Reading Comprehension Assessment Series
GRADE 7
INFERENCE & SYNTHESIS
Reading Between States: Sovereignty,
Humanity & the Law's Reach
Webb's
Depth of Knowledge · Hess's Cognitive Rigor Matrix
Drawing
Conclusions · Making Predictions ·
Cross-Paragraph Synthesis · Dual-Passage Comparison
Tier
2 & Tier 3 Academic Vocabulary
· Frustration-Level Text
Student
Name: _________________________________
Date: ____________
Teacher:
_________________________________
Period / Class: ____________
SKILL REFERENCE: INFERENCE &
SYNTHESIS QUESTION CATEGORIES
This assessment requires you to read between
the lines—to think like a detective. The table below identifies the eight
inference and synthesis skills you will practice.
|
Inference Category |
Skill Tested |
DOK / CRM |
Detective Move |
|
Implied Main Idea |
Infer the unstated central
claim from evidence patterns |
DOK 2–3 / B-2–C-3 |
What is the author implying
but not saying directly? |
|
Logical Conclusion |
Draw a conclusion that must
follow from stated evidence |
DOK 2–3 / B-2–C-3 |
Given what I know, what must
be true? |
|
Prediction / Projection |
Predict what would likely
happen given the passage's logic |
DOK 3 / C-3 |
If this is true, what comes
next? |
|
Character / Author
Motivation |
Infer unstated reasons for
an action or rhetorical choice |
DOK 3 / C-3 |
Why did they do/say this
without stating why? |
|
Cross-Paragraph Connection |
Connect ideas stated in
different paragraphs to form a new insight |
DOK 3–4 / C-3–D-4 |
How do these two separate
facts relate to each other? |
|
Dual-Passage Synthesis |
Compare, contrast, or
synthesize two passages on related topics |
DOK 3–4 / C-3–D-4 |
What would Passage A say
about Passage B's claim? |
|
Authorial Assumption / Gap |
Identify what the author
assumes without arguing for, or what is missing |
DOK 4 / D-4 |
What has the author left
unsaid or taken for granted? |
|
Evaluative Synthesis |
Assess the strength of an
argument using evidence from across the text |
DOK 4 / D-4 |
Does the evidence actually
prove the claim? |
DIRECTIONS
Read both passages carefully. Annotate as you
go—underline evidence, circle clues, draw arrows between connected ideas across
passages. Every question requires inference: do not look only for sentences
that directly answer the question. The answer is always built from evidence,
but it is never stated outright. For written responses, construct your
reasoning step by step.
PASSAGE A: SOVEREIGNTY, INTERVENTION & RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT
[A1] The
concept of sovereignty—the absolute authority of a state over its own
territory, citizens, and affairs—was formalized in international law through
the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe and
established the principle that no external power had the right to intervene in
the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The Westphalian system of
sovereignty has organized international relations for nearly four centuries,
and its core principle—that state borders are inviolable—remains the formal
basis of the United Nations Charter.
[A2] The
Westphalian model, however, was already under pressure by the second half of
the twentieth century. The Nuremberg Trials (1945–46) established, for the
first time in international legal history, that individuals—including heads of
state—could be held criminally liable under international law for crimes
against humanity. This precedent implicitly violated the Westphalian principle
of sovereign immunity: if a state leader could be tried and executed for
actions taken within their own territory, then the doctrine of non-intervention
in internal affairs had already been qualified.
[A3] The
tension between state sovereignty and international human rights reached its
most acute expression in debates about humanitarian intervention—the use of
military force by the international community to protect civilian populations
from mass atrocities committed by their own governments. The NATO intervention
in Kosovo in 1999, conducted without UN Security Council authorization, was
defended by its architects as a moral necessity in the face of ethnic cleansing
but condemned by its critics—particularly Russia and China—as illegal
aggression that violated Westphalian norms. The intervention established a
precedent whose legitimacy is still contested.
