Analyze arguments and use evidence (Trait 1)

Text 1 — A Four-Day Week Is Good for Everyone (letter to the editor from a Ridgeview school board member)

(1) Our district faces a budget gap, and our teachers are exhausted. A four-day school week would solve both problems at once. Students would attend Monday through Thursday, with slightly longer days, and Fridays would be free.

(2) I recently spoke with a teacher in Carver County, which switched to a four-day week three years ago. She told me she has never been happier and that her students seem more rested. If it works in Carver County, it will work here.

(3) Think of the savings. With one less day of buses running, heating buildings and serving lunch, the district will save a great deal of money. Every parent I have talked to at the grocery store loves the idea of a long weekend with their children.

(4) Some people worry that students will learn less. That is simply not true. Kids are tired by Friday anyway, and nobody learns anything on a Friday afternoon. Those who oppose this plan are stuck in the past. It is time for Ridgeview to join the future.

Text 2 — Look at the Whole Picture Before Cutting Fridays (op-ed by Dr. Maya Ellison, a fictional education researcher at a state policy center)

(5) A shorter school week sounds appealing, and in some rural districts it has helped attract teachers. But before Ridgeview makes this change, families deserve to see the full evidence.

(6) Savings are smaller than many people expect. A review of districts that adopted four-day weeks found that they cut their total budgets by an average of only 1 to 2 percent. The reason is simple: teacher salaries, the largest expense, do not change when a day is removed. For Ridgeview, whose yearly budget is about 40 million dollars, that would mean savings of roughly 400,000 to 800,000 dollars. That is helpful, but it is not enough to close the district's reported 3 million dollar gap.

(7) Learning is also at stake. A multi-state study that followed students in four-day districts for several years found that their reading and math scores grew more slowly than those of similar students on five-day schedules. The gap was small in the first year but widened over time. Longer school days did not make up the difference, in part because younger children struggle to stay focused late in the afternoon.

(8) Finally, a free Friday is not free for every family. Parents who work on Fridays would need to find and pay for childcare. In a survey of Ridgeview parents conducted by the district last spring, 41 percent said they would have "serious difficulty" arranging Friday care.

(9) Teachers' well-being matters, and the district should address it. But a decision this large should rest on evidence from many schools, not on one district's story.

Text 1 — A Four-Day Week Is Good for Everyone (letter to the editor from a Ridgeview school board member)

(1) Our district faces a budget gap, and our teachers are exhausted. A four-day school week would solve both problems at once. Students would attend Monday through Thursday, with slightly longer days, and Fridays would be free.

(2) I recently spoke with a teacher in Carver County, which switched to a four-day week three years ago. She told me she has never been happier and that her students seem more rested. If it works in Carver County, it will work here.

(3) Think of the savings. With one less day of buses running, heating buildings and serving lunch, the district will save a great deal of money. Every parent I have talked to at the grocery store loves the idea of a long weekend with their children.

(4) Some people worry that students will learn less. That is simply not true. Kids are tired by Friday anyway, and nobody learns anything on a Friday afternoon. Those who oppose this plan are stuck in the past. It is time for Ridgeview to join the future.

Text 2 — Look at the Whole Picture Before Cutting Fridays (op-ed by Dr. Maya Ellison, a fictional education researcher at a state policy center)

(5) A shorter school week sounds appealing, and in some rural districts it has helped attract teachers. But before Ridgeview makes this change, families deserve to see the full evidence.

(6) Savings are smaller than many people expect. A review of districts that adopted four-day weeks found that they cut their total budgets by an average of only 1 to 2 percent. The reason is simple: teacher salaries, the largest expense, do not change when a day is removed. For Ridgeview, whose yearly budget is about 40 million dollars, that would mean savings of roughly 400,000 to 800,000 dollars. That is helpful, but it is not enough to close the district's reported 3 million dollar gap.

