W. James Popham defines standardized tests as assessments administered, scored, and interpreted in a predetermined manner. While high school students commonly take standardized tests like the SAT or ACT, colleges increasingly question their relevance in admissions decisions. This has sparked a contentious debate. In examining Priscilla Rodriguez's argument in "Standardized Test Scores are Useful Predictors of Academic Success in College" and Robert Schaeffer's perspective in "Standardized Test Scores are Not Useful Predictors of Academic Success in College," Rodriguez presents a stronger case due to her robust reasoning, ample evidence, and compelling arguments.
In presenting her case, Rodriguez's reasoning effectively advocates for colleges to consider high school test scores as reliable indicators of future academic performance. Unlike Schaeffer, whose argument lacks depth, Rodriguez constructs a compelling rationale that underscores the significance of her evidence. For instance, she highlights students' motivation…show more content… Rodriguez contains lots of evidence throughout her writing. Lots are statistics such as “300,000 were from small towns” and “The SAT...is available to...25,000...high schools” (Rodriguez 1). The evidence fully supports her claim and applies to the topic. This allows readers to trust her statements because she has evidence to back up her claims. On the contrary, Schaeffer doesn’t include evidence that a reader would find trustworthy. There aren’t many statistics that are helpful when supporting this topic. Schaeffer uses lots of the same evidence from authority figures, but they aren’t named directly. Like when he just says “schools” and “tests’ manufacturers” Not naming select figures who you can easily google, might cause readers to not trust an author nor take them seriously when reading an