[A4] In
2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the doctrine of
the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which holds that when a state fails to
protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and
crimes against humanity, the international community acquires a responsibility
to act. R2P represented a formal attempt to reconcile sovereignty with human
rights—to argue that sovereignty is not an absolute right but a conditional
one, dependent on a state's fulfillment of its protective obligations toward
its own people. Critics argued, and continue to argue, that R2P creates a
doctrinal justification for great-power intervention dressed in the language of
humanitarianism.
PASSAGE B: SYRIA, THE SECURITY COUNCIL & THE TRILEMMA OF
INTERNATIONAL ORDER
[B1] The
Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011 and produced one of the twenty-first
century's most severe humanitarian catastrophes, provides the most
comprehensive stress test of the R2P doctrine and the international legal
framework surrounding humanitarian intervention. By 2013, credible evidence had
emerged that the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons
against civilian populations—a category of act that R2P doctrine explicitly
identifies as triggering international protective responsibility.
[B2] The
United Nations Security Council, the body with formal authority to authorize
military intervention under international law, was paralyzed by vetoes from
Russia and China—both permanent members—who consistently blocked resolutions
that would have authorized action against the Assad government. Russia, which
had strategic and military interests in Syria, argued that Western-proposed
interventions violated Syrian sovereignty and reflected geopolitical agendas
rather than genuine humanitarian concern. This paralysis demonstrated a
structural flaw in the international legal architecture: the very institution
designed to authorize humanitarian intervention can be prevented from doing so
by the strategic interests of its most powerful members.
[B3] The
consequences of non-intervention were severe and well-documented: an estimated
500,000 deaths, 6.6 million refugees, and 6.8 million internally displaced
persons over the course of the conflict. Yet intervention carried its own
documented risks—the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, initially authorized
under R2P, was widely assessed as having contributed to the collapse of Libyan
state institutions and the emergence of a protracted civil war, providing
critics of humanitarian intervention with a concrete example of
well-intentioned action producing catastrophic outcomes.
[B4] The
Syrian case thus reveals a trilemma at the heart of the contemporary
international order: the Westphalian principle of non-intervention protects the
right of states to abuse their own populations; R2P doctrine creates a
legitimizing framework for intervention but cannot enforce itself; and the
Security Council veto system means that the international community's capacity
to act is structurally dependent on the absence of great-power disagreement—a
condition that is least likely to hold precisely when intervention is most
needed.
SECTION A — SINGLE-PASSAGE
INFERENCE (2 pts each)
Questions 1–8: Draw conclusions, infer main
ideas, identify author motivations, and detect authorial assumptions from
within individual passages.
1. [Logical Conclusion] Passage
A states that the Nuremberg Trials established that heads of state could be
tried for actions within their own territory. What conclusion can you draw
about what this established regarding the Westphalian principle of sovereignty?
DOK 2 · CRM
B-2
▸ Infer the
implication of the Nuremberg Trials for Westphalian sovereignty.
A) The Nuremberg Trials confirmed the
Westphalian principle by establishing that leaders are responsible for the
actions of their states
B) The Nuremberg Trials implicitly
created a crack in the Westphalian framework by establishing that sovereign
authority does not protect leaders from external accountability—that there is a
level of action so egregious that the community of nations can reach inside a
sovereign state to judge and punish its leaders regardless of the doctrine of
non-intervention
C) The Nuremberg Trials had no effect
on the Westphalian principle because they applied only to the defeated powers
of World War II and created no general legal precedent
D) The Nuremberg Trials strengthened
the Westphalian principle by demonstrating that the international community
could act collectively to enforce norms of state behavior
2. [Implied Main Idea] Passage
A never states its central argument directly. What main idea do all four
paragraphs together imply?
DOK 2 · CRM
B-2
▸ Infer the
unstated main argument of Passage A.