(7) Learning is also at stake. A multi-state study that followed students in four-day districts for several years found that their reading and math scores grew more slowly than those of similar students on five-day schedules. The gap was small in the first year but widened over time. Longer school days did not make up the difference, in part because younger children struggle to stay focused late in the afternoon.

(8) Finally, a free Friday is not free for every family. Parents who work on Fridays would need to find and pay for childcare. In a survey of Ridgeview parents conducted by the district last spring, 41 percent said they would have "serious difficulty" arranging Friday care.

(9) Teachers' well-being matters, and the district should address it. But a decision this large should rest on evidence from many schools, not on one district's story.

Text 1 — A Ban Would Hurt Working People (op-ed by Tom Brannigan, owner of a fictional Oak Hollow landscaping company)

(1) The town council wants to ban gas-powered leaf blowers starting next year. As someone who has run a landscaping business here for 22 years, I can tell you this ban would be a disaster.

(2) My crew of six depends on gas blowers. Battery blowers are weak toys. I tried one at a trade show, and it barely moved a pile of wet leaves. If the ban passes, we will have two choices: buy equipment that does not work or go back to rakes and triple our prices.

(3) A friend who runs a lawn service in another state told me that half the landscapers in his town went out of business after a similar ban. Is that what the council wants for Oak Hollow?

(4) The people pushing this ban are mostly retirees who have nothing better to do than complain about noise. Hardworking families should not lose their jobs so that a few people can enjoy a quiet morning.

Text 2 — Quieter, Cleaner Yards Are Within Reach (op-ed by Grace Okafor, a fictional public health nurse in Oak Hollow)

(5) Gas-powered leaf blowers create two serious problems: noise and air pollution. A phased ban, with help for local businesses, would solve both.

(6) Last fall, the town's environmental office measured blower noise at 50 feet. Gas models registered 70 to 75 decibels; battery models registered 58 to 65. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10-decibel drop sounds roughly half as loud to the human ear.

(7) Small gas engines also pollute heavily. The state air-quality board reports that running a commercial gas blower for one hour releases about as much smog-forming pollution as driving a typical car for several hundred miles. Workers who stand next to these engines all day breathe the most exhaust.

(8) Battery equipment has improved. Two Oak Hollow schools switched their grounds crews to battery blowers last year, and the crew supervisor reported that the work took about the same amount of time. Neighboring Ridgeway passed a similar ban in 2021; its business license records show that the number of landscaping companies there grew from 14 to 16 since then.

(9) The proposal gives businesses two years to switch and offers rebates of up to 40 percent on new battery equipment. That is a fair way to protect both workers' health and their livelihoods.

Text 1 — Turf Will Keep Our Fields Open (report summary by Dana Whitfield, fictional director of the Linwood Parks Department)

(1) Linwood's three grass ball fields at Millstone Park cannot keep up with demand. I recommend replacing them with artificial turf next spring.

(2) Our department's field logs show that, over the past five years, rain and mud closed the grass fields an average of 61 days per year. During those closures, 38 youth and adult teams had games canceled or moved out of town. Turf fields drain within an hour of a storm, and the manufacturer we are considering rates its surface as playable about 340 days a year.

(3) Turf would also lower our yearly costs. Mowing, watering, fertilizing and reseeding the grass fields cost the department 48,000 dollars last year. The manufacturer estimates that turf maintenance (brushing, cleaning and adding rubber fill) would cost about 12,000 dollars a year.

(4) Installation will cost 1.4 million dollars. However, the state has already awarded Linwood a 900,000 dollar recreation grant that can be used only for field improvements. The remaining 500,000 dollars would come from the parks capital fund, which voters approved in 2022 for this kind of project.

(5) Some residents worry about heat. Turf surfaces do get hotter than grass on sunny days. To address this, the plan includes shade structures for the team benches and a policy, used by many school districts, of checking surface temperature before summer games.

