It is a mistake to choose the higher level of reading, when you have been given the option of the lower lexile and you donʻt understand the higher level, but you chose it because it seems shorter.
I wanted you to state the objections and counter arguments in your own words and then support it with explicit text and paragraph numbers, however, if you only gave the evidence and paragraph number, I accepted it if it made sense. Maybe you think yours made sense and I didnʻt get it. After you read the following exemplars, recheck your work, and then if you can articulate an intelligent argument, see me.
This was a 3 because she stated the objections clearly, and by her evidence choices, I could see she correctly inferred that they were valid counterarguments:
The two objections the Soviets made against the declaration is in paragraph 6 it says, ” The changes the Soviets want to make to Article 20 are obviously meant to limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”Also in paragraph 7 it says, “The changes the Soviets want to make to Article 22 introduce new elements into the article without improving it. .” The arguments that Roosevelt made against this is in paragraph 6, it says ” We have debated warmongering and related subjects in this Assembly over the past two years. We know all too well from these debates that words like these are likely to be abused.” Then the other argument that Roosevelt made is in paragraph 7 it says, ” Once again, it introduces the word and idea of “discrimination.” As was repeatedly pointed out in committee, the question of discrimination is comprehensively covered in Article 2 of the Declaration.” These arguments and agreements brought together the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
Howʻs this for a fabulous opening sentence:
Turmoil erupts as the Soviet Union and the United Nations come together to discuss the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This student showed his deep understanding that the Soviets just did not buy the whole idea of a free and equal world, and he could handle the lexile level:
One way that the Soviets objected was on paragraph 9 it says ” The same exact text was rejected in committee. It was rejected by a vote of 6 in favor and 26 against. I am sure we are all agreed that the Declaration must be approved by this Assembly at this session. It has after all been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time”. Another way that the Soviets objected was on paragraph 10 it says “Still, it cannot be accepted without limitation. For example, my government would limit this right in the interest of public order and the general welfare. It would not consider that the exclusion from public employment of persons holding subversive political beliefs would in any way violate this right. “. Eleanor Roosevelt argued in many ways against the objections. One way that she argued was on paragraph 12 it says “In giving our approval to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty. This is not an international agreement. It is not and does not mean to be a statement of law or legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms”. Another way that Eleanor Roosevelt argued was on paragraph 16 it said “The central fact is that man is fundamentally a moral being. That the light we have is imperfect does not matter so long as we are always trying to improve it. That we are equal in sharing the moral freedom that distinguishes us as men. Man’s status makes each individual an end in himself”. One more way Eleanor Roosevelt argued was on paragraph 20 it says “Let it be held as a standard of conduct for all. Let us, as members of the United Nations, with full knowledge of our own shortcomings and imperfections, join our effort to live up to this high standard in good faith”. The way that Eleanor Rosevelt argued was starting with a the big idea and then she back that up with supporting details and reason an examples.
This student used an original structure. She presented her objection and counterargument together, and found one piece of strong text evidence that served as evidence for both:
1. One objective the Soviets had were to take away peoples right to freely speak. Eleanor Roosevelt had countered it by saying that people should be able to speak something without fear. PARAGRAPH 8, ” Some of the changes the Soviets want to make are meant to take away people’s rights. They want to take away a person’s right to speak freely. People should be able to say something unpopular without fear. This is clear. These changes would allow countries to take away the right of a person to speak their mind. Countries would be able to do this whenever they want to. That is what these changes are about. These changes would allow states to take away rights without violating the Declaration. These changes would bring new words into the Declaration. These words include “fascism.” We have talked with people who want to stir up war for the last two years now. We know from these talks that these words will likely be used in very bad ways. ” 2. Also, the Soviets changes they would bring the idea/world of ” discrimination”. Eleanor R. stated that doing what the Soviets object would weaken the foundation and the truth of the declaration. PARAGRAPH 9,” Let’s take the words the Soviet member of the United Nations said tonight. They are a good example of why we should not allow these changes. The changes the Soviets want to make bring new ideas into the Declaration. But they do not improve it. Once again, the changes introduce the word and idea of “discrimination.” The question of discrimination is already covered in the Declaration. We pointed this out again and again. Stating it now is not necessary. Doing so weakens the truths at the foundation of this Declaration. These changes are nothing new. They have already attempted to put them into pretty much every part of the Declaration. These changes would change the Declaration into a document that makes requirements of governments. These changes would completely change what the Declaration is meant to be. It is meant to be a statement of principles. It is meant to serve as a guide for achieving human rights for all people.”
A simply stated, effective answer. If you are looking for an easy read, read this one:
The first objection the Soviets made was they wanted group rights. In p 5 it says,” As stated in the changes proposed by the Soviets, this provision clearly states “group” rights. It does not say “individual” rights.” But Eleanor Roosevelt wanted individual rights. I know this because in p 6 it says, “The changes the Soviets want to make to Article 20 are obviously meant to limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression. ” The second objection the Soviets made was they were trying to introduce discrimination. In p 7 it says. ” Once again, it introduces the word and idea of “discrimination.” However Eleanor Roosevelt felt that discrimination should not be introduced. In p 7 it says ” It would change the Declaration into a document that states obligations on states. It would thereby alter completely its character as a statement of principles. It is meant to serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations.”