A) The Westphalian system of state
sovereignty is fundamentally sound and merely requires more robust enforcement
mechanisms to function effectively in the twenty-first century
B) The international legal order is
caught in a deepening and unresolved tension between the foundational principle
of state sovereignty and the emerging principle that some human rights
violations are serious enough to override it—a tension that each successive
legal development (Nuremberg, Kosovo, R2P) has intensified rather than resolved
C) The Responsibility to Protect
doctrine has successfully replaced the Westphalian system as the governing
principle of international relations since its adoption in 2005
D) Great powers have always used
humanitarian rhetoric to justify interventions driven by strategic
self-interest, and R2P is simply the most recent version of this pattern
3. [Authorial Assumption / Gap]
Passage A states that R2P holds that sovereignty is
"conditional"—dependent on a state's fulfillment of its protective
obligations. What assumption about the nature of political authority does this
claim make that the passage never examines?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Identify
an unexamined assumption in Passage A.
A) The claim assumes that all states
possess equal capacity to protect their populations and that failure to do so
always reflects a willful decision rather than a resource or institutional
limitation
B) The claim assumes that there
exists some authority or mechanism capable of evaluating whether a state has
fulfilled its protective obligations and then acting on that evaluation—but the
passage does not examine who holds this authority, how it is legitimized, or
whether any existing institution is positioned to make such judgments without
its own political interests distorting the assessment
C) The claim assumes that the UN
General Assembly has the legal authority to override the Security Council when
the Security Council is paralyzed by vetoes
D) The claim assumes that the concept
of human rights is universally shared across all cultures and political systems
and therefore provides a neutral standard for evaluating state behavior
4. [Prediction / Projection]
Passage A describes the Kosovo intervention as establishing
"a precedent whose legitimacy is still contested." Based on the logic
of the passage, what is the MOST likely long-term consequence of having an
internationally contested precedent in international law?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Predict
the long-term consequence of the Kosovo precedent.
A) The contested precedent will
eventually be resolved through a definitive International Court of Justice
ruling that will bind all UN member states
B) A contested precedent is far more
dangerous than no precedent at all, because it can be selectively invoked by
powerful states to legitimize interventions they define as humanitarian while
being denied by others who classify the same interventions as aggression—creating
a norm that is applied inconsistently based on power rather than principle,
which undermines the rule of international law itself
C) The contested precedent will
gradually be accepted as legitimate as more states conduct successful
humanitarian interventions under its authority
D) Contested precedents in
international law automatically expire after a defined period if they are not
ratified by the UN Security Council
5. [Character / Author Motivation]
Passage A's final sentence describes critics who see R2P as
"great-power intervention dressed in the language of
humanitarianism." What does the phrase "dressed in the language
of" imply, and why does the author include this critical perspective at
the end of the passage?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Infer the
purpose of describing R2P critics as seeing it as "dressed in the language
of humanitarianism."
A) The phrase implies that R2P's
drafters were deliberately dishonest and designed the doctrine specifically as
a tool for great-power expansion
B) "Dressed in the language
of" implies a distinction between the stated justification
(humanitarianism) and the actual motivation (geopolitical interest)—suggesting
that the moral vocabulary of R2P can be cynically deployed to provide legal
cover for interventions that would otherwise be recognized as violations of
sovereignty; the author includes this perspective to demonstrate that R2P
resolves the sovereignty-human rights tension only on paper, while in practice
it creates new opportunities for the abuse it claims to prevent
C) The phrase is the author's
personal conclusion that R2P is invalid and should be repealed
D) The author includes the critic's
perspective to balance the favorable account of R2P given earlier, without
implying any judgment about which perspective is more accurate
6. [Logical Conclusion] Passage
B states that the Security Council was "paralyzed by vetoes" from
Russia and China in the Syrian case. What conclusion can you draw about the
structural relationship between the international community's stated
commitments and its actual capacity to act on them?
DOK 2 · CRM
B-2
▸ Infer the
structural flaw revealed by the Security Council paralysis in Passage B.