Text 2 — Keep Millstone Park Green (letter to the editor from Rick Paulsen, a Linwood parent)

(6) My daughter played a soccer game on a turf field in another town last July. She came home with red marks on her legs and said the field felt like a frying pan. That tells me everything I need to know about artificial turf.

(7) Everyone knows plastic grass is full of chemicals. Why would we let our kids roll around on it? The parks department says turf is safe, but of course the people selling it would say that.

(8) The cost is also outrageous. Turf has to be replaced after about ten years, and nobody at city hall wants to talk about that bill.

(9) If we cover these fields in plastic today, what is next? Soon the city will pave over every tree in Millstone Park. Linwood has always been a green town, and real families want real grass. Let's keep it that way.

Text 1 — A Four-Day Week Is Good for Everyone (letter to the editor from a Ridgeview school board member)

(1) Our district faces a budget gap, and our teachers are exhausted. A four-day school week would solve both problems at once. Students would attend Monday through Thursday, with slightly longer days, and Fridays would be free.

(2) I recently spoke with a teacher in Carver County, which switched to a four-day week three years ago. She told me she has never been happier and that her students seem more rested. If it works in Carver County, it will work here.

(3) Think of the savings. With one less day of buses running, heating buildings and serving lunch, the district will save a great deal of money. Every parent I have talked to at the grocery store loves the idea of a long weekend with their children.

(4) Some people worry that students will learn less. That is simply not true. Kids are tired by Friday anyway, and nobody learns anything on a Friday afternoon. Those who oppose this plan are stuck in the past. It is time for Ridgeview to join the future.

Text 2 — Look at the Whole Picture Before Cutting Fridays (op-ed by Dr. Maya Ellison, a fictional education researcher at a state policy center)

(5) A shorter school week sounds appealing, and in some rural districts it has helped attract teachers. But before Ridgeview makes this change, families deserve to see the full evidence.

(6) Savings are smaller than many people expect. A review of districts that adopted four-day weeks found that they cut their total budgets by an average of only 1 to 2 percent. The reason is simple: teacher salaries, the largest expense, do not change when a day is removed. For Ridgeview, whose yearly budget is about 40 million dollars, that would mean savings of roughly 400,000 to 800,000 dollars. That is helpful, but it is not enough to close the district's reported 3 million dollar gap.

(7) Learning is also at stake. A multi-state study that followed students in four-day districts for several years found that their reading and math scores grew more slowly than those of similar students on five-day schedules. The gap was small in the first year but widened over time. Longer school days did not make up the difference, in part because younger children struggle to stay focused late in the afternoon.

(8) Finally, a free Friday is not free for every family. Parents who work on Fridays would need to find and pay for childcare. In a survey of Ridgeview parents conducted by the district last spring, 41 percent said they would have "serious difficulty" arranging Friday care.

(9) Teachers' well-being matters, and the district should address it. But a decision this large should rest on evidence from many schools, not on one district's story.

Text 1 — Eighteen Saves Lives (testimony to the state legislature by Alan Brooks, fictional director of the State Office of Traffic Safety)

(1) Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for American teenagers. In our state last year, drivers aged 16 and 17 made up 4 percent of licensed drivers but were involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes, according to our office's crash records.

(2) Research helps explain why. The parts of the brain that control impulses and judge risk keep developing into a person's mid-twenties. Experience matters too: a driver's crash risk is highest in the first months after getting a license. Delaying licenses until 18 means new drivers begin that dangerous period with more maturity.

(3) We have already seen what stronger rules can do. When our state added nighttime driving limits for 16-year-olds in 2015, fatal crashes involving those drivers fell by 22 percent over the next five years, while fatal crashes among other age groups stayed roughly level.

(4) I understand that many families, especially in rural areas, depend on teen drivers. That is why this proposal includes a hardship permit for 16- and 17-year-olds who must drive to a job or to school and have no other transportation. Raising the age with this exception would save lives without stranding families.

