Question

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME I THINK THE ANSWER IS BUT IM NOT 100% SURE BUT I KNOW THE ANSWER ISNT B. WILL GIVE 30 POINTS PLUS BRAINLIEST OF CORRECT
Read the rough draft of a student’s conclusion to an argumentative editorial.

(1) Year-round schooling would help student achievement. (2) Not so much information would have to be crammed into nine months. (3) Furthermore, the elimination of long breaks, particularly summer break, would significantly reduce "learning loss” and the additional time wasted at the beginning of each academic year to reteach previously learned material. (4) It is clear that year-round schooling helps students learn and retain more. (5) The United States is not the only country to experiment with a year-round school schedule. (6) Although many still claim that evidence about year-round school and its link to higher achievement is inconclusive, these people need to open their eyes and see that students in these schools consistently score higher on certain assessments than students who attend schools with traditional nine-month calendars. (7) It is about time that we replaced our outdated and inefficient school calendars.

Which revision of sentence 2 best adds information that clarifies the reason offered by the writer?

A. Not so much information would have to be crammed into nine months, which is way better for students because they would not be as rushed.

B. Not so much information would have to be crammed into nine months, and class material could be covered at a more even and logical pace.

C. Not so much information would have to be crammed into nine months, which allows students far more time to achieve academic success.

D. Not so much information would have to be crammed into nine months, and this is clearly a much better option for both students and teachers.

Answer 1

Answer:

I THINK the answer is C, but I would try waiting for some other responses, if this question is very important.

Explanation:

The overall message in the conclusion seems to be would help students learn more.

Why I don't think option A is it:

"which is way better for students because they would not be as rushed."

To me, this is the second best. A rushed student could obviously hurt the learning, but it doesn't go out and directly state it. If the underlying goal is to prove that it's better because they will learn better, this doesn't necessarily push that agenda.

Why I don't think option B is it:

"class material could be covered at a more even and logical pace."

Although everyone loves even and logical paces, this doesn't go out and say better learning either. Who knows, maybe we learn best during unlogical and uneven pacing.

Why I don't think option D is it:

"this is clearly a much better option for both students and teachers"

Basically the same thing I've said 2 times, it doesn't push the agenda that it will improve learning.

Best of luck, I hate the year-round topic. It is annoying, overused and uninteresting.