A) The Security Council veto system
should be abolished because it prevents the international community from
fulfilling its humanitarian responsibilities
B) The veto structure reveals that
the international community's formal legal commitments (R2P, the prohibition on
crimes against humanity) are only as enforceable as the political consensus
among the most powerful states—meaning that the capacity to protect civilians
is structurally dependent on the strategic alignment of great powers, which is
precisely the condition most likely to fail when protection is most urgently
needed
C) Russia and China's vetoes prove
that they are morally responsible for the Syrian catastrophe and should be held
accountable under international law
D) The Security Council paralysis
demonstrates that R2P was never intended to be legally binding and functioned
only as a political statement of intent
7. [Implied Main Idea] What
central argument does Passage B make through the Syrian case that it never
states directly?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Infer the
central argument of Passage B.
A) The Syrian case proves that
humanitarian intervention is never justified because it always produces worse
outcomes than non-intervention
B) The Syrian case demonstrates that
the international legal architecture for protecting civilians from their own
governments contains a structural gap so fundamental that it fails precisely
when the need for it is greatest—creating a system of commitments that is
systematically prevented from being fulfilled by the very power dynamics of the
international order it is embedded in
C) The Syrian case proves that Russia
and China should be removed from the UN Security Council as permanent members
because their strategic interests conflict with the UN's humanitarian mission
D) The Syrian case demonstrates that
the Responsibility to Protect doctrine needs to be formally amended to permit
intervention without Security Council authorization in cases of chemical
weapons use
8. [Authorial Assumption / Gap]
Passage B's final paragraph identifies a "trilemma"
at the heart of the international order. What assumption about the nature of
the international order must be true for this to be a genuine trilemma rather
than a problem that could be solved by institutional reform?
DOK 4 · CRM
D-4
▸ DOK 4:
Identify the deepest assumption underlying the trilemma in Passage B.
A) The trilemma is genuine only if we
assume that the five permanent Security Council members will never agree to
reform the veto system, which is an empirical rather than structural claim
B) For the trilemma to be genuine
rather than merely institutional, the assumption must be that the three
conditions—state sovereignty, humanitarian protection norms, and great-power
political independence—are not just currently in tension but are structurally
incompatible: that any international system capable of enforcing humanitarian
norms would require overriding sovereignty, which would require concentrated
enforcement power, which would itself become a new form of domination; the
trilemma implies there is no institutional arrangement that can simultaneously
honor all three values, not merely that current institutions do it poorly. This
assumption is not examined or defended in the passage
C) The trilemma assumes that great
powers are always motivated by self-interest rather than by genuine commitment
to humanitarian values, which is an empirical claim the passage supports
through the Russian and Chinese veto examples
D) The passage explicitly defends the
trilemma as genuine in paragraph four by demonstrating through the Libyan case
that even successful authorization can produce catastrophic outcomes
SECTION B — CROSS-PARAGRAPH &
DUAL-PASSAGE SYNTHESIS (2 pts each)
Questions 9–14: Connect ideas across
paragraphs within and between passages. Evaluate arguments using combined
evidence.
9. [Cross-Paragraph Connection]
Passage A describes the Nuremberg Trials as establishing that
individuals could be held accountable even within their own sovereign
territory. Passage B shows that the Security Council was blocked from applying
accountability to Assad. What inference can you draw about the gap between
establishing a legal principle and being able to enforce it?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Connect
the Nuremberg precedent from Passage A with Security Council paralysis from
Passage B.