Text 2 — Don't Punish Responsible Teens (letter to the editor from Walt Hendricks, the fictional owner of a rural farm supply store)

(5) I run a farm supply store, and half of my weekend staff are 16 or 17 years old. If the state raises the driving age, I will lose my best workers, and those young people will lose their paychecks.

(6) My own son started driving at 16 and has never had so much as a parking ticket. Most teens I know are careful drivers. The problem is a few reckless kids, not an entire age group.

(7) And where will this end? If lawmakers raise the age to 18 today, they will raise it to 21 next year, and soon nobody under 25 will be allowed behind the wheel.

(8) Instead of taking away licenses, the state should require more hours of driver's education. Teens who practice more become better drivers. Lawmakers should trust parents to decide when their children are ready.

Text 1 — Eighteen Saves Lives (testimony to the state legislature by Alan Brooks, fictional director of the State Office of Traffic Safety)

(1) Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for American teenagers. In our state last year, drivers aged 16 and 17 made up 4 percent of licensed drivers but were involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes, according to our office's crash records.

(2) Research helps explain why. The parts of the brain that control impulses and judge risk keep developing into a person's mid-twenties. Experience matters too: a driver's crash risk is highest in the first months after getting a license. Delaying licenses until 18 means new drivers begin that dangerous period with more maturity.

(3) We have already seen what stronger rules can do. When our state added nighttime driving limits for 16-year-olds in 2015, fatal crashes involving those drivers fell by 22 percent over the next five years, while fatal crashes among other age groups stayed roughly level.

(4) I understand that many families, especially in rural areas, depend on teen drivers. That is why this proposal includes a hardship permit for 16- and 17-year-olds who must drive to a job or to school and have no other transportation. Raising the age with this exception would save lives without stranding families.

Text 2 — Don't Punish Responsible Teens (letter to the editor from Walt Hendricks, the fictional owner of a rural farm supply store)

(5) I run a farm supply store, and half of my weekend staff are 16 or 17 years old. If the state raises the driving age, I will lose my best workers, and those young people will lose their paychecks.

(6) My own son started driving at 16 and has never had so much as a parking ticket. Most teens I know are careful drivers. The problem is a few reckless kids, not an entire age group.

(7) And where will this end? If lawmakers raise the age to 18 today, they will raise it to 21 next year, and soon nobody under 25 will be allowed behind the wheel.

(8) Instead of taking away licenses, the state should require more hours of driver's education. Teens who practice more become better drivers. Lawmakers should trust parents to decide when their children are ready.

Text 1 — Eighteen Saves Lives (testimony to the state legislature by Alan Brooks, fictional director of the State Office of Traffic Safety)

(1) Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for American teenagers. In our state last year, drivers aged 16 and 17 made up 4 percent of licensed drivers but were involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes, according to our office's crash records.

(2) Research helps explain why. The parts of the brain that control impulses and judge risk keep developing into a person's mid-twenties. Experience matters too: a driver's crash risk is highest in the first months after getting a license. Delaying licenses until 18 means new drivers begin that dangerous period with more maturity.

(3) We have already seen what stronger rules can do. When our state added nighttime driving limits for 16-year-olds in 2015, fatal crashes involving those drivers fell by 22 percent over the next five years, while fatal crashes among other age groups stayed roughly level.

(4) I understand that many families, especially in rural areas, depend on teen drivers. That is why this proposal includes a hardship permit for 16- and 17-year-olds who must drive to a job or to school and have no other transportation. Raising the age with this exception would save lives without stranding families.

Text 2 — Don't Punish Responsible Teens (letter to the editor from Walt Hendricks, the fictional owner of a rural farm supply store)

(5) I run a farm supply store, and half of my weekend staff are 16 or 17 years old. If the state raises the driving age, I will lose my best workers, and those young people will lose their paychecks.

(6) My own son started driving at 16 and has never had so much as a parking ticket. Most teens I know are careful drivers. The problem is a few reckless kids, not an entire age group.

