are sustainable because they use fewer materials and generate less waste, while Source 3 focuses on sustainability through the use of salvaged materials in tiny homes.

• Source 1 focuses on the environmental benefits of traditional houses, while Source 3 suggests that tiny homes are not sustainable at all.

• Source 1 claims that nontraditional housing like RVs and tiny homes are not sustainable, while Source 3 argues for their positive environmental impact.

• Source 1 presents traditional homes as more sustainable, while Source 3 stresses that tiny homes are environmentally damaging due to the materials used.

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

 How do the central ideas of customization in Source 1 and Source 3 compare?

• Both sources emphasize how customization allows for a personalized living experience, but Source 1 highlights prefab homes, while Source 3 focuses on tiny homes.

• Both sources argue that customization is only available in traditional housing, making prefab homes and tiny homes less flexible.

• Source 1 stresses the flexibility of customizing prefabricated homes, while Source 3 discusses how tiny homes limit customization options.

• Source 1 and Source 3 both suggest that customization is unnecessary for a good living experience in either prefab or tiny houses.

Tags

CCSS.RI.6.7

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.5

CCSS.RL.8.7

How do the authors in Source 1 and Source 2 approach the concept of space efficiency in their arguments?

• Source 1 highlights how prefab homes are designed for efficient use of space, while Source 2 emphasizes the compact nature of RVs for maximum efficiency.

• Both sources argue that traditional houses use space inefficiently, but Source 1 focuses on small houses, and Source 2 focuses on RVs.

• Source 1 criticizes RVs for lacking space efficiency, while Source 2 suggests traditional homes are the only option for those needing more room.

• Source 1 and Source 2 both emphasize how larger homes are more space-efficient, ignoring smaller, nontraditional housing.

Tags

CCSS.RI.7.7

CCSS.RI.8.7

CCSS.RL.6.9

CCSS.RL.7.7

CCSS.RL.8.7