A) The gap proves that the Nuremberg
Trials were legally ineffective because they failed to create enforceable
mechanisms
B) The gap between the Nuremberg
precedent and the Syrian paralysis reveals that international law can establish
norms without creating reliable mechanisms for their enforcement—the precedent
exists in the legal archive but is available only when great-power interests do
not block its application, meaning that accountability is structural in theory
but selective in practice
C) The gap is temporary and will be
closed once the International Criminal Court develops sufficient authority to
override Security Council vetoes
D) The gap is explained by the fact
that Nuremberg applied to defeated powers with no remaining capacity to
exercise vetoes, while Syria involves an active great-power patron
10. [Cross-Paragraph Connection]
Passage A argues that R2P makes sovereignty conditional on a
state's fulfillment of its protective obligations. Passage B describes the
Libya intervention—authorized under R2P—as contributing to state collapse and
protracted civil war. What inference can you draw about the relationship
between the theory of conditional sovereignty and its practical application?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Connect
R2P's conditional sovereignty argument with Libya's outcomes.
A) The Libya case proves R2P theory
is correct but was simply applied incorrectly in one instance
B) The Libya outcome illustrates that
the theoretical elegance of conditional sovereignty—states lose their right to
non-interference when they fail their people—does not automatically translate
into interventions that protect those people better than non-intervention; the
intervention removed one form of state failure (atrocity) while potentially
producing another (collapse), suggesting that the conditions under which
conditional sovereignty produces better outcomes than non-intervention are far
more limited and context-dependent than R2P theory implies
C) The Libya case is irrelevant to
evaluating R2P because it was a successful military operation that achieved its
immediate objective of protecting civilians
D) The Libya case proves that all
future interventions under R2P should require a post-intervention stabilization
plan before authorization is granted
11. [Evaluative Synthesis] Based
on evidence from BOTH passages, evaluate whether R2P represents a genuine
resolution of the tension between sovereignty and human rights or merely a
restatement of the tension in more elaborate language.
DOK 4 · CRM
D-4
▸ DOK 4:
Evaluate the adequacy of R2P as a solution to the sovereignty-human rights
tension.
A) R2P represents a genuine
resolution because it provides a clear legal framework that the international
community has formally adopted and can invoke in cases of mass atrocity
B) R2P represents a restatement
rather than a resolution: it articulates the principle that sovereignty is
conditional but provides no enforcement mechanism capable of acting when
great-power interests conflict—as Syria demonstrates, the very situation R2P was
designed to address is the one in which R2P is most completely unable to
function; the doctrine creates a vocabulary for intervention without creating
the structural conditions for consistent, principled application
C) R2P resolves the tension in theory
and in practice for cases involving states without great-power patrons,
representing a genuine if limited achievement
D) R2P cannot be evaluated because
insufficient time has passed since its 2005 adoption to assess its long-term
effects on the international order
12. [Dual-Passage Synthesis] What
inference can you draw from BOTH passages together about the fundamental
relationship between international law and international power?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Identify
what both passages reveal about the gap between international law and
international politics.
A) Both passages together imply that
international law is entirely reducible to the interests of powerful states and
has no independent normative force
B) Both passages together imply that
international law operates within and is constrained by international power—it
can establish norms, create precedents, and articulate principles (Nuremberg,
Kosovo, R2P) that genuinely shape expectations and occasionally behavior, but
its capacity for enforcement is structurally dependent on great-power
consensus; law and power are neither identical nor fully separate but stand in
a relationship of mutual constraint and mutual limitation that makes
international law weaker than domestic law but more consequential than mere
rhetoric
C) Both passages together prove that
the UN system needs to be replaced by a new international institution with
binding enforcement authority and no veto system
D) Both passages together imply that
R2P has been more successful than its critics claim because it created genuine
normative change in how the international community discusses and responds to
mass atrocity
13. [Cross-Paragraph Connection]
Passage A argues that sovereignty is "conditional"
under R2P. Passage B identifies a trilemma that makes the conditions for losing
sovereignty protection structurally impossible to apply consistently. What
inference can you draw about whether "conditional sovereignty" is a
coherent concept in practice?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Connect
conditional sovereignty with the trilemma.