(7) And where will this end? If lawmakers raise the age to 18 today, they will raise it to 21 next year, and soon nobody under 25 will be allowed behind the wheel.

(8) Instead of taking away licenses, the state should require more hours of driver's education. Teens who practice more become better drivers. Lawmakers should trust parents to decide when their children are ready.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.

Text 1 — A Ban Would Hurt Working People (op-ed by Tom Brannigan, owner of a fictional Oak Hollow landscaping company)

(1) The town council wants to ban gas-powered leaf blowers starting next year. As someone who has run a landscaping business here for 22 years, I can tell you this ban would be a disaster.

(2) My crew of six depends on gas blowers. Battery blowers are weak toys. I tried one at a trade show, and it barely moved a pile of wet leaves. If the ban passes, we will have two choices: buy equipment that does not work or go back to rakes and triple our prices.

(3) A friend who runs a lawn service in another state told me that half the landscapers in his town went out of business after a similar ban. Is that what the council wants for Oak Hollow?

(4) The people pushing this ban are mostly retirees who have nothing better to do than complain about noise. Hardworking families should not lose their jobs so that a few people can enjoy a quiet morning.

Text 2 — Quieter, Cleaner Yards Are Within Reach (op-ed by Grace Okafor, a fictional public health nurse in Oak Hollow)

(5) Gas-powered leaf blowers create two serious problems: noise and air pollution. A phased ban, with help for local businesses, would solve both.

(6) Last fall, the town's environmental office measured blower noise at 50 feet. Gas models registered 70 to 75 decibels; battery models registered 58 to 65. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10-decibel drop sounds roughly half as loud to the human ear.

(7) Small gas engines also pollute heavily. The state air-quality board reports that running a commercial gas blower for one hour releases about as much smog-forming pollution as driving a typical car for several hundred miles. Workers who stand next to these engines all day breathe the most exhaust.

(8) Battery equipment has improved. Two Oak Hollow schools switched their grounds crews to battery blowers last year, and the crew supervisor reported that the work took about the same amount of time. Neighboring Ridgeway passed a similar ban in 2021; its business license records show that the number of landscaping companies there grew from 14 to 16 since then.

(9) The proposal gives businesses two years to switch and offers rebates of up to 40 percent on new battery equipment. That is a fair way to protect both workers' health and their livelihoods.

Text 1 — Turf Will Keep Our Fields Open (report summary by Dana Whitfield, fictional director of the Linwood Parks Department)

(1) Linwood's three grass ball fields at Millstone Park cannot keep up with demand. I recommend replacing them with artificial turf next spring.

(2) Our department's field logs show that, over the past five years, rain and mud closed the grass fields an average of 61 days per year. During those closures, 38 youth and adult teams had games canceled or moved out of town. Turf fields drain within an hour of a storm, and the manufacturer we are considering rates its surface as playable about 340 days a year.

(3) Turf would also lower our yearly costs. Mowing, watering, fertilizing and reseeding the grass fields cost the department 48,000 dollars last year. The manufacturer estimates that turf maintenance (brushing, cleaning and adding rubber fill) would cost about 12,000 dollars a year.

(4) Installation will cost 1.4 million dollars. However, the state has already awarded Linwood a 900,000 dollar recreation grant that can be used only for field improvements. The remaining 500,000 dollars would come from the parks capital fund, which voters approved in 2022 for this kind of project.

(5) Some residents worry about heat. Turf surfaces do get hotter than grass on sunny days. To address this, the plan includes shade structures for the team benches and a policy, used by many school districts, of checking surface temperature before summer games.

Text 2 — Keep Millstone Park Green (letter to the editor from Rick Paulsen, a Linwood parent)

(6) My daughter played a soccer game on a turf field in another town last July. She came home with red marks on her legs and said the field felt like a frying pan. That tells me everything I need to know about artificial turf.

(7) Everyone knows plastic grass is full of chemicals. Why would we let our kids roll around on it? The parks department says turf is safe, but of course the people selling it would say that.

