Use the paragraph to answer the question.
Iodine is an important micronutrient, a vitamin or mineral that is necessary for good health. It helps the body to produce hormones, helps babies develop in the womb, and is important to many other body processes. In 1924, iodine was added to salt to make up for a lack of public access to dairy foods and ocean fish, which are natural sources of iodine. The modern American diet, however, includes many processed foods that contain iodine. As a result, many salt manufacturers have stopped adding iodine to their product, a change that did not get much attention in the media. Some nutrition experts are concerned that people who still rely on table salt as a source of iodine will have an increase in disease caused by a diet lacking in the micronutrient. Only time will tell, as America moves into a new era where table salt is no longer a guaranteed source of iodine.
What evidence does the author use to support the idea that taking iodine out of table salt might cause harm? (Use RACE to help write your answer)
(4 points)
The author uses the evidence that iodine is an important micronutrient necessary for good health. They also mention that iodine helps the body produce hormones and is important for the development of babies in the womb. The fact that iodine was added to salt in the past to make up for a lack of access to natural sources of iodine also suggests that removing iodine from table salt might lead to a decrease in iodine intake. The concern of nutrition experts further supports the idea that taking iodine out of table salt could cause harm.
Use the passage to answer the question.
Many fire-prone California towns don’t plan for evacuations
Counterintuitive as it may sound, Paradise has some of the strongest evacuation planning in California. In fact, a USA TODAY Network-California survey of communities at high risk from wildfires found only 22% (including Paradise) have a robust, publicly available evacuation plan.
The scale of disaster in the Camp Fire was unprecedented, but the scene of people fleeing wildfires was familiar, repeated numerous times over the past three years up and down California from Redding and Paradise to Santa Rosa, Ventura, and Malibu.
In many of those communities, motorists became stuck in traffic as officials tried to evacuate thousands onto a few roads leading away from the flames.
NO REQUIREMENT TO PLAN
The 85 deaths and nearly 19,000 buildings destroyed in Paradise’s Camp Fire made it the deadliest and most destructive blaze in California history. Eight of those who perished were found in their vehicles, with two others found outside their vehicles.
In some spots, burned-out and abandoned vehicles lined roads leading out of town.
Should cities be required to have detailed evacuation plans? (Use RACE to answer the question)
(4 points)
Yes, cities should be required to have detailed evacuation plans. The evidence provided in the passage shows that only 22% of high-risk communities in California have robust, publicly available evacuation plans. The Camp Fire in Paradise, which resulted in 85 deaths and the destruction of nearly 19,000 buildings, highlighted the consequences of inadequate evacuation planning. The fact that motorists became stuck in traffic and abandoned vehicles lined roads during the fire further emphasizes the need for detailed evacuation plans. Requiring cities to have such plans would help ensure the safety of residents during wildfire incidents and other emergencies.
Read the following passage, then explain how news organizations try to avoid bias and how you can ensure information is not biased.(Use RACE to write your answer)
Why Is the News Sometimes Controversial?
Reporters gather facts and write about them—so why do some people say the news is unreliable? They are worried that news stories might be biased.
Bias is an unfair representation of something or someone. It can happen when only one side of a story is presented, when only certain facts are shared, or when news organizations choose which stories they want to publish. Readers sometimes worry that news organizations, intentionally or accidentally, publish biased stories.
News organizations try to avoid bias as much as they can. They hire trained reporters who know how to ask good questions about all sides of a story. They also employ many different editors to double-check all of the facts cited in the articles.
Readers of the news can take their own steps to avoid possible bias in the news they read. They can read news from multiple sources, or they can look up facts on their own to make sure the news matches other websites and records. It is impossible to avoid bias completely, but news writers and news readers can still do a lot to make sure the information they share and read is accurate.
News organizations try to avoid bias by hiring trained reporters who are skilled in asking good questions and examining all sides of a story. They also employ multiple editors to double-check the facts cited in their articles. In addition, news organizations strive to present a balanced perspective by avoiding situations where only one side of a story is presented or when only certain facts are shared.
As readers of the news, we can take our own steps to ensure that the information we consume is not biased. One way is to read news from multiple sources and compare different perspectives on a particular topic. This allows us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand. Additionally, we can verify facts by cross-referencing them with other reliable sources and records. By conducting our own research and seeking out multiple viewpoints, we can mitigate the influence of bias and ensure that the information we share and read is accurate and well-rounded.
The author uses the following evidence to support the idea that taking iodine out of table salt might cause harm:
1. Lack of access to natural sources of iodine: The author mentions that in 1924, iodine was added to salt to compensate for the lack of public access to dairy foods and ocean fish, which are natural sources of iodine. This suggests that removing iodine from table salt could result in a decreased intake of this essential micronutrient.
2. Inclusion of iodine in processed foods: The author acknowledges that the modern American diet includes many processed foods that contain iodine. However, by removing iodine from table salt, individuals who rely on it as a source of iodine might not be able to compensate for the reduced intake through their overall diet.
3. Concerns expressed by nutrition experts: The author states that some nutrition experts are concerned that people who still rely on table salt as a source of iodine might experience an increase in diseases caused by a diet lacking in iodine. This suggests that there is professional concern about the potential impact of iodine deficiency if it is no longer guaranteed through table salt.
Overall, the author uses these pieces of evidence to suggest that taking iodine out of table salt could have negative consequences on public health by leading to a decrease in iodine intake.
The author supports the idea that taking iodine out of table salt might cause harm by providing the following evidence:
R - The author states that iodine is an important micronutrient necessary for good health. It helps in hormone production and the development of babies in the womb, among other body processes.
A - The author mentions that iodine was added to salt in 1924 to compensate for the lack of public access to natural sources of iodine, such as dairy foods and ocean fish.
C - The author points out that the modern American diet includes many processed foods that contain iodine. As a result, salt manufacturers have stopped adding iodine to their product.
E - The author concludes that people who still rely on table salt as a source of iodine may experience an increase in diseases caused by a diet lacking the micronutrient.
By presenting these pieces of evidence, the author suggests that the removal of iodine from table salt could potentially lead to health problems related to iodine deficiency.