A) Conditional sovereignty is fully
coherent in practice because the conditions under which it applies (genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity) are clearly defined in
international law
B) Conditional sovereignty is
coherent as a normative concept but incoherent as a practical one: the
conditions under which sovereignty protection lapses are clearly stated
(failure to protect populations from mass atrocity), but the mechanism for
applying those conditions is structurally blocked by the same power dynamics
that govern the situations requiring application; a conditional right that
cannot be reliably invoked under the conditions that trigger it is, in
practice, not meaningfully conditional at all
C) Conditional sovereignty becomes
fully coherent once the Security Council veto system is reformed to remove the
permanent members' ability to block humanitarian interventions
D) Conditional sovereignty is
incoherent because sovereignty by definition cannot be conditional—once a right
is made conditional, it ceases to be sovereignty in any meaningful sense
14. [Evaluative Synthesis] Passage
B presents the Syrian case as revealing a "trilemma" with three
irresolvable horns. Evaluate: is a trilemma necessarily unresolvable, or does
Passage B's framing foreclose solutions that might exist? Use evidence from
BOTH passages.
DOK 4 · CRM
D-4
▸ DOK 4:
Evaluate the "trilemma" as an analytical framework.
A) The trilemma is necessarily
unresolvable because all three of its elements—sovereignty, human rights norms,
and great-power independence—are permanent features of international relations
that cannot be changed
B) Passage B's "trilemma"
framing may itself be contestable: while it accurately describes the current
institutional configuration, it implicitly treats the three elements as fixed
when they are historically contingent—Westphalian sovereignty was established
in 1648, the veto system in 1945, and R2P in 2005; each was invented by human
decisions and could theoretically be revised; Passage A's account of how
Nuremberg and Kosovo each partially modified previously fixed principles
suggests that "irresolvable" trilemmas can be partially dissolved
through institutional innovation, even if slowly and incompletely
C) The trilemma is resolvable only
through the creation of a world government with binding authority over all
states, which is practically impossible
D) The trilemma accurately describes
a permanent feature of international relations and Passage B's framing is fully
justified by the historical evidence of both passages
SECTION C — PREDICTION &
PROJECTION (2 pts each)
Questions 15–18: Use the logic and evidence
of both passages to predict likely outcomes, policy implications, and future
developments.
15. [Prediction / Projection]
Based on the combined evidence of both passages, what is the
MOST likely outcome if a mass atrocity comparable to Syria occurs in a state
with a permanent Security Council member as a patron?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Predict
the likely outcome of a future mass atrocity event.
A) The international community will
find alternative mechanisms to intervene, since the Syrian case created
political momentum for Security Council reform
B) The trilemma revealed by the
Syrian case will likely reproduce itself: R2P doctrine will be invoked
rhetorically, the Security Council will be paralyzed by vetoes, and the
international community will be structurally unable to act while the atrocity
continues—unless a state or coalition decides to intervene without
authorization and faces the same legitimacy challenges as NATO in Kosovo
C) The international community will
negotiate a political settlement through diplomatic channels that prevents the
atrocity from reaching the scale that would trigger R2P
D) The patron state will restrain its
client from committing mass atrocities to avoid the diplomatic costs of
defending it in the Security Council
16. [Prediction / Projection]
Based on Passage B's account of Libya, what is the MOST
likely effect of the Libya outcome on future Security Council willingness to
authorize R2P interventions?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Predict
the consequence of the Libya precedent for future R2P authorizations.
A) The Libya outcome will have no
effect on future authorizations because each case is evaluated independently on
its merits
B) The Libya outcome—widely assessed
as having contributed to state collapse—will likely increase Russia's and
China's resistance to authorizing future interventions under R2P, since it
provides empirical evidence supporting their argument that humanitarian
intervention produces worse outcomes than non-intervention, making it a
precedent that further narrows the already-limited conditions under which
Security Council authorization is achievable
C) The Libya outcome will motivate
the international community to develop more rigorous post-intervention
stabilization protocols before any future R2P authorization
D) The Libya outcome will gradually
lose influence as a precedent as the international community develops more
experience with post-intervention state-building
17. [Prediction / Projection]
Based on the combined logic of both passages, which proposed
reform would MOST directly address the structural flaw in the international
order that both passages identify?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Predict
the most important reform that would address the structural flaw.