(8) The cost is also outrageous. Turf has to be replaced after about ten years, and nobody at city hall wants to talk about that bill.

(9) If we cover these fields in plastic today, what is next? Soon the city will pave over every tree in Millstone Park. Linwood has always been a green town, and real families want real grass. Let's keep it that way.

Text 1 — Turf Will Keep Our Fields Open (report summary by Dana Whitfield, fictional director of the Linwood Parks Department)

(1) Linwood's three grass ball fields at Millstone Park cannot keep up with demand. I recommend replacing them with artificial turf next spring.

(2) Our department's field logs show that, over the past five years, rain and mud closed the grass fields an average of 61 days per year. During those closures, 38 youth and adult teams had games canceled or moved out of town. Turf fields drain within an hour of a storm, and the manufacturer we are considering rates its surface as playable about 340 days a year.

(3) Turf would also lower our yearly costs. Mowing, watering, fertilizing and reseeding the grass fields cost the department 48,000 dollars last year. The manufacturer estimates that turf maintenance (brushing, cleaning and adding rubber fill) would cost about 12,000 dollars a year.

(4) Installation will cost 1.4 million dollars. However, the state has already awarded Linwood a 900,000 dollar recreation grant that can be used only for field improvements. The remaining 500,000 dollars would come from the parks capital fund, which voters approved in 2022 for this kind of project.

(5) Some residents worry about heat. Turf surfaces do get hotter than grass on sunny days. To address this, the plan includes shade structures for the team benches and a policy, used by many school districts, of checking surface temperature before summer games.

Text 2 — Keep Millstone Park Green (letter to the editor from Rick Paulsen, a Linwood parent)

(6) My daughter played a soccer game on a turf field in another town last July. She came home with red marks on her legs and said the field felt like a frying pan. That tells me everything I need to know about artificial turf.

(7) Everyone knows plastic grass is full of chemicals. Why would we let our kids roll around on it? The parks department says turf is safe, but of course the people selling it would say that.

(8) The cost is also outrageous. Turf has to be replaced after about ten years, and nobody at city hall wants to talk about that bill.

(9) If we cover these fields in plastic today, what is next? Soon the city will pave over every tree in Millstone Park. Linwood has always been a green town, and real families want real grass. Let's keep it that way.

Text 1 — A Ban Would Hurt Working People (op-ed by Tom Brannigan, owner of a fictional Oak Hollow landscaping company)

(1) The town council wants to ban gas-powered leaf blowers starting next year. As someone who has run a landscaping business here for 22 years, I can tell you this ban would be a disaster.

(2) My crew of six depends on gas blowers. Battery blowers are weak toys. I tried one at a trade show, and it barely moved a pile of wet leaves. If the ban passes, we will have two choices: buy equipment that does not work or go back to rakes and triple our prices.

(3) A friend who runs a lawn service in another state told me that half the landscapers in his town went out of business after a similar ban. Is that what the council wants for Oak Hollow?

(4) The people pushing this ban are mostly retirees who have nothing better to do than complain about noise. Hardworking families should not lose their jobs so that a few people can enjoy a quiet morning.

Text 2 — Quieter, Cleaner Yards Are Within Reach (op-ed by Grace Okafor, a fictional public health nurse in Oak Hollow)

(5) Gas-powered leaf blowers create two serious problems: noise and air pollution. A phased ban, with help for local businesses, would solve both.

(6) Last fall, the town's environmental office measured blower noise at 50 feet. Gas models registered 70 to 75 decibels; battery models registered 58 to 65. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10-decibel drop sounds roughly half as loud to the human ear.

(7) Small gas engines also pollute heavily. The state air-quality board reports that running a commercial gas blower for one hour releases about as much smog-forming pollution as driving a typical car for several hundred miles. Workers who stand next to these engines all day breathe the most exhaust.