A) Creating a permanent international
peacekeeping force under UN command that can intervene without Security Council
authorization in cases of chemical weapons use
B) Reforming the Security Council's
veto system to create a humanitarian exception that prevents any permanent
member from blocking resolutions addressing documented mass atrocities—though
both passages together imply that any such reform would face insurmountable
resistance from the very states whose vetoes it would limit, making it the most
structurally necessary and politically impossible reform simultaneously
C) Requiring all UN member states to
publicly pledge financial and military support to R2P interventions before they
are approved by the Security Council
D) Expanding the UN General
Assembly's authority to authorize humanitarian interventions over Security
Council vetoes in cases where a two-thirds majority votes in favor
18. [Prediction / Projection]
What topic would a third passage MOST need to address to
complete the analysis implied by both passages?
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
▸ Predict
what a third passage would need to address.
A) A detailed legal history of how
the United Nations Charter was drafted and which nations had the most influence
on its final language
B) The perspectives of populations
actually experiencing mass atrocities—Syrians, Rwandans, Bosnians—whose
experiences of the gap between international law's promises and its delivery
are entirely absent from both passages, which analyze the problem entirely from
the perspective of states, institutions, and legal doctrines rather than from
the standpoint of those the system claims to protect
C) A comparative analysis of the
military effectiveness of different types of humanitarian intervention across
multiple historical cases
D) A philosophical defense of the
Westphalian principle of sovereignty as a bulwark against great-power
imperialism
SECTION D — SHORT ANSWER (10 pts each)
DOK 3–4
| CRM C-3 / D-4 |
Complete sentences and evidence from BOTH passages required.
19. [Cross-Passage Inference — Analysis] Passage A describes the
development of R2P as an attempt to reconcile sovereignty with human rights.
Passage B shows that Syria revealed the structural conditions under which R2P
fails to function. Drawing on evidence from BOTH passages, construct a specific
inference about the relationship between legal doctrinal development and
institutional capacity. What must be true about a legal system for its
doctrines to be effective rather than merely rhetorical? (DOK 3 | CRM C-3)
DOK 3 · CRM
C-3
20. [Evaluative Synthesis] Both
passages present evidence that the same international institutions and
doctrines that were designed to prevent mass atrocities either failed in
practice (Syria) or created new problems (Libya). Based on evidence from BOTH
passages, evaluate the following claim: "The international community's
attempts to create legal frameworks for humanitarian intervention have produced
more harm than the absence of such frameworks would have." Construct a
specific argument for or against this claim, using evidence from both passages.
(DOK 4 | CRM D-4)
DOK 4 · CRM
D-4
SECTION E — EXTENDED SYNTHESIS
ESSAY (20 pts)
DOK Level 4
| CRM D-4 |
Minimum 10 sentences. Draw on BOTH passages. Construct original
inferences—do not simply summarize.
21. [Full Synthesis — Extended Response] Full Synthesis: Passages A and B
together trace the evolution of international law from the Westphalian doctrine
of absolute sovereignty to R2P's conditional sovereignty—and then demonstrate
through Syria that the evolution has not produced a system capable of
protecting civilians in the cases where protection is most needed. In a
well-organized extended response using evidence from BOTH passages: (1)
construct a single unified inference about the relationship between legal
progress and political reality in international affairs; (2) identify the
specific structural feature of the international order that both passages
together identify as the deepest obstacle to effective humanitarian
protection—and explain why it is structural rather than merely institutional or
political; (3) evaluate whether the Westphalian principle of absolute
sovereignty or R2P's conditional sovereignty is more honest about the actual
nature of the international order as revealed by the Syrian case; and (4)
construct your own original inference about what the failure of R2P in Syria
reveals about the limits of using legal concepts to solve problems that are
fundamentally about the distribution of power.
DOK 4 · CRM
D-4
SECTION F — DETECTIVE JOURNAL (4 pts each)
DOK 2–3
| CRM B-2 / C-3 | The
detective journal trains the habit of inference. For each prompt, write 2–4
sentences explaining your reasoning. Show your "clues → conclusion"
thinking.
Clue File
1: Passage A states that the Kosovo
intervention was "defended by its architects as a moral necessity"
but condemned by others as "illegal aggression." What can you infer
about the relationship between the legality and the morality of an action? Can
something be both illegal and morally required simultaneously?
Clue File
2: Passage B states that the Security
Council was paralyzed at precisely the moment it was most needed. What can you
infer about the design principle embedded in the veto system—was it designed to
facilitate action or to prevent it, and for whose benefit?
Clue File
3: Both passages describe a pattern in
which international legal developments (Nuremberg, Kosovo, R2P) create new
problems or fail to deliver on their promises. What inference can you draw
about the general relationship between legal reform and the problems it is
designed to solve?
ASSESSMENT SCORING GUIDE
|
Section |
Possible |
Earned |
DOK |
CRM Cell |
|
Sec A: Single-Passage
Inference MC (×8) |
16 |
___ |
2–4 |
B-2 / C-3 / D-4 |
|
Sec B: Cross-Paragraph
Synthesis MC (×6) |
12 |
___ |
3–4 |
C-3 / D-4 |
|
Sec C: Dual-Passage
Synthesis MC (×6) |
12 |
___ |
3–4 |
C-3 / D-4 |
|
Sec D: Short Answer (×2) |
20 |
___ |
3–4 |
C-3 / D-4 |
|
Sec E: Extended Synthesis
Essay |
20 |
___ |
4 |
D-4 |
|
Sec F: Prediction &
Projection (×4) |
8 |
___ |
3 |
C-3 |
|
Sec G: Detective Journal
(open) |
12 |
___ |
2–3 |
B-2 / C-3 |
|
TOTAL |
100 |
___ |
— |
— |
Grade 3
— Ocean Plastics / The Plastisphere
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
Grade 4
— Mongol Empire / Pax Mongolica
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
Grade 5
— Social Conditions of Science / HeLa Cells
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
Grade 6
— Architecture of Tragedy / Antigone
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
Grade 7
— Sovereignty & R2P / Syria Trilemma
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
Grade 8
— Economic Paradigms / 2008 Crisis
Section A — Single-Passage
Inference MC (Q1–8):
Q1: B
Q2: B
Q3: B
Q4: B
Q5: B
Q6: B
Q7: B
Q8: B
Section B — Cross-Paragraph
& Dual-Passage Synthesis MC (Q9–14):
Q9: B
Q10: B
Q11: B
Q12: B
Q13: B
Q14: B
Section C — Prediction &
Projection MC (Q15–18):
Q15: B
Q16: B
Q17: B
Q18: B
Sections D, E,
F, G: Apply DOK/CRM open-response rubric below.
DOK / CRM Inference &
Synthesis Rubric
|
Score |
DOK |
Inference Quality |
Evidence Use |
Synthesis & Register |
|
18–20 |
4 |
Original insight; goes
beyond both passages; identifies unstated implications |
Cites specific evidence from
both passages; no unsupported claims |
Tier 3 vocabulary; formal
register; cross-passage synthesis |
|
14–17 |
3 |
Strong inference; connects
passages; mostly beyond summary |
Mostly accurate citations;
strong use of at least one passage |
Tier 2; generally formal;
partial cross-passage work |
|
9–13 |
2 |
Some inference; partially
beyond summary; may conflate with stated content |
General references; may
paraphrase rather than cite |
Mixed register; one passage
only or surface synthesis |
|
0–8 |
1 |
Restates passage content; no
genuine inference |
Vague or absent evidence |
Informal language; no
cross-passage engagement |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!