(8) Battery equipment has improved. Two Oak Hollow schools switched their grounds crews to battery blowers last year, and the crew supervisor reported that the work took about the same amount of time. Neighboring Ridgeway passed a similar ban in 2021; its business license records show that the number of landscaping companies there grew from 14 to 16 since then.

(9) The proposal gives businesses two years to switch and offers rebates of up to 40 percent on new battery equipment. That is a fair way to protect both workers' health and their livelihoods.

Text 1 — Eighteen Saves Lives (testimony to the state legislature by Alan Brooks, fictional director of the State Office of Traffic Safety)

(1) Car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for American teenagers. In our state last year, drivers aged 16 and 17 made up 4 percent of licensed drivers but were involved in 11 percent of fatal crashes, according to our office's crash records.

(2) Research helps explain why. The parts of the brain that control impulses and judge risk keep developing into a person's mid-twenties. Experience matters too: a driver's crash risk is highest in the first months after getting a license. Delaying licenses until 18 means new drivers begin that dangerous period with more maturity.

(3) We have already seen what stronger rules can do. When our state added nighttime driving limits for 16-year-olds in 2015, fatal crashes involving those drivers fell by 22 percent over the next five years, while fatal crashes among other age groups stayed roughly level.

(4) I understand that many families, especially in rural areas, depend on teen drivers. That is why this proposal includes a hardship permit for 16- and 17-year-olds who must drive to a job or to school and have no other transportation. Raising the age with this exception would save lives without stranding families.

Text 2 — Don't Punish Responsible Teens (letter to the editor from Walt Hendricks, the fictional owner of a rural farm supply store)

(5) I run a farm supply store, and half of my weekend staff are 16 or 17 years old. If the state raises the driving age, I will lose my best workers, and those young people will lose their paychecks.

(6) My own son started driving at 16 and has never had so much as a parking ticket. Most teens I know are careful drivers. The problem is a few reckless kids, not an entire age group.

(7) And where will this end? If lawmakers raise the age to 18 today, they will raise it to 21 next year, and soon nobody under 25 will be allowed behind the wheel.

(8) Instead of taking away licenses, the state should require more hours of driver's education. Teens who practice more become better drivers. Lawmakers should trust parents to decide when their children are ready.

Text 1 — Turf Will Keep Our Fields Open (report summary by Dana Whitfield, fictional director of the Linwood Parks Department)

(1) Linwood's three grass ball fields at Millstone Park cannot keep up with demand. I recommend replacing them with artificial turf next spring.

(2) Our department's field logs show that, over the past five years, rain and mud closed the grass fields an average of 61 days per year. During those closures, 38 youth and adult teams had games canceled or moved out of town. Turf fields drain within an hour of a storm, and the manufacturer we are considering rates its surface as playable about 340 days a year.

(3) Turf would also lower our yearly costs. Mowing, watering, fertilizing and reseeding the grass fields cost the department 48,000 dollars last year. The manufacturer estimates that turf maintenance (brushing, cleaning and adding rubber fill) would cost about 12,000 dollars a year.

(4) Installation will cost 1.4 million dollars. However, the state has already awarded Linwood a 900,000 dollar recreation grant that can be used only for field improvements. The remaining 500,000 dollars would come from the parks capital fund, which voters approved in 2022 for this kind of project.

(5) Some residents worry about heat. Turf surfaces do get hotter than grass on sunny days. To address this, the plan includes shade structures for the team benches and a policy, used by many school districts, of checking surface temperature before summer games.

Text 2 — Keep Millstone Park Green (letter to the editor from Rick Paulsen, a Linwood parent)

(6) My daughter played a soccer game on a turf field in another town last July. She came home with red marks on her legs and said the field felt like a frying pan. That tells me everything I need to know about artificial turf.

(7) Everyone knows plastic grass is full of chemicals. Why would we let our kids roll around on it? The parks department says turf is safe, but of course the people selling it would say that.

(8) The cost is also outrageous. Turf has to be replaced after about ten years, and nobody at city hall wants to talk about that bill.

(9) If we cover these fields in plastic today, what is next? Soon the city will pave over every tree in Millstone Park. Linwood has always been a green town, and real families want real grass. Let's keep it that way.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.

Text 1 — A Ban Would Hurt Working People (op-ed by Tom Brannigan, owner of a fictional Oak Hollow landscaping company)

(1) The town council wants to ban gas-powered leaf blowers starting next year. As someone who has run a landscaping business here for 22 years, I can tell you this ban would be a disaster.

(2) My crew of six depends on gas blowers. Battery blowers are weak toys. I tried one at a trade show, and it barely moved a pile of wet leaves. If the ban passes, we will have two choices: buy equipment that does not work or go back to rakes and triple our prices.

(3) A friend who runs a lawn service in another state told me that half the landscapers in his town went out of business after a similar ban. Is that what the council wants for Oak Hollow?

(4) The people pushing this ban are mostly retirees who have nothing better to do than complain about noise. Hardworking families should not lose their jobs so that a few people can enjoy a quiet morning.

Text 2 — Quieter, Cleaner Yards Are Within Reach (op-ed by Grace Okafor, a fictional public health nurse in Oak Hollow)

(5) Gas-powered leaf blowers create two serious problems: noise and air pollution. A phased ban, with help for local businesses, would solve both.

(6) Last fall, the town's environmental office measured blower noise at 50 feet. Gas models registered 70 to 75 decibels; battery models registered 58 to 65. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, a 10-decibel drop sounds roughly half as loud to the human ear.

(7) Small gas engines also pollute heavily. The state air-quality board reports that running a commercial gas blower for one hour releases about as much smog-forming pollution as driving a typical car for several hundred miles. Workers who stand next to these engines all day breathe the most exhaust.

(8) Battery equipment has improved. Two Oak Hollow schools switched their grounds crews to battery blowers last year, and the crew supervisor reported that the work took about the same amount of time. Neighboring Ridgeway passed a similar ban in 2021; its business license records show that the number of landscaping companies there grew from 14 to 16 since then.

(9) The proposal gives businesses two years to switch and offers rebates of up to 40 percent on new battery equipment. That is a fair way to protect both workers' health and their livelihoods.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.

Text 1 — Let the Sun Help Pay Our Bills (memo from Priya Raman, fictional chair of the Carlow Energy Committee)

(1) Carlow spends about 210,000 dollars a year on electricity for its town hall, library, fire station and public works garage. Installing solar panels on these roofs would cut that bill sharply.

(2) Last year, the committee hired an independent engineering firm to study the four roofs. The firm estimated that panels would supply about 45 percent of the buildings' electricity, saving roughly 95,000 dollars a year. After a federal tax credit for public entities, the system would cost about 760,000 dollars, so it would pay for itself in about eight years. Panels typically last 25 years or more.

(3) Solar would also protect the town from rising rates. Our utility has raised commercial electricity rates three times in the past six years.

(4) Finally, solar panels would show residents that town leaders take the future seriously. Every forward-thinking community is going solar, and Carlow should not be left behind.

Text 2 — Look Before We Leap onto the Roof (letter from Walt Kessler, fictional member of the Carlow Finance Board)

(5) Solar power is a fine idea in general, but this plan has holes.

(6) First, the library and town hall roofs are 24 years old. Our own building inspector's report from March says both will need replacement within five years. Installing panels now means paying to remove and reinstall them when the roofs are replaced, a cost the engineering study does not include.

(7) Second, savings can fall short. Nearby Dunmore installed panels in 2018, and its town manager told our board that the system has produced about 20 percent less power than predicted, partly because of shade from trees that grew taller.

(8) Third, 760,000 dollars is a large amount for a town our size. That money could repair the public works garage, which the inspector also flagged.

(9) I am not against solar. I am asking the town to fix the roofs first, then install panels on a sound foundation.